Prior to the update just now, the Throwing Pick was written with a Chronology header. However, shouldn't they be written (as well as other "universal" items) with a Usage header, since any player can use them?
Prior to the update just now, the Throwing Pick was written with a Chronology header. However, shouldn't they be written (as well as other "universal" items) with a Usage header, since any player can use them?
Why create another category for it...
Chronology tends to be more filled with junk content (I removed around 1,800 bytes of completely unnecessary content after converting its chronology into usage and saving the actually useful content as trivia) over usage which simply states where the item was used and why. Of course, certain details which are not that irrelevant are also lost. There's also the fact that chronology implies that the item is unique, even though certain items like Throwing Picks and weapons like Anneal Blade are used by multiple players in unrelated instances.
Take for example excalber, you could get the bare-bones of the story from a usage:
but the exact details of it's retrieval would be less then a normal chronology.
And as I said, minor items are not unique and their usage is very minimally mentioned, so a chronology isn't really suitable for such pages.
true but we can't sacrifice the major items in favor of the minor items, going with usage over chronology.
Who says we have to? Kai is proposing to have it done differently for major and minor items, seeing as there's no one system that is suitable for both.
When we can avoid them, yes. When there's no other suitable option, a double standard is better than using a system that is unsuitable for the page. For example, for skill pages, I pretty much have to improvise based on what the skill has. For some skills I can't squeeze out a mechanics section (either because of a lack of information, or because the skill is too straight forward), while others have certain mechanics that should be explained on the page. Some skills have a variety of features, while most others only have one - making a list for just 1 feature is silly.
So, either we decide on 1 system to use for both types, or make the pages differently based on whether the weapon/item is unique or not. Either way, we need to make a decision instead of dragging this on till next year.
I already called my stance; the so-called dressed double standard.
Topic still not resolved. If no one else comments on this, I will call this topic resolved as to use double standards for item pages based whether they are unique or not based on the vote of 2 vs 1.