Powered by MediaWiki
  Page  Discussion  View source  History 

Discussion/archive4

From TheKolWiki

Contents

Large Pages

I say some pages such as ascension, sorceress' tower/quest, and violet fog should be broken up into their components. Some of ascension's components already exist and either version may be missing info from the other and are somewhat redundant, but with inconsitencies with minor details or phrasings. It's easier to find things thru search if they're broken up. The only downside is you won't have one big to page to find every thing, but if we still want to keep that, I say we could start some transclusion maybe: 

==[[Oxygenarian]]==
{{:Oxygenarian}}

--Dehstil (T | C) 18:25, 17 June 2006 (CDT)

  • I agree that it's a bit clumsy to have a gigantic page. Also, the way, the sorceress page does it, with "that red box, is terribly inefficient, in my opinion. Inevitably, every single time I need tower spoilers, I go through the first page to get to the second page. I'm at a little bit of a loss as to what a good solution would be, though. If a person went to the generic Naughty Sorceress page, for instance, would they get a disambiguation-style list of links to the various parts? Or would they get a general overview page with links to expanded pages? I think what Ascension does is a very good example. It provides a very good overview over a HUGE aspect of the game, so that the casual wiki user can find the basics of ascension without being overwhelmed, while providing links to the "delightfully obsessive," as Gymnosophist would say, pages with in-depth information. A good root Naughty Sorcerss page, then, would, in my opinion, have to consist not only of a bunch of a links to component pages, but provide a very general breakdown of what needs to happen with the quest. Perhaps a bulleted list, starting
Those links, would, of course, point to actual in-depth sub-pages, which brings me to another issue: The Entrance Cavern (1) already has its own page, but that's just an informational page, not a spoilerific page. The two should stay distinct. There are probably a ton of other minor issues, but this is something that needs to be done. I'm just throwing out an idea of one way to do it. --Alpaca (T/C) 21:05, 20 August 2006 (CDT)

Valhalla

Is there a reason why the Valhalla section isn't organized like other sections? (That is, with the four major places set up with their own page, listing the possible adventures, and the adventures on their own page?--Foggy 12:29, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

  • How do you mean? Valhalla, redirecting to Beyond the Pale, seems to contain links to all four major places with their adventures listed. --Alpaca (T/C) 12:33, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
  • Each of the four places in Valhalla strike me more as locations (like say, Kitchen, or Menagerie Level 3), whereas each of the adventures you get by clicking on those links are true adventures, and should probably each have their own page, in the Non-Combat template.--Foggy 12:40, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
  • Hmmm, you have a point. I will get to that in a minute =)--SomeStranger (t|c) 10:31, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Looks like you made Beyond the Pale into a location with four adventures. I think he meant that those four place should be locations and that we should scatter their entrails into separate adventure locations. Personally, I'm okay with the way it is now, but just barely have that preference.--Dehstil (t|c) 19:05, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
  • What Dehstil said...I did mean that much like say, The Beach might be a page leading to other locations Valhalla be set up the same way. Given it's role in the game, might not be worth the effort.--Foggy 01:53, 5 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Hmm, well the adventures listed aren't templated and it seems kinda silly to list "Item drops: none, Meat drop: none, Substat gain: none" for a location instead of an adventure. Anybody against breaking it up?--Dehstil (t|c) 20:09, 21 August 2006 (CDT)
  • My obsessive side says to go ahead and break it all up, though it does seem a little bit silly - these are adventures only in the most ridiculously technical sense, given that they're mostly just funny text. All things considered, I'm neutral on the subject. --Alpaca (T/C) 20:15, 21 August 2006 (CDT)
  • I agree that it should be broken up, although it's something of a back-burner project. In support of breaking things up, note that the location page Beyond the Pale links link to adventure pages, not location pages. This should be corrected. --Gymnosophist 15:45, 22 August 2006 (CDT)

