Talk:Game Mechanics: Difference between revisions
From A KoL Wiki
imported>Gymnosophist m Game mechanics organization |
imported>Gymnosophist Reasons for reinstating prior versions of article and category |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
*These both sound like good ideas. The "Return to" approach might be a solution to some of our troublesome organizing issues. --[[User:Gymnosophist|Gymnosophist]] 18:16, 28 Jul 2005 (Central Daylight Time) | *These both sound like good ideas. The "Return to" approach might be a solution to some of our troublesome organizing issues. --[[User:Gymnosophist|Gymnosophist]] 18:16, 28 Jul 2005 (Central Daylight Time) | ||
I've reinstated Game Mechanics/Category:Game Mechanics back to their prior version in which the detail is all on the Article page and not the Category page. This is for two reasons: | |||
*As discussed in [[Talk:Proposed_Standards#Category_Talk]], we are trying to achieve a '''less''' category-centric system, not a '''more''' category-centric system. | |||
*Aesthetically, the cleaner appearance of a stand-alone article is preferable. Using a Category centric approach means that all the links are shown twice, once formatted as desired and then again in an alpha order. At best, this is unnecessary. | |||
If the issue is that the article and the category share the same name, I would prefer to rename either the article or the category. --[[User:Gymnosophist|Gymnosophist]] 21:34, 28 Jul 2005 (Central Daylight Time) | |||
Revision as of 02:34, 29 July 2005
What about a small Return to Game Mechanics at the top of all these pages? Also, should the Pants (by power) and similar pages be added into the Game Mechanics fold? --Snickles 16:16, 28 Jul 2005 (Central Daylight Time)
- These both sound like good ideas. The "Return to" approach might be a solution to some of our troublesome organizing issues. --Gymnosophist 18:16, 28 Jul 2005 (Central Daylight Time)
I've reinstated Game Mechanics/Category:Game Mechanics back to their prior version in which the detail is all on the Article page and not the Category page. This is for two reasons:
- As discussed in Talk:Proposed_Standards#Category_Talk, we are trying to achieve a less category-centric system, not a more category-centric system.
- Aesthetically, the cleaner appearance of a stand-alone article is preferable. Using a Category centric approach means that all the links are shown twice, once formatted as desired and then again in an alpha order. At best, this is unnecessary.
If the issue is that the article and the category share the same name, I would prefer to rename either the article or the category. --Gymnosophist 21:34, 28 Jul 2005 (Central Daylight Time)
