Discussions/WhyformatbyUsername - Revision history

Wordman: Redirected page to Discussions/WhyFormatByUsername

2010-04-21T16:42:47Z

Redirected page to Discussions/WhyFormatByUsername

Conversion script: link fix

2010-04-06T01:15:45Z

link fix

Conversion script: link fix

2010-04-06T00:35:29Z

link fix

Conversion script: link fix

2010-04-05T08:06:30Z

link fix

Conversion script: link fix

2010-04-03T09:02:43Z

link fix

Shataina: *

2005-04-18T07:56:05Z

New page

#REDIRECT Discussions/WhyFormatByUsername

Scrollreader: My two cents

2005-04-18T06:05:17Z

My two cents

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:42, 21 April 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	#REDIRECT Discussions/[[WhyFormatByUsername]]	+	#REDIRECT [[Discussions/WhyFormatByUsername]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:35, 6 April 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	#REDIRECT [[~~DiscussionsDiscussions/WhyformatbyUsername/~~WhyFormatByUsername]]	+	#REDIRECT Discussions/[[WhyFormatByUsername]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:06, 5 April 2010
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~== Templates ==~~	+	#REDIRECT [[DiscussionsDiscussions/WhyformatbyUsername/WhyFormatByUsername]]
−
−	~~Why is most of the content organized by Username?~~
−
−	~~ie.~~
−	~~Charms>Type of exalted> then BLAM! a list of 13 Usernames which give me no discription of the charm, or even a name.~~
−
−	~~Of course, I've noticed this is true of several of the Topics.~~
−
−	Perhaps its just me, but wouldnt it be better to organize by more descriptive headlines, while still giving credit due for each item? I would totally be up for helping to reformat the pages, but not without a general consensus.
−
−	Theres a lot of useful information in here, and the wiki format is (of course) open to the masses to edit and contribute, but shouldnt there also be Templates or something of that nature? Wikipedia uses a Template like approach and it seems to work rather well.
−
−	~~Anyone up for helping me create some general use templates for artifacts, charms, and the like?~~
−
−	-[[~~RKmase]]~~
−
−	Actually, it USED to be that way! Now we go SolarCharms > SolarMeleeCharms > Telgar's Charms. Which is much better. There IS still some sorting needed, like HearthStones. But we mostly fixed Charms and Artifacts already.
−
−	~~----~~
−
−	~~But wouldnt it be easier if instead of "Telgar's Charms", it linked to "Charm of so-and-so-and-so" and "The other charm of good stuff". Those would be slightly more explainatory, right?~~
−
−	~~AND what if each charm was provided in the same format? One that provided all the information needed? :g: maybe i'm just anal.~~
−
−	~~-[[RKmase]]~~
−
−	For example, SolarMelee breaking down into Parry Charms, Attack Charms, Disarm Charms, Essence Weapon Charms and so on? That's be nice, but it'd quickly become an organizational nightmare. - [[Telgar]]
−
−	I used an author-included header for the slightly unorthodox formatting of the AlchemicalCharms section. It worked in that case, but only because there were very few Charms and very little overlap between authors: there are too many similar Charms written by different authors to arrange Charms by function or prereqs or any of that as it stands. If someone wanted to undertake paring trees to trim similar Charms: first, more power to them, but, second, I think it'd prove outside the scope of this Wiki's Charm section. _[[Wohksworth]] <i>Tangentially, I'd be all over a metadata-driven Charm/etc. depository interlinked with but outside the walls of the Wiki--I think it'd be a better engine for storing mechanical submissions in general, leaving the Wiki for brainstorming, community, and more creative endeavors. I spoke in support of such a thing many moons ago, but I'm only capable of planning, not execution.</i>
−
−	Not to be too much of a stick in the Mud, here. But I have lots of fundamental disagreements with one or two authors here. Which is good, and the wiki lets people see both our outputs. As well, I've duplicated some charms other people have done, even if unintentionally. And for me, it's alot easier to say "Okay, you take any charms from Haren's Abyssals and we're fine, anything else you have to run by me, and let me playtest." to my players, than trying to sort it out some other way. Not to mention the hellish charm trees that would result from the conglomeration of all our many varied takes on things, as well as the degree to which each individual author is comfirtable with certain effects. I like it the way it is. Guess I'm just conservative, like that. - [[Scrollreader]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:02, 3 April 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	#REDIRECT Discussions/WhyFormatByUsername	+	#REDIRECT Discussions[[/WhyFormatByUsername]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:05, 18 April 2005
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~#REDIRECT Discussions~~[[/~~WhyFormatByUsername~~]]	+	== Templates ==
		+
		+	Why is most of the content organized by Username?
		+
		+	ie.
		+	Charms>Type of exalted> then BLAM! a list of 13 Usernames which give me no discription of the charm, or even a name.
		+
		+	Of course, I've noticed this is true of several of the Topics.
		+
		+	Perhaps its just me, but wouldnt it be better to organize by more descriptive headlines, while still giving credit due for each item? I would totally be up for helping to reformat the pages, but not without a general consensus.
		+
		+	Theres a lot of useful information in here, and the wiki format is (of course) open to the masses to edit and contribute, but shouldnt there also be Templates or something of that nature? Wikipedia uses a Template like approach and it seems to work rather well.
		+
		+	Anyone up for helping me create some general use templates for artifacts, charms, and the like?
		+
		+	-[[RKmase]]
		+
		+	Actually, it USED to be that way! Now we go SolarCharms > SolarMeleeCharms > Telgar's Charms. Which is much better. There IS still some sorting needed, like HearthStones. But we mostly fixed Charms and Artifacts already.
		+
		+	----
		+
		+	But wouldnt it be easier if instead of "Telgar's Charms", it linked to "Charm of so-and-so-and-so" and "The other charm of good stuff". Those would be slightly more explainatory, right?
		+
		+	AND what if each charm was provided in the same format? One that provided all the information needed? :g: maybe i'm just anal.
		+
		+	-[[RKmase]]
		+
		+	For example, SolarMelee breaking down into Parry Charms, Attack Charms, Disarm Charms, Essence Weapon Charms and so on? That's be nice, but it'd quickly become an organizational nightmare. - [[Telgar]]
		+
		+	I used an author-included header for the slightly unorthodox formatting of the AlchemicalCharms section. It worked in that case, but only because there were very few Charms and very little overlap between authors: there are too many similar Charms written by different authors to arrange Charms by function or prereqs or any of that as it stands. If someone wanted to undertake paring trees to trim similar Charms: first, more power to them, but, second, I think it'd prove outside the scope of this Wiki's Charm section. _[[Wohksworth]] <i>Tangentially, I'd be all over a metadata-driven Charm/etc. depository interlinked with but outside the walls of the Wiki--I think it'd be a better engine for storing mechanical submissions in general, leaving the Wiki for brainstorming, community, and more creative endeavors. I spoke in support of such a thing many moons ago, but I'm only capable of planning, not execution.</i>
		+
		+	Not to be too much of a stick in the Mud, here. But I have lots of fundamental disagreements with one or two authors here. Which is good, and the wiki lets people see both our outputs. As well, I've duplicated some charms other people have done, even if unintentionally. And for me, it's alot easier to say "Okay, you take any charms from Haren's Abyssals and we're fine, anything else you have to run by me, and let me playtest." to my players, than trying to sort it out some other way. Not to mention the hellish charm trees that would result from the conglomeration of all our many varied takes on things, as well as the degree to which each individual author is comfirtable with certain effects. I like it the way it is. Guess I'm just conservative, like that. - [[Scrollreader]]

← Older revision	Revision as of 01:15, 6 April 2010
(No difference)