Category Changes

Misc Categories

  • Category:Skills (129 links) → break into its subtypes (Buff, Combat, Passive, Noncombat).
    • Disagree - subtypes aren't particularly meaningful. Don't need the clutter. Suggest new "Skills by Function" page as per Category talk:Skills. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • "I think that without exception every item is categorized as to what it is (weapon, food, misc, etc.)."
      Skills have a field in their description like "Type: Noncombat". We have categories for all other type descriptors. If a type is clearly defined as a set of other subtypes, we use those (like how equipment contains hats, weapons, pants, accessories, etc). I think we should be consistent here as we do with other in-game types. Plus, I find such a set of categories "useful" (unfortunately, all this discussion should be argueing how something or the other better fulfills the project goal...we don't really have one defined. Maybe something like this? "To create a comprehensive and comprehensible source of spoilerific KoL documentation/analysis.")--Dehstil (t|c) 21:59, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Ah - a mission statement - that's what we've been missing!  :) Actually, you've about half convinced me that we could live with the new categories. I still plan on making the new "Skills by Function" page when I get around to it though. --Gymnosophist 09:42, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Hmm, does actually sound like a half-way decent misson statement? :P--Dehstil (t|c) 17:23, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
      • Actually, it does. :) --Alpaca (T/C) 14:36, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Disagree. Would be much more useful to group skills by something else, like "damage absorption," "attack," "stat gains," etc. (Not that I'm recommending this.) Simply grouping by how they go about it doesn't seem particularly useful. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:36, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
      • I have repeatedly desired a list of just the Passive skills lately, as I've been laying out my plan for Hardcore Perm ordering, and it seems obvious to me that the Passive skills should be early because once they're gained they're activated forever. Of course, a manually updated Skills by Mechanism page would serve as well. Just FYI. --Jonrock 22:42, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
        • Does the Skills By MP Cost page work for you? All the passive skills are grouped together at the top of the list. You don't have to look at the bottom of the list if you dont want to!  :) --Gymnosophist 22:53, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
          • I just now found that, and yes. :) --Jonrock 23:36, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Starting Equipment (12 links) → Move to a new page about starting out.
    • In addition to dissolving Category:Starting Equipment, also list the starting equipment (and other class-specific equipment such as the diamond-studded cane) on the class pages, as discussed under Talk:Pastamancer --Jonrock 17:58, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • I assume that by move it is meant that the category is to be dissolved, in which case, agree. Agree also with adding info to Class pages. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • If there are "Epic Weapons" and "Epic Hats", perhaps there should be a "Starting Equipment" page. On the other hand, there's already "Class-Specific Equipment" so perhaps the epic pages should be deleted instead. Hmm.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:59, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Agree. I don't see how knowing that an item is the starting equipment for one of six classes is remotely useful, except for the implication that it can be gotten from the sewer, which is all mentioned at the relevant item's page anyway. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:36, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • I've updated the Gear section of the Class pages with the starting equipment and went on to dissolve the Category:Starting Equipment. We could probably still use a good page starter page for KoL newbies. Any volunteers? --Gymnosophist 16:21, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Make Category:Cocktailcrafting Ingredients (101 links), Category:Cooking Ingredients (130 links), Category:Jewelrymaking Components (8 links), Category:Meatsmithing Components (138 links), Category:Supertinkering Components (15 links), etc. subcategories of Category:Crafting Items.
    • Agree, except for Category:Supertinkering Components, about which, see comments in Misc "Crafting" Categories below. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Agree as per Gymnosophist's comments above. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:36, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Images (4 links), Category:Booze images (23 links), Category:Clan images (41 links), Category:Class Images, Category:Familiar-related images (97 links) → Dissolve. Nothing links here, don't need to categorize images. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • How about a project page listing this info along with other image info? See "A Companion for {{plural}}", below.--Dehstil (t|c) 22:16, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • I really don't see why this would be helpful - can you tell me why it might be? --Gymnosophist 09:42, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
    • I really don't either, but there was a fuss about it earlier; I don't know by whom. It wouldn't hurt me to see it go.--Dehstil (t|c) 17:23, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Dissolve, BUT: It's a larger issue as to how to go about categorizing images, or whether to do it at all, or what. The current scheme is simply pathetic, and needs to be dissolved anyway, but the general categorization of images still needs to be addressed. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:36, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • My opinion is that we don't need to categorize images at all. I know that Wikipedia does, at least to some degree, but the main thrust of their organization system seems to be to make sure that images aren't copyrighted; in issue that we don't have to deal with. --Gymnosophist 16:21, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
      • Categories deleted . --Gymnosophist 21:40, 28 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Mafia Items (33 links) → dissolve and merge into new overarching Mafia page. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Agreed; useless category.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:16, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Agree. Pointless grouping. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:36, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Naughty familiars (5 links) → dissolve and merge somewhere in the Naughty Sorceress pages. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Agreed; useless category.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:16, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Agree. No useful purpose grouping them together. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:36, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • All items are linked from The Sorceress' Tower#The Familiars. Done. --Jonrock 23:15, 7 October 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Paths (3 links) → dissolve and merge somewhere in Ascension. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Agreed; useless category.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:16, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Agree. Way too obvious to want categorization, and only 3 members, anyway. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:36, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • All items are linked from Ascension#Paths. Done. --Jonrock 23:15, 7 October 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Drops (460 links) → dissolve. We don't need this category - it's way too massive to be useful. On the other hand, if we decide to keep it, we should retain/make categories that reflect all the other ways that items may be obtained. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Keep for now, until we decide whether we want/need other categories like it.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:16, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Dissolve. Nothing useful in such a grouping of items. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:36, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
      • I'm going to start working on deleting the Drops category. It'll be a bitter sweet task - I'll miss seeing Drops | Pants (like white satin pants). Ah well such is the price of progress! --Gymnosophist 21:59, 28 August 2006 (CDT)
      • Done, it remain just to delete the page --Kaiou 15:17, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
  • As I've been deleting my way through the Category:Drops, I've been updating Item Drops (By Location). I'd like to propose a slight repurposing of the Item Drops (By Location) page, namely, to expand it to include NPC buys and other misc. items obtained at specific locations. Accordingly, the page would be renamed to, perhaps, "Items by Location". --Gymnosophist 21:34, 29 August 2006 (CDT)

In connection with the deletion of the Category:Drops, I've been

  • Category:NPC Buy (187 links) → dissolve. Another unneeded category. I'd talked about deleting the category in the General Comments section below, but neglected to explicitly add the category to the list. --Gymnosophist 16:21, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Agreed, categories by source are no good.--Dehstil (t|c) 20:57, 22 August 2006 (CDT)

