Difference between revisions of "Discussions/ComboOrganization"

Revision as of 08:06, 5 April 2010

The pages on combos are a bit of a mess. Presently there are at least two main combo pages with different content: Combos and Combat/Combos. From the history of these pages, looks like the following happened:

1. September 17, 2003 - The Combat/Combos is at revision #9.
2. January 27, 2004 - Pages like SolarCombos are deleted.
3. March 6, 2006 - The Combos page is well underway, at revision #15.

I'd like to unify these pages so that there is only one main entry point for Combo information. I admit to being totally baffled by the thinking that led to making combos a subpage of Combat. There are a couple of logical ways to go here. I think the most useful is to make their organization match the way charms are organized. This is one of the two main "standards" that the wiki seems to use. This would work as follows:

• Make Combos the main entry. This page would link to generic pages about combo rules, pages "by type" and pages "by author", much as the Charms page does.
• The "by type" pages would be like SolarCombos. This would entail reclaiming these pages, and redirecting, for example, Combat/SolarCombos page to SolarCombos (at present, this is the other way around).
• Breaking combo pages down by ability, the way charms work, is probably unnecessary. It can be done if the pages grow out of hand.
• Combat/Combos would be redirected to Combos (after merging its content).

Thoughts? Anyone object to this? Anyone care?

- Wordman

Works for me. - Talion

Seems like a plan. I say go for it. However, you'll probably want to Edition-divide the Combo pages somehow. - FrivYeti

Done. Format kind of sucks, particularly the FormatStandardsDiscussions/ComboOrganization/ComboFormat, but it'll do for now. - Wordman