User talk:Equazcion

Purity vs Forest on fishing catches
The reason I used Purity instead of Forest is because it is less technical. It sounds really weird to say "It doesn't have any other biomes" by using the term "Forest" if there are no trees(especially in the non-Jungle Underground, Cavern, or Underworld). Crimson, Corruption, and Jungle can have trees and are not called Forest. The tooltip for Green Solution says "Used by the Clentaminator. Spreads the Purity."--Blackberry Pie (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand, although we're not merely referring to the absence of other biomes. I don't see much reason to say that the forest/purity is merely a lack of other biomes. It may not exactly "spread", but it's as much its own biome as anything else. It has its own enemies, growth, drops, etc, all of which are in effect whether or not trees are there.


 * Most biomes would be about as difficult to identify in areas without their respective identifying elements, like mushrooms, corrupt thorns, etc.


 * The biome is only named in two places within the game: Angler quotes and the Clentaminator tooltip. While the Clentaminator tooltip says "purity", the Angler quotes are pretty numerous and all refer to it as "forest". In the end though, this wiki currently uses the term "forest" everywhere, so for consistency's sake it would be best not to change things in certain areas. If it were decided that the term should change across the board, we could change it everywhere though I don't personally see a need.  Equazcion ( talk ) 17:27, 1 Sep 2014 (UTC)


 * No, It really is an absence of other biomes. If you look at the code for fishing or enemy spawning it always checks for other biomes first. Only if no other biomes are found or all of the biome specific things fail to happen does Terraria default to the fish or enemy list for the Purity.--Blackberry Pie (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, we could debate whether forest/purity is its own biome -- but, whatever it is, it's got a particular name on this wiki, so it could get confusing to start using different words in different places.  Equazcion ( talk ) 17:55, 1 Sep 2014 (UTC)


 * You should consider a job in marketing or politics. It will put your obstructionism and nannying to good use.--Blackberry Pie (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And you should consider reading up on the rules. A simple search in the game code for forest returns many results, far more than purity. Hence I agree with Equazcion that there is no reason to rename it because of one results that says otherwise. --0icke0 (talk) 06:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Stop getting rid of the Minion DPS tables
There is no particular reason not to have them, and given the unique nature of summoning bonuses affecting both minion count and damage separately, having an explicit representation of how different bonuses affect their overall effectiveness is needed, or at least extremely useful as reference, over the simple linearity of damage and crit bonuses that other weapons have. At the very least, consider that all of the work is done and there's no harm in keeping it, and that it is foolish to just throw it away. --SzGamer227 (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There's nothing terribly unique about minion bonuses. People simply endeavor to acquire the items with the greatest boosts, as with any other item type. The particular numbers that result don't matter. There are a great many things that don't exactly "hurt" in any way other than degrading the quality of the wiki by adding bloat. It's the same reason you've been removing trivia bloat en masse (which I generally agree with). It's also a confusing table, as it appears at first to be adding new information, but it isn't. Its more like Guide material and I'd suggest putting it there.  Equazcion ( talk ) 11:40, 3 Sep 2014 (UTC)
 * Also see my comment on this at Talk:Minions, which I posted when I removed the chart.  Equazcion ( talk ) 11:42, 3 Sep 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw you re-added the chart, so as a compromise I've set it to default to a collapsed state, and people can expand it if they like. I also changed "DPS" to "boost" because I found "DPS" misleading -- the chart doesn't contain DPS numbers but boost percentages. I also placed the chart under a "Tips" heading, to clarify its purpose. Hope that's acceptable.  Equazcion ( talk ) 12:09, 3 Sep 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. As long as they are on the page where people can refer to them when needed, it's fine with me.

Bit of trivia on the nymph page.
Shouldnt the nymph banner trivia be on the nymph banner page or banner page? WelchDrew (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I already changed it. OdnHarfagre (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Since all the banners are now merged, I think info on one particular banner is sort of useless on the mass listing page. It would be much more visible on the page pertaining to the monster that drops it. Just my opinion.  Equazcion ( talk ) 18:10, 8 Oct 2014 (UTC)
 * That's right too, never thought about it. Maybe we could write it on both pages? OdnHarfagre (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think both is cool yeah.  Equazcion ( talk ) 18:39, 8 Oct 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, added :) OdnHarfagre (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks :)  Equazcion ( talk ) 01:36, 9 Oct 2014 (UTC)

Admin
Recently I've realized that I'am overworked. This also affects my capabilities as a administrator here. I've noticed that some of my responses ended up being short or blunt and aside from blocking vandals I've been unable to actively contribute to the wiki. Furthermore, it is currently a burden for me, which considering the circumstances is not something I should continue with. Hence I've decided to, at least temporarily, lay down this function. I really love this wiki, and will properly still make edits once in a while, but being active every day is not among my current capabilities. With that being said, I do not want to leave this wiki without an active administrator to ensure the quality of the wiki. Although I could possibly ask a curse member to help out with this, you are in for a long due promotion. So I want to ask you if you are interested in becoming an administrator. In short this means that, aside from what you can do now, you will be able to more easily revert vandalism, (un)block users and (un)delete and protect pages, to further help fight vandalism. In addition this will result in additional responsibilities, for example mediating conflicts between users, should problems arise. I believe you are capable for this task, so even though I cannot promote you myself, I'll do my best to get a curse member to promote you, should you decide that you want to become an administrator. If you have additional questions I recommend taking a look at our Administrator Guide and considering it is lacking a great amount of information maybe look the the Wikipedia Administrator Guide as well. Of course you can also ask me. I'll be awaiting your response. --0icke0 (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll do it. I do wish there were other active long-term editors here, but que sera. I'm pretty familiar with admin responsibilities and the MediaWiki admin tools. So yeah, go for it. I hope I can be as good at it as you are -- you've done an outstanding job all this time. Thanks for thinking of me.  Equazcion ( talk ) 23:26, 28 Oct 2014 (UTC)