Usable Items

  • Category:Reagent Potions (30 links) → merge into Advanced Saucecrafting.
    • I assume that by merge it is meant that the category is to be dissolved, in which case, agree. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Neutral. I can see how redundant and useless it seems next to the table in advanced saucecrafting, but I can also see how somebody would find it useful to browse through. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:16, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Based on how other category discussions worked out, this should be dissolved/merged. Since I originally proposed this one, I can't really vote twice; anyone else have an opinion?--Dehstil (t|c) 18:14, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Former Reagent Potions (12 links) → merge into Advanced Saucecrafting.
    • I assume that by merge it is meant that the category is to be dissolved, in which case, agree. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Half-agree. Merge/expand into some sort of category/page for former items in general. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:16, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • We have something like that already - Rare Items#Items that have been completely removed from the game - will this do? --Gymnosophist 16:36, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Hmm, to be clear and specific, they aren't really rare items. Plus that one section is actually history so perhaps they should go on a separate page like "Removed Items", "Renamed Items" or something else, categorized under history? Also, we could include renamed items, maybe. Talk:White Castle fries--Dehstil (t|c) 20:52, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Ok how about a page like Deimplemented Items?--Dehstil (t|c) 22:53, 2 October 2006 (CDT)
      • Sorry, I lost track of this thread. Yes, it's a good idea, both the dead items and the renamed ones. I almost hesitate to say it, but the name should probably mirror the name we use for dead adventures (I said I liked "Retired" for the dead adventures, but "Deimplemented" is just as good). --Gymnosophist 23:29, 2 October 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Potions → (21 links) either change to Category:(Mostly) Potions and match in-game or remove completely.
    • Remove completely. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Create "(Mostly) Potions". In the future we may do other types.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:16, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • I assume you mean that new categories should be created that mirror the inventory layout - Miscellaneous:(Mostly) Potions, Miscellaneous:(Mostly) Combat Items, Miscellaneous:Miscellaneous Items and Consumables:Miscellaneous. I would strongly disagree. --Gymnosophist 09:42, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Hmm, yeah prolly not so good of a category anyways. If anyone is interested in an inventory page containing this information though go for it. If it happens, either the items in each part could be listed, or somebody finds out a clear definition of "(Mostly) Potions" etc.--Dehstil (t|c) 17:23, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Either do nothing or remove completely. (Mostly) Potions would, by its very existance, necessitate the creation of other categories that mirror the inventory, as Gymnosophist mentioned. Bad idea. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:16, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • We have a account menu; an explanation of the inventory and its sections would seem logical, but most people don't find such pages useful. If "inventory" doesn't happen, perhaps "account menu" isn't nescessary or useful, maybe?--Dehstil (t|c) 20:52, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
      • I think an explanation of the inventory and its sections, as well as the account menu, is potentially useful; we just don't have to use the inventory as a system for categorizing items. --Alpaca (T/C) 21:07, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Just to note, The Flea Market also uses that system of categorization, kinda:
      Consumables: [food] [booze] [other]
      Equipment: [weapons] [hats] [pants] [accessories] [off-hand] [familiar]
      Miscellaneous: [miscellaneous] [potions] [combat items]
      --Dehstil (t|c) 17:40, 6 September 2006 (CDT)


  • Category:Oyster Eggs (32 links) → dissolve and merge into Oyster Egg Day. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Agreed; useless category.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:16, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Agreed, especially since the very names of the items make it bloody obvious. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:16, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Done.--Dehstil (t|c) 00:01, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Candy (16 links) → dissolve and merge into new candy page. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Maybe, is there any special reason for having a list of candy, beyond them being candy? A slightly different type is already listed at Halloween, so perhaps dissolve.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:16, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Ah, forgot about Halloween - that's all we need. --Gymnosophist 09:42, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Agreed, and probably without even having to make a "candy" page. Candies have no functionally unifying theme, coming from different places, bestowing different effects, etc, not even having sugar rush in common. Kinda like making a category for "Vegetables," comprised of asparagus and tomato. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:16, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Hey - Vegetables - we need that category!  :) Do you remember the user that had a thing about golems - first a template, then a category. Sassy! --Gymnosophist 16:36, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Done. Some of the sillier groupings could have featured articles though, featuring all sorts of wiki content, like all the golems in the kingdom ;) --Dehstil (t|c) 21:41, 3 September 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Dusty Animal Bones (103 links) → Eh, we didn't catch and nip this one in the bud, but it's just as useless as Candy. 99% of its value is covered by the dusty animal bones page.--Jonrock 18:39, 30 September 2006 (CDT)
    • Agreed. Plus, removing the bones category will get our junk category list marrowed narrowed down!  :) --Gymnosophist 20:02, 30 September 2006 (CDT)
    • Removed from existence.--Dehstil (t|c) 19:04, 8 October 2006 (CDT)

Misc "Crafting" Categories

  • Category:Star Items (16 links) → Dissolve, already listed at star chart.
    • Agree. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Agree. Ridiculously obvious, anyway. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:39, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Done.--Dehstil (t|c) 23:36, 7 September 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Toys (16 links), Category:Toy Parts (6 links) → Match other crafting categories getting rid of Toys and keeping Toy Parts and Toymaking? Or is that group too small for a Toy Parts category?
    • Remove completely (already listed at Toymaking) Toy Parts is not on in-game type. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Dissolve both. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:39, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • I added "See also: Toymaking" to the ingredients, but left the resulting toys alone since the recipe includes more than enough cross-linkage. Done. --Jonrock 22:30, 7 October 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Pixellated Items (15 links) → Dissolve. Already listed at The Crackpot Mystic's Shed.
    • Agree. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Dissolve. Once again, ridiculously obvious. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:39, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Done.--Dehstil (t|c) 00:48, 5 September 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Supertinkering Components (15 links) → Dissolve, already listed at Supertinkering. Supertinkering Component is not an in-game type --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Agreed. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:39, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Done. --Jonrock 22:58, 7 October 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Combines (111 links) → match other crafting categories, create Combining; what should it be named though: Combining Parts or Components or what?
    • Dissolve - make new Combined Items page. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • "combining" sounds clunky and "pasting" is too close to "pasta". I know it's crazy to suggest using a name that isn't used in the game, but I do think that "tinkering" fits the pattern set by supertinker and untinker. (This is not a vote either way on whether the components, results, or both, belong in the category so named--that's a separate issue.) --Jonrock 18:00, 19 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Hmm, put these on hold, until we settle all the other stuff down at "General Comments".--Dehstil (t|c) 21:16, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Dissolve, I'd say. Way too much stuff, and nothing useful in saying "these items can potentially be combined with meat paste." --Alpaca (T/C) 14:39, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Creating a crafting-like page for meatpasting would probably be difficult, but put it on the todo list.--Dehstil (t|c) 20:56, 22 August 2006 (CDT)

