User talk:Surafbrov

Leaving a question/comment in the middle of the page and not at the bottom will be ignored.

Thank you!
Thanks you for the fix on my User page! :) --Ryo567 (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Version history headlines
The layout change you did on the Version history article was quite immense, and overall it looks both more stylish and systematic now. However, I frequently do find it annoying when I click on patch links (such as 1.2.2) and are reminded that those - due to the removal of headlines - no longer work as they did, instead requiring me to scroll down until I reach the patch in question. This can be rather tedious considering the length of the whole list, and this will only aggravate with future patches. I am not saying the layout should be reverted, but do you perhaps have any thoughts or suggestions regarding this? NoseOfCthulhu (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I too agree with this situation and right now I'm thinking of a way to dissolve this issue. My current idea is to separate into headlines like, ==1.1.x== and ==1.2.x, so on... And patches like, 1.2.3 will be placed under 1.2.x, otherwise this may have to be hold off. 01:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Since I have commented that above, I have thought of another idea. This idea will make Version history basically a highlight page for each version and move the patch-notes/change-logs on the actually pages like 1.2.2 change-log will be found on 1.2.2 instead of having the redirect. And if this idea goes well, I'll also make a template for the Patches release date, version, previous patch, next patch and some other stuff that may be useful. 01:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have created an example for the template: Template:Zdroid9770/Sandbox. 02:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to answer! Hmm, let me see if I understand - you're suggesting each patch to have its own article, with Version history being a list of these (in similar manner to Boss and individual boss articles)? This could work well; it's already the case on the popular Wowpedia and Wowwiki. Perhaps that's where you're taking it from too? In any case, with such a system the hassle with scrolling would be vastly reduced. All in all I think this sounds like a good idea, if I've understood it correctly. NoseOfCthulhu (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes this idea is strongly made and encouraged from Wowpedia (mostly) and Wowwiki. 19:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * With the process of implementing this system (given other Terraria users do not reject it), is there anything I can do to help out? I guess it would feel somewhat out of place to simply approve without contributing. NoseOfCthulhu (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Before I even implement this new system, we have to make sure that it is alright and approved by an administrator. Hear their opinion about this. If an administrator agrees with this, I'll go ahead and make the template and the articles with the template already set up in there. You really don't have to help but as I make the articles and can move the proper changelog to the specific article. :) 23:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look at Wowpedia and I agree it looks better than what we have here. So I'm fine with the change. --0icke0 (talk) 11:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)