 The Paragon Wiki Archive documents the state of City of Heroes/Villains as it existed on December 1, 2012.
|
Difference between revisions of "User talk:Sekoia/Sandbox/Performance Shifter"
From Paragon Wiki Archive
(+comment) |
(→Availability) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Availability == | == Availability == | ||
Not sure how I feel about the "Availability" section. Not only does it seem a bit repetitive to me... it also gives instructions directly to the user, which is not exactly SOP for wiki articles. Maybe, something like 'Versions' or 'Types' would be a better heading for it? Just giving my first thoughts as I looked it over. —[[User:Thirty7|Thirty7]] [[File:Talk-Icon.jpg|link=User talk:Thirty7]] 22:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC) | Not sure how I feel about the "Availability" section. Not only does it seem a bit repetitive to me... it also gives instructions directly to the user, which is not exactly SOP for wiki articles. Maybe, something like 'Versions' or 'Types' would be a better heading for it? Just giving my first thoughts as I looked it over. —[[User:Thirty7|Thirty7]] [[File:Talk-Icon.jpg|link=User talk:Thirty7]] 22:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | : I'm not sure what you mean by "gives instructions directly to the user"? -- [[User:Sekoia|Sekoia]] 22:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | : And I do agree that it's a touch repetitive. But it presents the information clearly and doesn't look like a jumble of obscure icons. I think clean and clear is better even if it comes at the price of a touch of repetition. The other benefit though is that we have a section that can be easily leveraged to point out the different varieties the set is available as even if there are no recipes, and even if they add yet another kind of enhancement that doesn't fall within the kinds of sets we've currently got. -- [[User:Sekoia|Sekoia]] 22:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::This line, is the one I was referring to: "Details for how to acquire these enhancements can be found in the individual enhancement articles." It's not often we flat out tell someone where something is, in my experience. Aside from that, I can see your point, especially regarding future changes possibly making use of that area. Something to think about. —[[User:Thirty7|Thirty7]] [[File:Talk-Icon.jpg|link=User talk:Thirty7]] 23:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::: Ah, gotcha! I adjusted that section to avoid the issue. I'm not sure about renaming the section to "Versions" or "Types". The ''set'' doesn't have versions or types. The enhancements ''in'' the set have versions or types. So the two terms seem slightly wrong to me. Availability is a bit broader, to me; the set is available as enhancements of two different varieties. I'm not sure it's the best heading though. -- [[User:Sekoia|Sekoia]] 23:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::::I am not sure exactly how good my alternatives were either, but something about 'Availabily' speaks to how you get the set to me, which isn't what it means at all. —[[User:Thirty7|Thirty7]] [[File:Talk-Icon.jpg|link=User talk:Thirty7]] 00:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | : Now that I've realized that the recipes have distinct names from the enhancements (as I noted on the forums), I don't think it's too repetitive at all. -- [[User:Sekoia|Sekoia]] 09:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 09:15, 14 April 2012
Availability
Not sure how I feel about the "Availability" section. Not only does it seem a bit repetitive to me... it also gives instructions directly to the user, which is not exactly SOP for wiki articles. Maybe, something like 'Versions' or 'Types' would be a better heading for it? Just giving my first thoughts as I looked it over. —Thirty7 
22:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by "gives instructions directly to the user"? -- Sekoia 22:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- And I do agree that it's a touch repetitive. But it presents the information clearly and doesn't look like a jumble of obscure icons. I think clean and clear is better even if it comes at the price of a touch of repetition. The other benefit though is that we have a section that can be easily leveraged to point out the different varieties the set is available as even if there are no recipes, and even if they add yet another kind of enhancement that doesn't fall within the kinds of sets we've currently got. -- Sekoia 22:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- This line, is the one I was referring to: "Details for how to acquire these enhancements can be found in the individual enhancement articles." It's not often we flat out tell someone where something is, in my experience. Aside from that, I can see your point, especially regarding future changes possibly making use of that area. Something to think about. —Thirty7 23:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- This line, is the one I was referring to: "Details for how to acquire these enhancements can be found in the individual enhancement articles." It's not often we flat out tell someone where something is, in my experience. Aside from that, I can see your point, especially regarding future changes possibly making use of that area. Something to think about. —Thirty7
- Ah, gotcha! I adjusted that section to avoid the issue. I'm not sure about renaming the section to "Versions" or "Types". The set doesn't have versions or types. The enhancements in the set have versions or types. So the two terms seem slightly wrong to me. Availability is a bit broader, to me; the set is available as enhancements of two different varieties. I'm not sure it's the best heading though. -- Sekoia 23:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- I am not sure exactly how good my alternatives were either, but something about 'Availabily' speaks to how you get the set to me, which isn't what it means at all. —Thirty7 00:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- I am not sure exactly how good my alternatives were either, but something about 'Availabily' speaks to how you get the set to me, which isn't what it means at all. —Thirty7
- Now that I've realized that the recipes have distinct names from the enhancements (as I noted on the forums), I don't think it's too repetitive at all. -- Sekoia 09:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