Weapon Categories

  • Category:1-Handed Weapons (88 links), Category:2-Handed Weapons (102 links), Category:3-Handed Weapons (4 links) → Retain. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Melee Weapons (152 links) → Retain, but remove all weapons from this category. All non-Stave weapons should be reclassed into a new Category:Misc Melee Weapons, which is a sub-category of Category:Melee Weapons. Make a table in Category:Melee Weapons that lists all Melee Weapons by hands required. Make a table in Category:Misc Melee Weapons that lists Misc Melee weapons by type (Axes, Whips, etc.). There are specific game mechanics that pertain to Melee Weapons. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Axes (6 links), Category:Clubs (19 links), Category:Flails (3 links), Category:Knives (6 links), Category:Polearms (7 links), Category:Saucepans (2 links), Category:Spears (5 links), Category:Swords (46 links), Category:Umbrellas (2 links), Category:Utensils (17 links), Category:Whips (6 links) → Dissolve. Categories are not meaningful. Items already listed in Category:Melee Weapons (but will be moved to new Category:Misc Melee Weapons). --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Staves (31 links) → Retain, but make a sub-category of Category:Melee Weapons. There are specific game mechanics that pertain to staves. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Ranged Weapons (43 links) → Retain, but remove all weapons from this category. All non-Crossbow weapons should be reclassed into a new Category:Misc Ranged Weapons, which is a sub-category of Category:Ranged Weapons. Make a table in Category:Ranged Weapons that lists all Ranged Weapons by hands required. Make a table in Category:Misc Ranged Weapons that lists Misc Ranged Weapons by type (Accordions, Bows, etc.). There are specific game mechanics that pertain to Ranged Weapons. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Crossbows (23 links)→ Retain, but make a sub-category of Category:Ranged Weapons. There are specific game mechanics that pertain to Crossbows. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Accordions (2 links), Category:Banjos (2 links), Category:Bows (2 links) and Category:Slingshots (2 links) → Dissolve. Categories are not meaningful. Items already listed in Category:Ranged Weapons (but will be moved to new Category:Misc Ranged Weapons). --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Category:Other Weapons (14 links) → Dissolve. Move items to new Category:Misc Melee Weapons or new Category:Misc Ranged Weapons as appropriate. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

I'd rather keep a lot of these, except that fix of mechanics for melee weapons.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:16, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

It seems a bit daft to single out staves and crossbows as deserving of their own categories "because there are specific game mechanics for them" when the same reason doesn't apply to crafting items, usable items, and skills. Am I misreading this, or would Category:Melee Weapons end up consisting only of (1) Staves and (2) Misc? That's giving staves a startlingly prominent pride of place. No, actually, I like the weapon categories as they currently are. --Jonrock 20:06, 19 August 2006 (CDT)

  • Given my druthers, I would rename Melee Weapons to "Non-Ranged Weapons" (currently it's confusing that there are ranged weapons that do bonus "melee" damage), and then split Other Weapons into Other Ranged and Other Non-Ranged, and then stop. --Jonrock 20:22, 19 August 2006 (CDT)

No, you're not misreading this - Melee Weapons (or perhaps Non-Ranged Weapons - thanks for the heavy metal thunderrr guitarrr reminder - I'd forgotten about this sort of exception) would consist solely of subcategories Staves and Misc Melee Weapons. Also, the text of the weapons category needs to be reworked. Currently, there's no discussion of weapon mechanics (staves, crossbows, ranged, etc.), just a cutesy note. I'm not concerned about giving Staves a "place of pride" - that's like saying that NPC Stores have a place of pride in Category:Locations. It's a meaningless concept. Additionally, catagories should be useful (see General Comments below). Most of the weapon subcatagories are not. Finally, what is it about the current weapon catagorization scheme that you like? Can you honestly say that, say, Category:Saucepans, with only two members in the category, is in any way useful? If the position is that there should be a category for each and every in-game weapon type, then we should create dissolve Category:Other Weapons and make new categories for autopults, boomerangs, cans, daggers, disco ball, guitars, implements, pistols, sacks, scythes, tools, wands, ...weapons, and yo-yos, all "categories" with only one member. A droll suggestion? Yeah, I think so. --Gymnosophist 09:42, 20 August 2006 (CDT)

  • Actually because of the addition of +X Ranged Damage enchantments (2 new items specifically), eventually ranged weapons should no longer have +X Melee Damage enchantments and +X Melee Damage will no longer also give extra Ranged Damage. Actually I asked on a radio show a week (or so back) and Jick and Co. said they were looking over +X Melee\Ranged Damage enchantments on melee/rangedweapons and the possible separation thereof, though it may look like a "nerf" on +X Melee Damage, it's how it should work. +X Melee Damage should only give +X Melee Damage on Melee Weapons and +X Ranged Damage should only give +X Ranged Damage on Ranged Weapons. Though no timeline, it is a possibilty. --JRSiebz (☎|§|‡) 23:02, 15 September 2006 (CDT)

Adventure/Adventures Category

I figured this would be a good spot for my masochistic project... I'm not doing anything because having the category in the template is apparently a very bad idea (tm), so I don't wanna continue to push ahead doing the wrong thing. But even though JRSeibz is infinitely wiser and more venerable in the world of wiki than I could ever aspire to be, I'm still not fully convinced that this would be such an awful thing. Addressing the potential issues, as I remember them, point by point, I think that people who wanted to include fights or noncombat adventures in weird places could just as well use substitution. Same for established standards, even - we show the correct code on the very page, and the innards are messed up enough as it is, so people shouldn't be viewing source for an example of what to do anyway. I do agree that including the category in the template does raise the issue of certain adventures that should be put under a different letter/number in the category than they would normally be. I think for those adventures, though, the individual category tag could be thrown in additionally at the end. Granted, there might be a little tiny bit of redundancy, but no harm is really done.

