Talk:Hammer

Likewise, I would like to note that the list of hammers should go. --Karlos 20:37, 16 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * I'd agree if the Category:Hammers list was complete. But it isn't. As long as it isn't complete, the list shows us which ones are missing. --Tetris L 20:50, 16 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * lol to what end? We list a "Shining Maul"... What is it? Tough luck. :) They're just red links. There are two scenarios: 1) The user saw the item and wants to read about it. In this case he already knows it's a hammer. Or, the user never heard of the item and we list it, he is curious, but we have no info or picture. Then again, it is good for us to know what we are missing. --Karlos 21:28, 16 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * 1. The fact that an article is currently blank should never be a reason not to link to it. Quite the opposite. "Wanted Pages" are there to fill them in, not to tiptoe around them. ;) --Tetris L 21:37, 16 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * 2. I have to say that I hate the category listings with a passion. In most cases the alphabetic structure doesn't suit. You have no control if the listing is complete or contains errors. In most cases you have no explanation or comments. I prefer a list in an article any time. Those lists require more maintenance, but you've got full control over content and design. --Tetris L 21:37, 16 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * Aha! Therein lies the problem! :) I know that you do not like categories with a passion. I don't like them nor do I hate them. The point though, is that there has been a conscious decision made on this wiki that we will use categories, that we will not list items under their main article but in their category, that we will not have redundancy. Those are the things I am hoping we enforce. If we were doing this wiki my way we'd have a whole different look altogether! >:) There would be no articles on mesmers for starters! :)
 * You do have a point about us listing what we need to fill out. I have acknowledged that. --Karlos 21:57, 16 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * I shall be a rebel against that conscious decision!! I demand that we reconsider. You can't shut me down! Free speech! Nazi admins! ;) --Tetris L 22:02, 16 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * I am no admin, and you were around when most of these decisions were made. You were around even before me. :) --Karlos 22:07, 16 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * Was I? If that decision was made, I wasn't aware of it. I may have been around, but at the beginning I was a total Wiki newb and had no clue about things like structure and formating. I stayed out of the formating discussions. Anyway .... structured list is what our users want! If you check the popular pages you'll see that vast majority of the most popular pages are overview lists of some kind. --Tetris L 22:14, 16 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * Again, this is a self-inflicted dilemma. Why does it have to be lists OR categories? No one ever said that there should be no list articles. In fact, the most important articles as you have noted are the Quests, Unique Items and Mission Overview lists. I think you need to distinguish between three things:
 * The instance article: This defines what a hammer, ettin or gargantuan jaw is.
 * The category of instances: This lists all possible types of that instace.
 * The lists of instances: These are made as views with users in mind. For example, a list of collector's items in each region, a list of Quests by region, a list of unique items by profession or a list of monsters susceptible to a specific kind of damage.
 * Again: NO ONE ever said there should be no lists. You are saying we should not have categories but instead list all instaces in the instance articles. That is a poor design and one that was decided against. If you want to change that decision, lobby in the formatting talk pages, don't just break the design over and over. A list of hammers alphabetically IS redundant with the category. --Karlos 06:22, 17 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * "You were around even before me." <- Ha! Your user page was created July the 7th. Mine was created July the 8th. And I know I created mine the very first day I joined GuildWiki. For once I managed to prove you wrong. :P ;) As for the rest of the discussion, let's continue this on Talk:Main Page or elsewhere. :) --Tetris L 00:36, 20 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * I guess you're right then. Though I seem to recall always confusing you and Tanaric. I'm getting up there in age. :( --Karlos 08:17, 20 Sep 2005 (EST)