Talk:Core

Posted by PanSola on the main article page: "For sorting purposes, it might be convinent to order core things as being chapter 0."
 * I don't really agree with that. I like the term 'core' much more than 'chapter 0'. Core implies that it goes throughout the whole series, but chapter 0 seems more.. clunky. Nalee Everborn 15:52, 30 December 2006 (CST)

Semantics
&larr; Continued from GuildWiki talk:Armor galleries project/Template consistency

Well, there is a definition of core, and they don't fit into it, but it really doesn't matter. :P Semi-core ftw! RoseOfKali 07:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, that definition contains a logical fallacy (apparently called a Fallacy of Accident, I think) by including both of the definitions I mentioned - "Core" is the term that is being used to label all game content that is not exclusive for one campaign (chapter), but accessible for players of all campaigns. Just because something is "not exclusive for one campaign" doesn't necessarily mean it is "accessible for ... all campaigns," as we just shown with the Ascalon/Krytan/Tyrian armors.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 13:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, but it also lists the known core features, and the only armor there is Obsidian. The definition needs to be clarified.  RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.jpg]] 17:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, the only place "core" is used in this sense in-game is when skill lists are sorted by campaign, in which case it does mean both "skills that are not exclusive to a single campaign" and "skills which are available in all campaigns." Probably we should keep "available to all" as the main definition and add a subsection for "available to more than one, but not all."  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 19:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)