Talk:Bludgeoner (unique)

I dont believe that there are variations of green items with the same name! Instead wariors just use the name of one weapon as acronym for 2-4 different weapons (its hard to remember more than one name for warriors)! This messes up this article and green item trading a lot.

To disprove me just get me a screenshot of a green item that variates.

Split needed
The Factions weapon type "Bludgeoner" should not be on the same page as the unique item "Bludgeoner." Instead, it should get its own page. --adeyke 12:17, 27 March 2006 (CST)

sundering
is it 20%? i saw the update-date >< Skuld  04:16, 30 April 2006 (CDT)

I picked one up last night... Hammer

Blunt damage: 19-35 (req. 9 Hammer Mastery)

Damage +15% (while under the effects of a enchanment)

Health +30

Armor penetration +20% (Chance: 20%)

Deadlyknights 08:05, 6 October 2006 (CDT)

Naming policy (in general) for conflicts?
We seem to have have little consistency in what we put in the parentheses when there's a name conflict. For example, items in conflict have various (item type)s, (unique item), or (item) appended. It's not just inconsistent for items, though. For reference, WP's policy seems to be to put the simplest thing possible in the parentheses that make it distinct. I think that's probably good (unless someone can bring up examples that make this difficult). So for unique/non-unique, uniques should just have (unique). For boss/unique, (item). For the same type of item/item, like The Stonebreaker, the simplest item type that describes them (this is already how I'd suggest, with (wand) and (hammer) since they're both unique). I'm sure there will be plenty more different combinations of conflicts if we look. Also, LOWERCASE (but still obeying GW:ULC). --Fyren 05:37, 27 August 2006 (CDT)

lol =P
Bludgeowner:P -- Sigm@  (talk|contribs) 07:40, 21 January 2007 (CST)