How about adding an all attribute modifiers page? You know, items with All Atribute +X? --JohnAnon 21:57, 20 July 2008 (CDT)
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)
- I just think it is odd having the Game Mechanics page listed in Category:Game Mechanics, when the description for Category:Game Mechanics could just contain the information, and bumping it to the top of the category with a * just seems weird to me. It's like it's saying, "I could just describe to you what's in myself (category speaking), but I want you to go to this special page instead". Its kind of like having the "Hats by power" and "Items by number" pages in the Items category, even though they are not items. I've been hesitant of putting the "booze by drunkeness" page in the Booze category because isn't really a booze, sure it has to do with booze, but it isn't a booze, so probably shouldn't be listed with them. These pages are more likely Reference Pages, Game References, Reference Tables, or Basics rather than putting them in a game item category.--JRSiebz 22:34, 28 Jul 2005 (Central Daylight Time)
- You're right, it's a little odd, but I think that that oddity is more than made up for by improved aesthetics and navigatibility. I think that the article is probably permanent whereas the category is less likely to be. If we can figure out a way to gracefully get rid of the category (and lots of others as well), then the category could be history. A Reference category could be a good solution for a number of problematic pages/categories. --Gymnosophist 23:02, 28 Jul 2005 (Central Daylight Time)