Either way, I'd love input on this, so I know in what direction I should go. --Alpaca (T/C) 21:21, 20 August 2006 (CDT)

  • How about this: Established Standards for a certain type of page goes at the beginning of the category for that type. See Category:Adventures.--Dehstil (t|c) 22:19, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
    • I don't quite get what you're saying. My question is whether we should include the category tag within the adventure/combat header templates, thus autocategorizing all such pages (as happens now), or whether we should manually change the adventure category to an adventures category. --Alpaca (T/C) 13:53, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • I seem to have missed out on the earlier discussion on this, but from the sounds of things, it would be OK for the Adventures category to be in the template, especially if we could make the category conditional (I think I saw some discussion on doing this sort of thing somewhere). Does this mean that we'd need to clean up the old Adventure category from the adventure pages? If so, sounds like a great bot project. --Gymnosophist 16:48, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Yep! I've already gone and manually cleaned the "A"s, and now I've stopped because JRSiebz raised some concerns about such a category inclusion within the template causing stuff from other places to be categorized as "Adventures," and, more difficultly, to have things starting with "The" and such being categorized under "T" instead of custom-categorized. (Though both of those can, I think, be worked out with conditionals.) --Alpaca (T/C) 17:15, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • You can still recategorize said pages starting with "the" with no problem. So categorization by template seems ok by me, especially if autocategorization can be disabled. What I said up above is that the established standards page of a certain type gets listed at the top of the category for that type.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:13, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
  • I've tried eliminating established standards from the category, but my parserfunctions skillz apparently aren't good enough. Anybody wanna help? (Remember, both battletop and adventuretop need to be edited.) Also, should the monster compendia be included in the category? Those aren't really adventures, just a list of things you could potentially encounter during them. Dunno. --Alpaca (T/C) 10:54, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Uh, I'm still asking for opinions here, since I don't wanna move ahead with something that's bad or that people don't like. --Alpaca (T/C) 21:47, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Well, I'm all for it. Especially since categorization is now optional, and sorting is easily overrided.--Dehstil (t|c) 17:55, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Absolutely, go for it! (That is, if you really prefer "Adventures" to "Parlous Perambulations")  :) --Gymnosophist 18:56, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
Category Split
  • Well, since it's automatically categorized, couldn't we have {{battletop}} do "Category:Combat Adventures" and {{adventuretop}} do "Category:Non-combat Adventures"? In its current form (very very large), "Category:Adventures" is almost impossible to use; a split would increase usefulness.--Dehstil (t|c) 20:40, 3 September 2006 (CDT)
  • I don't like calling them "Non-Combat" adventures, It's negative and is defined by what the other category is not. But I can't think of a better name than Non-Combat though. Skills can be typed as Noncombat though, Hmm. "Text Adventures", an "incident" or an "event. he he. ick. Combat Frequency modifiers never specifically say combat/noncombat in-game, but say "Monsters will be more/less attracted to you" instead.. On a side note, what are the thoughts on adding a category for "Choice Adventures" also? or as a subcat of "Non-Combat Adventures". more Hmmms. --JRSiebz (☎|§|‡) 03:18, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
  • Personally, when talking with friends about them, call them "passive" adventures, but that's not quite accurate... --Alpaca (T/C) 09:29, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
  • You know, I'm usually a crusader against expanding categories, but here, I actually like it. Adventures is just too large to be useful. Another possibility for the Non-Combat/Passive adventures might be Static adventures. I also like having a Choice subcategory, as well as possibly Clover, One Time, Obsolete, Boss, etc. But I don't want to recreate the mess we have with the Weapon categories and have an adventure categorized six ways to Sunday. If we do implement a number of Adventure categories, I'd like to see things arranged as follows: Combat, Static (or Non-Combat or Passive) and Obsolete all subcategories of a main Adventures category. Boss should be a subcategory of Combat, and Boss adventures should by categorized only as Boss. Clover should be a subcategory of Static, and Clover adventures should by categorized only as Clover. Obsolete adventures should by categorized only as Obsolete. One Time is tricky. One Time can be either Combat or Static or Obsolete or Boss or Choice. Further, One Time isn't always strictly one-time - some adventures persist until you beat the monster or pass the challenge. Choice is also tricky, but perhaps not as much so as One Time. Choice adventures can be One Time, and choices can result in either Combat or Static adventures. If we want to use adventure subcategories, we'll have to discuss Choice and One Time further. But generally speaking, I'm all for it. --Gymnosophist 17:21, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
    • I like "Retired Adventures" better than "Obsolete Adventures", plus the "history" category is getting muddled up. It's a combination of history articles mixed with "Retired" Items, Skills, Adventures?, and Locations along with Permanent Record Boards. Category is hard to navigate through. And back to the original topic... Choice Adventures are noncombat adventures, but they are not passive, because they require an active choice ;-). dum-dum-dum. --JRSiebz (☎|§|‡) 18:04, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
  • Static: Unchanging; how does that contrast from "Combat"?
    Passive: Inert, unresponsive; eh, maybe.

