Editing User talk:Ajd

'''Welcome to ''DominionStrategy Wiki''!'''
We hope you will contribute much and well.
You will probably want to read the [[Help:Contents|help pages]].
Again, welcome and have fun! [[User:Qvist|Qvist]] ([[User talk:Qvist|talk]]) 08:26, 26 October 2012 (EDT)
==Thanks, Re: Peddler==
Thanks for fixing my wording about the Peddler misconception!  I feel embarrassed that I made such a basic mistake, but you're totally right!  [[User:Cazort|Cazort]] ([[User talk:Cazort|talk]]) 14:03, 1 February 2013 (EST)

:No problem! [[User:Ajd|Ajd]] ([[User talk:Ajd|talk]]) 02:16, 3 February 2013 (EST)

== Vanilla ==

''Moved discussion to [[User talk:Werothegreat]]'' [[User:Ajd|Ajd]] ([[User talk:Ajd|talk]]) 22:40, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

==Featured Article==

I'd be interested in taking up the mantle of making sure that and the "did you know?" get updated on a regular basis.  Any idea how that's done?  [[User:Werothegreat|Werothegreat]] ([[User talk:Werothegreat|talk]]) 20:32, 21 September 2013 (EDT)

:I expect you'd have to have admin privileges to be able to edit the front page. I have admin privileges, so I'll see if I can figure out how to give them to you. [[User:Ajd|Ajd]] ([[User talk:Ajd|talk]]) 22:37, 21 September 2013 (EDT)
::Thanks!  Let me know how that goes.  [[User:Werothegreat|Werothegreat]] ([[User talk:Werothegreat|talk]]) 23:05, 21 September 2013 (EDT)

==Blocking editors==
Is there a way to block IP addresses from making edits?  There's this one person who's been making a lot of nonsense edits recently and it needs to stop. [[User:Werothegreat|Werothegreat]] ([[User talk:Werothegreat|talk]]) 01:25, 14 May 2015 (EDT)

:Oh, good question. I have no idea. Hmm. [[User:Ajd|Ajd]] ([[User talk:Ajd|talk]]) 14:18, 14 May 2015 (EDT)

::Yes, I think it's possible. Let's see if we can avoid escalating to that, though—leave a message on the talk page for the IP address, like, "These combos you've been posting aren't good combos and don't really belong on the wiki; in the future, it'd probably be a good idea to discuss them on the forums first to see if people think they're worth posting" or whatever. And then if they keep posting bogus combos without discussing first we can consider blocking them.

::Also, we probably ''should'' have a Great Hall / Ironworks article—not because it's a ''good'' combo, but because it's an ''obvious'' combo that people talk about a lot, so maybe we should have an article about why it's not as good as it seems. [[User:Ajd|Ajd]] ([[User talk:Ajd|talk]]) 14:22, 14 May 2015 (EDT)
::: On f.ds http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=1186.msg31228#msg31228

== Slog/Combo pics. ==

Thanks for putting {{Card|Mountebank}} on the slog page.
Also, [[Combo]] needs more descriptive pictures than [[Counting House]].
Thanks, [[Special:Contributions/173.63.72.104|173.63.72.104]] 13:02, 21 June 2015 (EDT)

:I think it was [[User:Werothegreat|Werothegreat]] that did that! [[User:Ajd|Ajd]] ([[User talk:Ajd|talk]]) 03:25, 22 June 2015 (EDT)
:: Can you ask him about [[Combo]]? [[Special:Contributions/74.102.70.142|74.102.70.142]] 13:27, 14 August 2015 (EDT)

::: Could you? I really don't care about article pictures. [[User:Ajd|Ajd]] ([[User talk:Ajd|talk]]) 11:57, 16 August 2015 (EDT)

== Knights on main page? ==

I think that the [[Knights]] page is ''very'' good, and the main page needs a new featured article.
Also, [[Caravan Guard]] is good for now but a new <nowiki>"Did you know?"</nowiki>. [[Special:Contributions/173.63.72.104|173.63.72.104]] 10:51, 26 June 2015 (EDT)

:Okay, but it's also [[User:Werothegreat|Werothegreat]] who takes care of featured articles and stuff. [[User:Ajd|Ajd]] ([[User talk:Ajd|talk]]) 12:22, 26 June 2015 (EDT)
:: They get updated a few days into each new month.  Give it a week. [[User:Werothegreat|Werothegreat]] ([[User talk:Werothegreat|talk]]) 12:46, 26 June 2015 (EDT)
::: Good! I can't wait for it. Seriously, the main page articles should change every  week, just as a to-do. [[Special:Contributions/70.105.171.33|70.105.171.33]] 19:20, 27 June 2015 (EDT)
:::: We would run out of cards very quickly.  [[User:Werothegreat|Werothegreat]] ([[User talk:Werothegreat|talk]]) 22:53, 27 June 2015 (EDT)
::::: There's also strategy & stuff like that (Combos & Counters, Expansions), plus, you ''can'' put a card there twice if it had big changes. [[Special:Contributions/70.105.171.33|70.105.171.33]] 12:54, 28 June 2015 (EDT)

