 The Paragon Wiki Archive documents the state of City of Heroes/Villains as it existed on December 1, 2012.
|
Difference between revisions of "Talk:Epic Power Set Proliferation"
Zombie Man (Talk | contribs) (Created page with "==Ordering the Pools== I set up the page to help people understand who gets what pools. I appreciate the corrections and the mark ups, what I don't see any value in is the need ...") |
GuyPerfect (Talk | contribs) (→Ordering the Pools: Time to pull in the big guns.) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I set up the page to help people understand who gets what pools. I appreciate the corrections and the mark ups, what I don't see any value in is the need to alphabetize everything. The ATs are paired mostly in the sharing of pools, so, show them paired. No need to break up the pairings for the sake of alphabetization. The pools were grouped across the rows by type of powers to help people see and remember who got what. The names of the pools could have been the same "Ice" which would have naturally grouped them together. But, in order for each pool to have a unique name, the thesaurus was broken out and we get "Artic" and "Chill" which disrupts the natural grouping. There's no need for alphabetization of four items in a list to impose order on something you can see in a glance. If you want to alphabetize everything, then alphabetize the powers in a pool... but, of course, that would be objected to because they're ordered in the order one can access them -- which just shows that alphabetization is not always the best way to display information. I object strenuously for this to be alphabetized, there's no pressing reason why that is a preferred way to display information when there is very good reason to display them in other logical ways. [[User:Zombie Man|Zombie Man]] 08:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC) | I set up the page to help people understand who gets what pools. I appreciate the corrections and the mark ups, what I don't see any value in is the need to alphabetize everything. The ATs are paired mostly in the sharing of pools, so, show them paired. No need to break up the pairings for the sake of alphabetization. The pools were grouped across the rows by type of powers to help people see and remember who got what. The names of the pools could have been the same "Ice" which would have naturally grouped them together. But, in order for each pool to have a unique name, the thesaurus was broken out and we get "Artic" and "Chill" which disrupts the natural grouping. There's no need for alphabetization of four items in a list to impose order on something you can see in a glance. If you want to alphabetize everything, then alphabetize the powers in a pool... but, of course, that would be objected to because they're ordered in the order one can access them -- which just shows that alphabetization is not always the best way to display information. I object strenuously for this to be alphabetized, there's no pressing reason why that is a preferred way to display information when there is very good reason to display them in other logical ways. [[User:Zombie Man|Zombie Man]] 08:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | :The article exists to document the Epic Powersets as provided to all the archetypes in Issue 18. For that reason, the information should be provided in the most ''organized'' fasion, not by whatever subjective guidelines you've invented inside your head. Why should Mastermind be grouped with Blaster? Because you decided it should. Why should ice-themed sets be on the same row? Becuase you decided they should. | ||
| + | :The historical and technical reasons and decisions made in the bringing about of these Epic Powersets is entirely irrelevant to the information itself and should have no bearing on their presentation. The way you have it, to the unknowing user, just looks like a sloppy, scrambled list that isn't easy to browse. That's the exact opposite of what we strive for on the wiki. --[[User:GuyPerfect|GuyPerfect]] 17:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 17:40, 12 August 2010
Ordering the Pools
I set up the page to help people understand who gets what pools. I appreciate the corrections and the mark ups, what I don't see any value in is the need to alphabetize everything. The ATs are paired mostly in the sharing of pools, so, show them paired. No need to break up the pairings for the sake of alphabetization. The pools were grouped across the rows by type of powers to help people see and remember who got what. The names of the pools could have been the same "Ice" which would have naturally grouped them together. But, in order for each pool to have a unique name, the thesaurus was broken out and we get "Artic" and "Chill" which disrupts the natural grouping. There's no need for alphabetization of four items in a list to impose order on something you can see in a glance. If you want to alphabetize everything, then alphabetize the powers in a pool... but, of course, that would be objected to because they're ordered in the order one can access them -- which just shows that alphabetization is not always the best way to display information. I object strenuously for this to be alphabetized, there's no pressing reason why that is a preferred way to display information when there is very good reason to display them in other logical ways. Zombie Man 08:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- The article exists to document the Epic Powersets as provided to all the archetypes in Issue 18. For that reason, the information should be provided in the most organized fasion, not by whatever subjective guidelines you've invented inside your head. Why should Mastermind be grouped with Blaster? Because you decided it should. Why should ice-themed sets be on the same row? Becuase you decided they should.
- The historical and technical reasons and decisions made in the bringing about of these Epic Powersets is entirely irrelevant to the information itself and should have no bearing on their presentation. The way you have it, to the unknowing user, just looks like a sloppy, scrambled list that isn't easy to browse. That's the exact opposite of what we strive for on the wiki. --GuyPerfect 17:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