    So far, I still think "Non-combat" is the clearest, but I'll leave that up to you guys. Those other categories seem fine, maybe not "Category:One time". I still wonder why skills couldn't be split up (none of the types overlapped or were confusing or useless as a type) on similar presmises, but maybe "Category:Skills" just isn't big enough.--Dehstil (t|c) 17:44, 4 September 2006 (CDT)


Ok, the category looks kinda empty now; maybe some of those iffy subcategories could be pages instead? Clover Adventures is already done.--Dehstil (t|c) 00:26, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

Category Content

  • Should it be policy that the majority of info for a particular Category:Foo should be at page "Foo"? It'd cut down on doing [[:Catgory:Foo]] when we really mean [[Foo]]. I noticed people creating redirects like "Foo → Category:Foo" anyways. See Talk:Elements + Page history of Category:Outfits.
    Also, when do we do "Category:Foos" and when do we do "Category:Foo"?--Dehstil (t|c) 21:00, 21 August 2006 (CDT)
    • I think that Category:Foo should provide a brief description of its components in terms of unifying theme (see my bit in General Comments) and other basics, and often, I think the page Foo might not even be necessary. If somebody is looking for information about Foo, they probably don't need to see an alphabetized list of stuff that falls under Foo. On the other hand, if somebody's looking for stuff that falls under foo, they probably don't want to scroll through the full details of Foo. --Alpaca (T/C) 14:51, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • I'm not sure that we can formulate a definitive policy on this, but, generally speaking, I think it depends on the size and complexity of the Foo information. For simple things like Beverages and Cooking Ingredients, the data is easily presentable on the category page and no separate page is necessary, or even desirable (redirects and [[:Catgory:Foo]] are just something you live with). For complex things like Category:Booze or Locations, it's preferable that most of the data be presented on separate pages which are linked to from the category page. In the case of Elements, I would say that it's large and complex enough to merit it's own separate page.--Gymnosophist 17:54, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • On plurization of categories, categories should almost always be in plural form. Categories generally consist of collections of things. The only exceptions seem to be more abstract things like Administration, Help and Needs Work. My personal preferance would be to change Foo Strategy to Foo Strategies, but I can live with things as they are. --Gymnosophist 17:54, 22 August 2006 (CDT)

General Comments

Here's some notes on proposed category changes...some of them are bigger projects than others.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:18, 17 August 2006 (CDT)

  • I've added to, reordered, reformatted, tweaked and generally tinkered with Dehstil's original edits here - I hope he approves. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
  • I'll reiterate that, from a historical perspective, Wiki policy has been that categories should be viewed as organization mechanisms of last resort. If information can be more usefully organized by the use of a page or a table, than that is the preferred organization mechanism. For various past discussions on categories, see here, here, here, here and here. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Honestly, categories were designed, created, and used as an organizable construct, and as long as that construct is clear, defined, and not half-baked or easily done by certain types of articles. For example, a category for items available in the general store is useless because of the general store article. On the other hand, for me, a category can't be replaced by a plain table with each item's attributes listed next to it and shouldn't. They both have their uses and can and should coexist.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:16, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • The official Wikipedia policy on Catagories vs. list (table) treatment is worth reading. Obviously, categories and tables can should coexist. But this doesn't mean that for every table there should be a corresponding category and visa versa. Clearly, there are situations in which information should be solely organized in tabular form, just as there are situations in which information should be solely organized in category form. Your expressed preference for sifting through categories seems to be a peculiarly personal preference, and is not something that should become a Wiki policy. Wikipedia urges restrain in the overusing categories because "categories become less effective the more there are on a given article". In particular, Wikipedia emphasizes that categories should be on major topics that are likely to be useful to someone reading the article (italics from Wikipedia). Our historical policy on categories essentially mirrors the Wikipedia policy. --Gymnosophist 09:42, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
      • "a category can't be replaced by a plain table" That was rather naive of me to say. Revise that to "not all categories" or "certain useful categories" which you are, by no means, trying to argue in a table for, maybe. ;)--Dehstil (t|c) 17:23, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
  • On Misc "Crafting" Categories, all categories should be treated the same (with the possible exception of Combines. Whatever option we choose, whether if be to dissolve the categories, or to use just Components categories, or use both Components and Final Crafted categories, or mix Components and Final Crafted into a single category, all Misc "Crafting" Categories should receive identical treatment. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Hmm, maybe we should have Misc "Crafting" Categories. Also, Crafting Product categories or an overall category should be considered.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:16, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Can you elaborate with more specificity? --Gymnosophist 09:42, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
      • Well, do we just want the components in a crafting category or do we have a products category or do we have one big category?--Dehstil (t|c) 17:23, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
      • I'm still not clear as to what it is that you're proposing. My own feeling, as laid out above, is that all Misc "Crafting" categories should be dissolved in favor of individual pages. --Gymnosophist 13:28, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
  • What and How. I think that without exception every item is categorized as to what it is (weapon, food, misc, etc.). However, we are inconsistant as to catagorizing how an item is obtained. Sometimes we do (Drops, NPC Buys, etc.) and sometime we don't (combined items, Jewelrymaking items, cooked items, supertinkered items, etc.). I would submit that we should be consistant with how categories - either we categorize all the ways that items are obtained, or we categorize none of them. --Gymnosophist 18:03, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • We've already made a start at and item's source through, crafting categories, drops, npc buys, etc.; it just needs a little more work.--Dehstil (t|c) 21:16, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • I'd prefer not to back into a general policy by first deciding on individual cases. Instead, I'd rather set the larger policy and then consider individual cases. In this case, the larger question is how we should treat the categorization of the various ways in which items are obtained. --Gymnosophist 09:42, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
      • Ok, we could create pages similar to Item Drops (By Location), but they'll need work updating. I remember trying make sure "Item Drops (By Location)" was up to date, added a few, and gave up.--Dehstil (t|c) 17:23, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
      • The more I think about it, the more I think that the "how" categories should be dissolved. There are really only two, Drops and NPC Buys (plus Toys), but they really aren't of much use. --Gymnosophist 13:28, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
  • My general philosophy is that categories should be used primarily to provide useful connections between things to the user, and second..arily to vaguely group the information in the wiki. I think that one instance of the secondary use should be present on every page, simply so that, at a glance, it can be determined what the heck this page is talking about. It can occasionally be difficult for the sleep-deprived first-time wiki user and KoL newbie to determine if Hardcore Skill Analysis, just as an example, is supposed to be the strategy page which it is, or is supposed to be a comprehensive skills list ordered by some obscure game mechanics thing which said user hasn't encountered yet in limited gameplay. Categorizing the page as strategy does help, and in general can help weary wiki editors know approximately where a page falls in the wiki's vast territory.