== RfD ==
Is there an RfD page for consensus on conflicts? [[Special:Contributions/74.105.133.44|74.105.133.44]] 08:18, 4 March 2016 (EST)

== Hi there ==

Hey,

I don't know if you were aware, but some members of the Dominion Discord group have started a wiki modernization project, around when the "Improve" tag popped up on all the card pages. All the individual card pages that have since had that tag removed (and protection added) were collaboratively written, edited, and reviewed by at least a dozen people who play too much Dominion, so we're pretty confident the wordings on those pages has community backing. Hope you don't mind if I rollback some of your edits to those pages. If you'd like to join us, here's an invite link: https://discord.gg/fhCKbTcJyW

Thanks,
terracubist

: Thanks! But I don't use Discord. However, the point of using a wiki is that there's always room for improvement. I'm delighted that the Discord group is putting an effort into revamping wiki articles; certainly they're badly in need of it. But if I look at a Discord-written article and think, hm, this is unclearly stated, or missing some information, or I think the intro paragraph to the [[Curse]] article should have a sentence or two about what the basic function of Curses is, I don't think it makes sense to rollback the edit just because it's not part of what the Discord group came up with. If you think it harms the article, undo it on that basis and we can discuss it; but please don't undo it just because I wrote it rather than someone on the Discord group. [[User:Ajd|Ajd]] ([[User talk:Ajd|talk]]) 02:50, 22 March 2021 (EDT)

:: Sounds good. So far, I've only made some very minor undo's on a few wording changes (Council Room, Cathedral, Displace I think?) that we specifically wanted and discussed in Discord; I'm not just undoing things on the basis of who did them. Thanks for what you do! --[[User:Terracubist|Terracubist]] ([[User talk:Terracubist|talk]]) 13:39, 22 March 2021 (EDT)

== Page Section Guidelines ==

Hey there. I noticed you and terracubist swapping a strategic remark in and out of the [[Estate]] article. I think it'd be a good idea to decide it one way or the other and then edit the [[DominionStrategy_Wiki:Community_portal#Style_guidelines|style guidelines]] to avoid such conflicts on articles in the future. [[User:Muenstercheese|Muenstercheese]] ([[User talk:Muenstercheese|talk]]) 19:03, 2 April 2021 (EDT)

:Hmm. Currently all the style guidelines say about the lede section is "Each page should begin with a concise introductory summary." I suppose we could stand to have more concrete guidelines than that. [[User:Ajd|Ajd]] ([[User talk:Ajd|talk]])+

:: It'd be good to decide whether the lede should be strictly factual or if it may have a brief strategic remark as well. I'd favor leaving strategic information out and only putting it in the Strategy section, personally. [[User:Muenstercheese|Muenstercheese]] ([[User talk:Muenstercheese|talk]]) 14:35, 5 April 2021 (EDT)

::: I strongly feel that the lede should contain the Main Facts You Should Know about a card, which often includes strategic information. For Chapel, "it is considered one of the strongest cards in the game for its cost" is basic information; for Estate, "It's usually a good idea to trash these" is basic information, for Bureaucrat, "it's not usually all that useful" is basic information. [[User:Ajd|Ajd]] ([[User talk:Ajd|talk]]) 18:08, 5 April 2021 (EDT)

:::: I'm in agreement with Muenster about lede info being as close to objective as possible. My reasons are as follows:
::::: 1. If you look at lede info in a lot of currently un-updated pages, it's aged poorly - a 3 second search finds Ambassador and Conspirator both giving prime page real estate to use cases that are fairly niche nowadays. So keeping ledes objective is partly a futureproofing measure.
::::: 2. In initial discord polling and discussion of "what do people want out of the dominionstrategy wiki", a decent chunk (~20/60+ people) advocated for minimal strategy advice on the wiki - again as a futureproofing mechanism, but also because of a philosophical stance that a true wiki holds only objective facts, and that all strategy is subjective. The compromise thus far has been to a) rigorously review and only post what the vast majority of us agree on after a few days of debate and b) restrict all not-strictly-factual information to explicitly labelled "strategy" sections on card pages, trimming aggressively. Keeping objective and subjective stuff separate (as far as we can) is a good goal. 
::::: 3. The 3 examples you give might seem uncontroversial and useful, but I'd argue that bundling them with straight descriptivist facts makes your examples also seem completely unassailable - again something we have no way of guaranteeing in the far future. Furthermore, those statements removed from the greater strategy of how to use/interact with their given cards doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Contextualize those statements within full discussion of how to use them, rather than trying to highlight them as conclusive fact. --[[User:Terracubist|Terracubist]] ([[User talk:Terracubist|talk]]) 20:46, 5 April 2021 (EDT)

