FANDOM


  • Gsimenas
    Gsimenas closed this thread because:
    Resolved: Common items are to have a "usage" section, while unique items keep their chronology.
    20:08, August 7, 2014

    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?

      Loading editor
    • I wonder if we should just do that for all items. I believe there were prior discussions about chronology not really being suitable for weapons, but I those discussions were just forgotten.

        Loading editor
    • Bump. Should we replace weapon chronologies with usages, or only do it for items that a lot of players can use?

        Loading editor
    • Uniquely named weapons should keep with chronology.

        Loading editor
    • Weapon chronologies were created mostly for the very important weapons like the Dark Repulser, Blue Rose Sword, Elucidator, Excaliber, etc. I suppose it doesn't fit well with the generic and minor though. I can't think of any clean ideas to solve it but there are a few messy ones.

        Loading editor
    • No, it doesn't, seeing as more than one person can use the same item. But I thought that you wanted to change the weapon chronologies to something else?

        Loading editor
    • I can't see a good way of doing that other then creating another category called minor weapons and having those go with usage over chronology, but then what determines minor weapons and the like. Plus it creates another problem of having two type weapon pages which is confusing in itself. Chronology is the more informative form so I would rather pick that over usage.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • true but we can't sacrifice the major items in favor of the minor items, going with usage over chronology.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • I thought you hated dual standards?

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • I already called my stance; the so-called dressed double standard.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • Double standard it is.

        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.