    Once we've gotten past this, though, I think categories should be used to group stuff in a way that is helpful to the player. Category:Candy, for instance, does nothing for the player except insult their intelligence, while Category:Meatsmithing Components can tell the player "Hey, cool, I can try tenderizing Goat Cheese, of all things. Wow!" --Alpaca (T/C) 15:06, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
    • I will second this, except that I think there's room for "interesting connections that reveal the creativity of the designers" in addition to "useful connections that help me win faster". This is why I like the Saucepans category--because it's amusing to me that in a game where Sauceror is a primary class, there are only two Saucepan weapons?? Weird. And therefore funny. And I wouldn't have found out about it any other way if someone hadn't been anal enough to list it here. HAVING SAID THAT, I will also say that the fastest way to get me to agree that a category is useless is to show that the information exists directly on a main page somewhere else. The value of categories to the type of information that we are collecting is that they make lists-with-automatic-backlinks-to-the-entries very easy. As soon as the information grows beyond what one link per item can handle, and the list graduates to a main page with a table or more informational listing, then yes, the category generally becomes superfluous. The Wikipedia policy doesn't necessarily apply here because it seems to me that we place a much higher value on displaying all interconnections, and categories-as-list-builders are much more useful for that purpose. --Jonrock 23:31, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
      • P.S. Ar-dahrr, there's that list of Passive skills I was looking for up above, so consider that need fulfilled. I'll go put on my Furry Suit tattoo now. --Jonrock 23:31, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

Category:Quest Items

Quest Rewards, etc.

The Category:Quest Items is something of a peculiar category. In one sense, it's very clear as to what items belong in the category; whatever is marked in-game as a Quest Item goes in the category. These are all items that are removed from your inventory upon ascension. However, the usefulness of the category is somewhat limited. The category is an assemblage of a variety of different types of things: quest rewards (Boss Bat bandana, etc.), things needed in order to get a quest reward (64735 scroll, etc.), things needed in order to start a quest Dr. Hobo's map, etc.), things needed in order to get to the next stage of a quest (hang glider, etc.), and a few oddball items (KWE-brand transistor radio, rat whisker, etc). There are also a number of items that are quest related that are not included here, mostly quest rewards (shiny ring, etc.), but also a few things needed in order to get a quest reward (zombie pineal gland, etc.). It feels like we may be missing something here. We do have the information available in a piecemeal fashion on the individual quest pages, but nowhere do we have a listing of all possible quest rewards. I'd like to propose that we address this. Naturally, given my inclination towards tables :), I'd like to propose that we make a series of articles on quest rewards, etc., with each article having a table. Thoughts?

  • Can't hurt, but it's already fairly easy to find out what kind of quest items there are though. The reason "Category:Quest Items" and "Category:Gift Items" exist is because they're in-game type descriptors.--Dehstil (t|c) 22:14, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Yes, but there are a number of things that aren't included in the "Category:Quest Items". Having an article/page would address that.--Gymnosophist 18:52, 26 August 2006 (CDT)

Collections of Quest Items

  • Contrary to the text in the Category:Quest Items page (which needs to be clarified), roughly a third of all quest items actually exist in peoples collections. Some of these are legacy pre-ascension items, honestly collected, but others have been collected by some sort of jiggery-pokery (i.e. "hacking"). I'm wondering if some sort of collection explanation should be added to quest items that have been collected. --Gymnosophist 10:51, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
  • Additionally, when looking at quest items, I'm never sure if items without collection sections are really uncollected items, or if it's the case that the collection section has been forgotten. I went through the Wiki quest items and Jicken Wings Display Case Database to check. I did find a few (three) items that were missing their collection (I'll fix these later), as well as one item with the collection section section but no collection (bowl of oriole's nest soup). It seems to me that we should have some way of showing that something really doesn't have a collection, perhaps in the Notes section. --Gymnosophist 10:51, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
  • How about, by default, quest items don't have a collection section and it's implied that a quest item is uncollected. For exceptions to that case, we put:
    ==Collection==
    This item was collected by means of _____
    <collection>item name</collection>
    --Dehstil (t|c) 17:44, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
  • As an addition, I recently added the collection for the pile of shiny pebbles as it was missing from the Wiki even though Mr. Magnifico has a collection of one. Since this item was added after display cases refused quest items, it was obviously added by untraditional means. I think it would be best to be consistent and have the collection section for all items whether or not a collection exists. In this way, any future "hacks" that cause quest items to be placed into collections will be accounted for. I agree with the above, however, that there should be a note that says whether or not the items were added before or after the display case quest item change, but I wouldn't go into specifics in those notes unless we actually have the details and they apply to all instances of display cases. Finally, I hope all that made sense. --Fryguy9 14:58, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
  • On the "by default, quest items don't have a collection section and it's implied that a quest item is uncollected" idea, this doesn't address the unease that is experienced when viewing a page without a collection - is there really no collection, or was the collection omitted in error? I think I like the idea of having "the collection section for all items whether or not a collection exists". I'm also in agreement with Fryguy9's thoughts on the collection notes. --Gymnosophist 18:11, 22 August 2006 (CDT)

Physical resistance

there are now multipul areas where the monsters have physical resistance. I think we need to add a physical to the elemental script so that it fits better into the templates. --Univector llama 12:43, 30 August 2006 (CDT)

