User talk:BDJP007301

Image size in infobox
If you want to set the image size in an infobox, you have to use the additional parameter. Just adding the size after a pipe causes the template syntax to think its a separate parameter. – KnightMiner  t/c 13:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Noticed "not even going to care about bugs anymore"
Burning out? It's a lot of work. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) T/C 19:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No, its just that I'm not going to put any bugs I reported on my userpage anymore. Some of them were reported just because I forgot to change a stupid setting on the computer or the game. -BDJP (t 19:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, just the user page, I see. Well then, cheers!  – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png T/C 19:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of bugs,
I have another idea I wanted to run past you. No this isn't tracker titles.

So it's been bugging me (ha ha, try not to laugh too hard) that on the wiki, some bugs are being listed on pages where the tracker says they were fixed, which is often different from what version of the game they were fixed. I know that on the whole, it's just easier to do it the way we're doing it, and also easier to check against JIRA queries. When I was doing it, I had a workflow, and I'm sure you have your own workflow that you're comfortable with.

So I'm trying to imagine a workflow where we:
 * 1) put bug fixes on the version from the tracker, like we already do,
 * 2) playtesting can be done, optionally or at wiki editors' lesure, to find the "correct" version,
 * 3) the bug can be moved to that version page, marked as "complete" with a template param or something,
 * 4) a category can keep track of what bugs are "complete" and what's not
 * 5) the bug tracker's job doesn't get any harder, with respect to checking for changes in bugs, whether they're open or closed, etc.
 * 1) the bug tracker's job doesn't get any harder, with respect to checking for changes in bugs, whether they're open or closed, etc.

Maybe in imagining this, I'm having a stumbling block because I'm not familiar with the methods you use. I assume from observing what you do, that you reopen and close bugs here on the wiki based on some JIRA query or queries that tell you what things were recently open / closed. That's only because that's now I was doing it. I'm not familiar with how you do it. Can you think it over and let me know whether you think this idea (of moving bugs to more accurate version pages) would be a benign thing to do, for the bug tracker stuff you do, and any examples of how it would change things, or make it harder, etc? I would like to do this, but I wouldn't do it if it were a burden to bug tracker people like yourself. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) T/C 20:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Eh... I'm not really sure about that idea. Like, I'm REALLY not sure. Going to have to think it over for a while. -BDJP (t 03:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'd appreciate any well-thought-out feedback you might have. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png T/C 19:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Minecraft: Story Mode
On Minecraft: Story Mode you keep removing "At Minecon 2015 it was revealed that Telltale Games had thought of the idea for Minecraft: Story Mode in 2012 when they where finishing Tales from the Borderlands and looking for another game to make into an episodic game. Telltale started talking about the game with Mojang in 2013 and first discussed the topic at GDC, and then started developing in 2014. The development didn't actually have to do with Mojang being bought by Microsoft, however the game was announced around the same time and some fans assumed that is did have to do with the buyout." and said that "I explained it before, and I'll explain it again. The information is superfluous and is literally already mentioned down below.)"

I believe that you are wrong because Wolffillms (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) You didn't explain it before
 * 2) It isn't superfluous as it isn't unessisary information, just information about the development of the game.
 * 3) The information is not anywhere else in the article


 * Wolffillms, you should’ve discussed the controversial edit first, before going to edit war — you’re already under sanctions, if I’m correct. — Agent NickTheRed37 (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The information about the earlier discussion of the idea in 2013 and development in 2014 already there, but most of the other information (save the part about coming up with the idea in 2012, which needs a source with a timestamp) is not relevant. Specifically, why do you have to debunk a fan theory? We don't care what fans assume, we just care about the actual facts, and thus there is no need to state Mojang being bought by Microsoft had nothing to do with it. If it did have something to do with it, then we would add that fact. – KnightMiner  t/c 20:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)