Talk:Tutorial

From Hearthstone Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Clarification needed[edit source]

Tutorial#Bosses says for Illidan: "He's supposed to teach how powerful minions with low mana cost having major downsides.".

  1. No idea what that's supposed to mean, but I'm not a native English speaker.
  2. I don't think saying that this boss encounter teaches the player about low-cost, powerful minions that have some drawbacks to balance them out is correct - neither the boss not the player is using a warlock deck ... Am I missing something?
  3. Bonus question: is it OK to use contractions in the wiki or should they be avoided? I'm talking about things like 'he's' -> 'he is'.

-- Karol007 (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I can't see any relation for the presumed meaning to any tutorial boss, and certainly not Illidan. I've removed the line.
Contractions are to be avoided, since we're generally aiming for an encyclopedic tone. -- Taohinton (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree about Illidan, but you can draw conclusions about SOME of the bosses. For instance, Millhouse makes a point of telling you repeatedly how great his big spells are but never gets to cast them because of their mana cost. Jaina emphatically recommends ignoring Mukla's Big Brother while using taunts to keep him from hitting you. We COULD dance around these lessons but I think the evidence is clear enough to list them as definite themes of those battles. - jerodast (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Once again, you seem to be disagreeing with something I didn't actually say :P I have no problem with stating themes of the battles, as indeed are already found in the article. If you're suggesting adding even more detail to listed themes, be my guest, although I think we already have a reasonable job of it. A theme for Illidan is certainly welcome, if there is one. -- Taohinton (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I read "I can't see any relation for the presumed meaning to any tutorial boss" (emphasis added) as meaning none of them had grounds for their current descriptions. Apologies for misinterpreting! - jerodast (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Haha no worries, I guess I correctly detected something a little odd in your reply :P -- Taohinton (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)