User talk:Tennessee Ernie Ford/Archive 05

incomplete edit
[ It] stops abruptly and is unsigned; I suspect some glitch rather than intention? -- ◄mendel► 01:32, August 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * The unsigned part was unintentional. (I had written more, but then realized it wasn't adding anything to the discussion and deleted it from the preview. Naturally, the ~ went out with the bath water.) &mdash;Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 01:49, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

[ appositives]
You only use commas to set off non-restrictive (parenthetical) appositives. In this case, your subsequent edit made it quite clear that the quest name was the restrictive (essential) appositive &mdash; it was the part you kept, while you were able to leave out "the primary quest" without changing the meaning &mdash; thus it was incorrect to set it off with commas. &mdash;Dr Ishmael 01:03, September 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds good. However, my take is that the original suggested that the important point was that it was a primary quest. Commas or not, it failed the newspaper editor's rule of avoiding unnecessary adjectives. (Although some would write that as, avoid adjectives.)


 * Anyhow, the point of the edit was to avoid the debate. The point of the edit summary was to poke fun at the person who called the original grammar, "incorrect," not so much b/c I thought it was a bad edit. (Although I admit to a prejudice against seeing that many adjectives/nouns strung together w/o any punctuation.) &mdash;Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 02:50, September 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * The thing here, though, is that "primary quest" is a standard phrase used by the game, it is part of the game's jargon. Isn't jargon necessarily exempted from editorial rules like that?  Also, identifying it as a "primary quest" emphasizes the fact that you must play through the storyline past a specific point in order to vanquish the area; to someone who doesn't already know that AGTF is a primary quest, the current wording might make them think they can just get a run out there, complete some dinky side quest, and then be able to vanquish.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 03:45, September 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * The critical question you ask is, "what about letting peeps know that they have to play through storyline to specific point?" I thought about that before I removed the phrase and I'm rethinking it. On the whole, I imagine that ppls who get to the VQ point have either completed the quest or know that it's in the storyline (esp. w/the various bounties etc around). On the other hand, how hard would it be to find a phrasing that avoids the appositive and too-many-modifiers issues and gets the job done?


 * I think the editors that eschew adjectives would argue that jargon is out, too, b/c we can find plain-speaking words that manage to convey the same meaning. So, what about,


 * In order to VQ the area, you must have progressed the eotn storyline through completion of AGTF.


 * The phrasing could be better, but that gets the idea across in about the same # of words and w/o anyone else stumbling over grammar. &mdash;Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 04:42, September 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) You'd need to look up AGTF anyway in order to find out where to get it, and what the prerequisites are; this is the point where you'd learn it's a primary. (Or you would if the quest page mentioned it; as it stands, this point can only be deduced from the navbox.) And you'd also learn there's a single prerequisite quest, so it's not actually very deep into the storyline?
 * There's more important info the note is lacking: Why does the quest have to be completed? Does it unlock some area? Do I have to have completed it at some point in the past, or does it need to be active while vanquishing (it's a repeatable quest)? Is it enough if one party member has it? -- ◄mendel► 04:56, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

The rush
When we have a question we can decide, and one we can't, I think it folly to delay the first decision waiting on the second, especially given that many Internet/wiki projects get stuck indefinitely. (And seen in the light how long that first decision has already been delayed.) Deciding the merge now doesn't prevent you from organizing teh material better in any way; it requires another decision process, but we have one now (and need the new one then when prototypes/mockups are available), so we're not actually saving any effort; not deciding the merge now just means we had a lot of talk and no result to show for it. -- ◄mendel► 17:26, September 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Erm, I think I mentioned that I thought the two questions were linked. You disagree, which is fine. But that doesn't mean we couldn't have waited another few days, as I requested, in order for me to present a proof-of-concept of an alternative way of accomplishing the stated goals of the merge.


 * I don't see indefinite delays being a risk here. Nor is the original decision "delayed" &mdash; there was no consensus yet to merge (pretty much 1-2 people's opinions arguing for it, another against). So, again, why the need to rush into a decision today?


 * I do see that, having made a decision to merge, that it will be much harder to undo. I generally believe that the burden should be on the vanguard to prove the need, not on the conservatives to support the status quo &mdash; even I would find it hard to support unmerging after the fact. That is (imo) extra effort.


 * Finally, why are we having the discussion on my talk? &mdash;Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 23:10, September 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * We are having the discussion on your talk because it is meta to the discussion actually going on. I didn't want to mix the meta-discussion with the discussion.
 * I don't see the link between the questions that you claim. The pages are now in "state A", the "simple" merge would be "state B", and your proposal might be "state C". I don't see that it's any harder to go from B to C than it is to go from A to C, unless you want to argue that the advantage of C over B isn't as clear as the advantage of C over A -- which implies that you prefer B over A; also, you wrote, "I agree the current system is bad."
 * Given that, I see Rose, Darksyde, Dr Ishmael, Jon, myself and yourself in favor (more or less).
 * Vipermagi proposed adding the artisans to the material pages, which would probably entail taking the material's line from the Artisan table, and the relevant artisan's lines from the artisan list table. This can be done merge or not, and would probably lead to the materials table being removed from Artisan, while the artisan list might stay on. This means Vipermagi really hasn't spoken either way on the merge. So I do see a consensus to merge, at least if I can get you to admit that you really don't oppose it. ;-P
 * Your wrote, the burden should be on the vanguard to prove the need -- Rose expressed the need; Darksyde seconded. By subject matter, the list is more appropriate to the Artisan page than the materials table is. -- ◄mendel► 07:08, September 2, 2010 (UTC)