  • Well not as an element, the ghost miner has an elemental resistance to spooky and the queen to cold. We could add stuff like ten-leaf clover and once per ascension, ultra-rare, etc while we're at it, if we do that, maybe.--Dehstil (t|c) 19:28, 30 August 2006 (CDT)

More X by numbers

Does anyone have interest in there being an "NPC Stores by ID" or by number, or by [insert indentifying somethingorother here], since most (not all stores) can be identified by .../store.php?whichstore=X where X is a number or letter. Ex: ( 1 -> The Shadowy Store, b -> The Bugbear Bakery, m -> The Market, etc., etc., etc.? --JRSiebz (☎|§|‡) 03:05, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

  • Created NPC Stores.--Dehstil (t|c) 19:23, 9 February 2007 (CST)

Does anyone have interest in there being an "Choice Adventures by Number" page, since they are (almost all) identifiable via .../choice.php?whichchoice=X where X is a number, Ex: 2 -> Denim Axes Examined, ..., 47 -> Have a Heart, ..., 72 -> Lording Over The Flies, etc.? --JRSiebz (☎|§|‡) 03:05, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

  • Interesting, we could put that somewhere, wonder why it was implemented like that.--Dehstil (t|c) 14:48, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
  • With .../choice.php?whichchoice=X&option=Y, Y is the number of the option chosen, usually 1, 2, or 3 {depending on the number of choices given).--JRSiebz (☎|§|‡) 02:56, 5 September 2006 (CDT)
    • They'd both be nice additions - go for it! --Gymnosophist 13:12, 5 September 2006 (CDT)
  • I started it at Choice Adventures by Number, but it raises a few question (and maybe annswers some others) about the Violet Fog adventures and the Heart of Darkness/Felonia adventure(s), and if/how they should be divvied up. See the talk page for details. --JRSiebz (☎|§|‡) 17:38, 7 September 2006 (CDT)

Adventure Choice Templates

Moved from TheKolWiki:Pages for deletion:

The Adventure Choice templates are outsized, unnecessary (the Cove/Mine/Slope locations have all this information), and they don't fit the Wiki look and feel. --Gymnosophist 19:00, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

  • I actually like them; I remember finding them useful when going for outfits. The location pages do have this information, but these psuedo navigational templates seem just as or a little bit more useful than some other navigational templates we've had. (Not sure what you mean by wiki look and feel). You do have a point about them being biggish though. Perhaps we could reformat (and switch up to match wiki feel) them and readd/complete the series.--Dehstil (t|c) 19:46, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
    • Adjust their look and feel if you don't like how they appear. But the information summarized on those adventure pages is invaluable in planning which choice to take when you're there. They're not on all the choice places because when I made them I only had a little bit of time. They need to be formatted better. I'm pretty sure I stated that when I made them. But they need to become a standard, not get deleted. --jin 02:37, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
      • OK, we won't delete them. But I'll be darned if I know what to do with them. We can work on making them smaller so that they won't dominate whatever page they're on. But I feel uneasy with them being on the individual adventure pages. They're really inaccessible there. It almost makes more sense to put them on the appropriate outfit page. And, again, all the information is on the appropriate location page, which is more accessable. But if we decide to keep them in the individual adventure pages, let's at least move them more towards the bottom of the page, so that they don't break up the adventure page as much. BTW, when I said that that they don't fit the Wiki look and feel, what I meant was that we generally avoid using templates, especially large ones, and instead favor a textual approach whan possible, thereby giving the pages a certain "svelte" appearance. --Gymnosophist 16:15, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
        • Hrm, well the original Visual KoL successful because of a visual approach, tablifying recipes mainly, maybe. ;)--Dehstil (t|c) 16:31, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
          • I disagree with you entirely, Gymno. They are much more accessible on the individual adventure pages. When I encounter a choice adventure and can't recall what each choice will get me I select and copy the adventure name at the top of the KoL page. Then I paste it into thekolwiki search box and go straight to that adventure. Now, in any area where we have more than one choice adventure, I'm quite likely to shortly thereafter encounter ANOTHER choice adventure. Rather than having to repeat the process, if all that information is in a nifty little template right there on the page, it makes life much easier. There's no reason those pages have to ONLY show the full text of their own adventure. Making the pages navigationally useful is a benefit. Otherwise, there's no point other than recordkeeping to have them there. The adventure text is in the game too... And I've generally just encountered it when I come to the wiki looking for the corresponding page. It's also more accessible on the adventure page, because then I don't have to search for "The extreme slope" when maybe it's just "extreme slope" here on the wiki. I don't necessarily have the exact name of the area close at hand. The visual/tabular approach makes it easier to understand at a glance, which is the whole point of having a kick-ass spoiler site, we're better than the rest. We shouldn't HAVE to read 5 paragraphs to figure out the information we need.... That's the whole reason I started the VKoL sites, and what this grew from. I think we should try to make things easy to find and understand, and these templates are a step in that direction. --jin 19:32, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
            • Point taken. What would you think about moving the template further down the page? --Gymnosophist 20:31, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
              • Those are typically VERY long pages, which is why I stuck them where I did. Give the summary, and then go into the details. Rather than scrolling past all the details to see the summary.... I'm all for making it smaller/sleeker, definitely; that has needed to be done since I made them. I'm just not at all up to date on all the fancy wiki styling y'all have been doing. Any particular reason you want the summaries at the bottom? --jin 00:15, 5 September 2006 (CDT)
                • I just like to scroll, I guess.  :) Actually, I didn't like it because it broke up the standard order of the page, but I can live with it. I'll just have to work on not being so anal about stuff! Ironically, I was argueing elsewhere, that the Notes se