User talk:Verhalthur

Hello, I love the thing you made of the Stone bricks, cracked stone bricks and the mossy stone bricks, but can you try the same with the huge-mushrooms? Of this picture: http://www.minecraftwiki.net/images/c/ce/PqYck.jpg That will be awesome, I can't make isometric blocks, but someone will do it when you upload! I'm sure about that! --Dyon 21:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried zooming in on the red mushrooms, and making it higher quality but failed hard, The only thing I know is this,
 * The yellow pieces on the red mushrooms blocks texture are different. If you check the middle patern, it got different shapes on it... --Dyon 08:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yo
I don't intend on being useful in my presumably short term here as a user on this wiki. If my simple, pathetic attempts at vandalism made you smile, then you're quite welcome. If my attempts provoked any other emotion, then it's unfortunate that I wasted your time.

I did place my opinion regarding 'natural' obsidian on a talk page, but beyond that simple boredom has strangled my usefulness here. I do admire the wiki very much and would like to see it flourish beyond compare. My attempts at enhancing this already rich source of knowledge will likely be redundant, however, and so my account will simply exist for my amusement.

Admit it. The chicken obviously comes before the egg. Anyone who argues "well where did that chicken hatch from?" should be answered swiftly with "It was spawned, you idiot."XxNewbVandalxX 18:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * They were fun. ^^  Don't worry, I wasn't being mad or anything; I had to undo them.  It is always nice to have extra editors here because there are quite a lot of pages with horrific grammar.  You could always come in handy! :D  Verhalthur (talk)(contribs) 18:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

So, wait, wait, wait... I can actually be useful?! Point me, good sir, to these aforementioned instances of horrific grammar and I will work like . XxNewbVandalxX 18:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, a huge amount of the Tutorials articled need improvement, such as Tutorials/Monster Spawner Traps, and many others. You could help out there!  Also, undoing and removing speculation is a constant ongoing pain, as is removing useless trivia (such as many on the Dungeon page.  Go for it! ^^  Verhalthur (talk)(contribs) 18:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

item naming proposal
soo… what are the next steps? afaics the reaction was quite positive, so what will we do? propose an item-naming spec?

if so, my idea is this:


 * Use the ingame item names as article title wherever possible.
 * like “redstone repeater” instead of “Redstone (Repeater)”.
 * “name (clarification)” only if there are two articles about things named exactly “name”, which are different from each other, such as “stone slabs” (both those from cobblestone and normal stone are called so)
 * if different items with the same name are also similar enough to be handled on one page (such as “stone slabs”), the clarification in parens is not necessary.
 * “normal case” instead of “Title Case”.
 * together with proposal #1, now when we want to place a link, we can just surround a phrase in normal text with instead of having to specify the target. like this: redstone repeater instead of redstone repeater.
 * if the “name (clarification)” scheme is used (according to rule #1), the “clarification” part in parentheses is in lower/normal case, too.
 * also, there is no reason to have Title Case in the first place.
 * handle related items in a about section, and use disambiguition pages
 * such as “redstone”.

– Flying sheep 09:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The only reason I would support title case is that the ingame items are capitalized. I think the general movement was away from disambiguation pages and towards using the  template instead, as it would shorten the amount of pages yet also provide the same useful information.  For example:

It does appear that more support needs to be garnered before Wynthyst approves.

Verhalthur (talk)(contribs) 20:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)