User talk:Dr ishmael/Rune

Overall, I like the changes, especially the addition of tables to Types, replacing the convoluted bullet lists. One thing I would like to add is a reference to Inscriptions somewhere, preferably at or near the top, as they are very similar to Runes. I would also italicize notations (i.e. the notes for Attribute runes,) move Types above Availability, and similarly put the table of rune pictures at the top.--Ender A 20:27, 3 November 2006 (CST)


 * Are you sure you don't mean Insignia instead of Inscriptions? And I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to by "notations" - could you edit that in directly?  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] (talk|contribs) 12:04, 6 November 2006 (CST)

Heya :) I like your changes. They're a huge improvement on the existing without loosing any information.  I guess with wiki being so slow of late, it is difficult to get visibility on changes like this. --Aspectacle 18:58, 13 November 2006 (CST)

I also like the changes. I made a few modifications, but feel free to revert them if you disagree. Great work! - Lord Ehzed 23:07, 14 November 2006 (CST)


 * "Other runes..." - I messed with the ordering of those paragraphs quite a bit, "most" made sense there at one point...
 * "No change" in attribute rune table - It messes with the table layout a bit, but it's probably necessary.
 * Splitting the Vigor and Vitae/Attunement runes - good idea. I don't think we need to state the profs/campaigns twice, though.
 * The change under Condition-reducing I don't like because it places two dependent clauses in the same sentence starting with "but". I think I'll change that back unless anyone else can come up with something better.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] (talk|contribs) 00:15, 15 November 2006 (CST)

Changes
I made a bunch of changes here, hope you don't mind :)

Good idea with the re-write, it was deffinitely needed.

The main thing I noticed was that it wasn't as easy to get information quickly without reading through the whole article, which people don't always want to do on the internet, so I re-arranged and partially re-wrote the introduction and the Types section to split it into three categories and making the information available more quickly. Most of the other details were minor, I merged in the table on stat bonus runes even though they don't have a potency because I think it makes it clearer and tidier, and people will understand what's going on. You can see all the changes in the diff anyway :)

Good work, and hope you like the changes.

— Biscuits 15:52, 18 November 2006 (CST)


 * I like the word "potency" - keeping that.


 * I don't like the footnotes - to me, seeing a footnote means "you really should read this info, it's probably important", and how runes worked in the past isn't very important to players today, I wouldn't think. Especially since the changes happened so long ago that the chances of a player encountering a rune scam because of them are very slim.  Also, normally footnotes appear at the bottom of the page in their own section - the third "Historical Note" shouldn't appear in the same section, then, since it isn't used as a footnote.


 * I somewhat like the split-up of "Types" into multiple sections - but I think I'm going to rework that all anyway, probably making those subsections of a "Definition" section (inspired by the Weapon upgrades article). .... Okay, done! &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] (talk|contribs) 16:56, 20 November 2006 (CST)


 * I like the changes; the first section is now much more succinct with the information much quicker to get to, and then more detail below if people want to read about it. I re-worded one sentece to prevent different uses of the word 'identfiy', and made a couple of minor changes. I also think the "trivia" would be more relevant in the Energy article ;-)
 * —Biscuits (talk [[Image:Biscuit.png]] contribs) 11:18, 21 November 2006 (CST)