:::::: The reason why this wiki is a wiki in the first place is because it's not supposed to be "futureproof": a wiki is a collaboratively user-edited site, meaning it can feature the most up-to-date understanding of strategy, and yet also be updated and revised in real time as that understanding changes. We have no way of guaranteeing in the far future that Chapel will be a strong card or that trashing Estates will be good strategy, but we're confident that it's the case now, and those are important things for a Dominion newbie looking for information on those cards to know—and Dominion newbies are the most important target audience of this wiki. 
:::::: The lede of an article is supposed to be the essential tl;dr information for a reader to understand about the article's topic. The topic of the article [[Chapel]] is supposed to be "knowledge and strategy" about the card Chapel, and the fact that it's (currently considered to be) a very strong card is just about the most important thing for people to know about it, even if they're not going to go on and read the rest of the article. If 20 out of 60 people on Discord want a static index of objective facts about Dominion, they're welcome to read the the rulebook pdfs on the Rio Grande Games website, rather than remove Dominion strategy from the Dominion Strategy Wiki. [[User:Ajd|Ajd]] ([[User talk:Ajd|talk]]) 01:43, 6 April 2021 (EDT)

:::::::Okay, sure, ideally the wiki is updated frequently to match our understanding. But realistically that has so totally, utterly not the case - most of the pages I've seen have been untouched for 7+ years. Maybe this won't be the case going forward (crosses fingers), but I still think futureproofing efforts save us time and effort and is far more realistic.
:::::::I totally agree with you that Dominion newbies are the most important target audience of this wiki. Literally most of the us from the Discord are here because we saw a lot of newer players coming in with bad habits/ideas about cards formed from reading the wiki. I would rather frame it as trying to separate out objective fact from subjective strategy, rather than removing strategy from the Dominion Strategy wiki or trying to deprive newbies of the most important info. Unteaching bad advice and properly teaching to contextualize has been a pretty prevalent problem in the coaching sessions I've participated in, so I'd rather couch all those statements about Estate trashing or Chapel's strength within the greater context of "why?", which I believe is one of the greatest questions a Dominion newbie should be asking. Hope this clears things up. --[[User:Terracubist|Terracubist]] ([[User talk:Terracubist|talk]]) 15:36, 6 April 2021 (EDT)

== Style Things ==

Another style question: Where should people use hyphens, and where should they use en or em dashes? This seems like a good thing to put on the style guidelines as well, to get some more consistency across the wiki. [[User:Muenstercheese|Muenstercheese]] ([[User talk:Muenstercheese|talk]]) 00:48, 5 April 2021 (EDT)

:I just figure we ought to hold by the [https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/HyphensEnDashesEmDashes/faq0002.html usual guidelines] for different types of dashes, same as any other punctuation mark; I don't think this wiki has any special rules for dashes, does it? [[User:Ajd|Ajd]] ([[User talk:Ajd|talk]]) 03:38, 5 April 2021 (EDT)

:: Ah. That makes sense. I rarely use en dashes, so I'm not used to the proper style rules for them. It'd help to link that on the style guide as well, for others who may have the same question in the future. [[User:Muenstercheese|Muenstercheese]] ([[User talk:Muenstercheese|talk]]) 14:37, 5 April 2021 (EDT)

== Trivia Sections ==

Heya! Saw the recent edits on trivia sections and I really like them -- except for the Secret History ones.
I think that "Secret History" refers to the "Secret History of [X]" threads and '''only''' those threads. Other Donald X. comments are just other Donald X. comments.
[[User:Muenstercheese|Muenstercheese]] ([[User talk:Muenstercheese|talk]]) 22:53, 18 April 2021 (EDT)

: Okay, I'm happy to reserve the Secret History heading for those and use some other heading for comments in other contexts. [[User:Ajd|Ajd]] ([[User talk:Ajd|talk]]) 00:51, 19 April 2021 (EDT)

:: Thank you! I like the new heading format, phrasing it as a question rather than "Costing 5" or whatever they were before. [[User:Muenstercheese|Muenstercheese]] ([[User talk:Muenstercheese|talk]]) 18:45, 19 April 2021 (EDT)

== Rex Ellison says ==

Yo Ajd why did you remove my main page discussion edit saying there should be a Harry Potter Hogwarts Battle strategy wiki? I just want there to be a strategy wiki for my favorite deckbuilding game that isn't Dominion, that's all...

Please tell me why you did what you did instead of just removing this edit, ok?

:Because the main page discussion is for discussion of how to improve the main page of this wiki, not for proposing other wikis that could or might exist. [[User:Ajd|Ajd]] ([[User talk:Ajd|talk]]) 14:30, 16 April 2022 (EDT)

:: Ok, thanks for the information. Do you know where I CAN propose my idea of a Harry Potter Hogwarts Battle strategy wiki? Also, no such thing exists as one so far last time I checked.

::: Um.... hello?

::: No, I don't know where you can propose that. [[User:Ajd|Ajd]] ([[User talk:Ajd|talk]]) 12:13, 17 April 2022 (EDT)

:::: Ok, Ajd. I'll give you some time to think about it. Either that, or maybe check Harry Potter Hogwarts Battle out for yourself in the meantime. I just hope a Harry Potter Hogwarts Battle strategy wiki can exist soon enough, because there isn't one at all yet....


Hello?

: No, thank you! I don't have any advice for you about creating a wiki about Harry Potter Hogwarts Battle; please stop asking me about it. [[User:Ajd|Ajd]] ([[User talk:Ajd|talk]]) 01:50, 19 April 2022 (EDT)