Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Gear"
m |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Ah! Somehow I missed or forgot about that requirement (oops!). And I suppose that there are advantages to doing things that way, as well. Anyway, I'd be happy to go through each object page one-by-one myself (and, in this one case, maybe having every item of gear in one category may acually be handy--hee hee!) and make them all conform to this standard so that you can focus on more important things. I apologize if I've been causing you any headaches ("man, what on earth is that crazy Dave guy gonna tinker with next?") and I very much appreciate your feedback. --[[User:DaveGarber1975|Dave Garber]] 20:13, 13 February 2006 (EST) | Ah! Somehow I missed or forgot about that requirement (oops!). And I suppose that there are advantages to doing things that way, as well. Anyway, I'd be happy to go through each object page one-by-one myself (and, in this one case, maybe having every item of gear in one category may acually be handy--hee hee!) and make them all conform to this standard so that you can focus on more important things. I apologize if I've been causing you any headaches ("man, what on earth is that crazy Dave guy gonna tinker with next?") and I very much appreciate your feedback. --[[User:DaveGarber1975|Dave Garber]] 20:13, 13 February 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I'd like to debate that one initial requirement. In some cases it can be more useful to add items to multiple categories. In this case though, it's pretty redundant to do so. And I have yet to come up with a case where it isn't, but it will come to me eventually :) --[[User:MooNFisH|Llanor]] 09:04, 7 February 2007 (CST) | ||
Revision as of 10:04, 7 February 2007
It would be nice to see a table like the one on the main page here instead of the listings as they are. I haven't played with wiki tables at all or I'd jump in myself. It's nothing major, but if anyone has some spare time and wants to do it I think it'd look and feel better ;-). --JonDooger 04:01, 2 February 2006 (EST)
This Category
What's the point? I can see having it and making it a super-category to the more descriptive categories, but why is every piece of gear being added here? It is entirely useless to see an alphabetical list of all of the gear on mid. --Mel 11:49, 13 February 2006 (EST)
Hmmm. Offhand, I can't think of any uses for such a list, either, actually. Perhaps someone else can. I can't see that it's doing anyone any harm by our having it. I guess I just figured... (1) we had already lists of every area, every map, et cetera, and (2) well, why not? Anyway... --Dave Garber 17:13, 13 February 2006 (EST)
Okay cool. One of our initial requirments was to only put nodes in the most specific category they can be in, so the sub-category hero tank gear can be placed in the category hero gear which can be in the category gear. But an item of hero tank gear should not be in all 3. I'll write some sql to clean this up when I get around to it.
Ah! Somehow I missed or forgot about that requirement (oops!). And I suppose that there are advantages to doing things that way, as well. Anyway, I'd be happy to go through each object page one-by-one myself (and, in this one case, maybe having every item of gear in one category may acually be handy--hee hee!) and make them all conform to this standard so that you can focus on more important things. I apologize if I've been causing you any headaches ("man, what on earth is that crazy Dave guy gonna tinker with next?") and I very much appreciate your feedback. --Dave Garber 20:13, 13 February 2006 (EST)
- I'd like to debate that one initial requirement. In some cases it can be more useful to add items to multiple categories. In this case though, it's pretty redundant to do so. And I have yet to come up with a case where it isn't, but it will come to me eventually :) --Llanor 09:04, 7 February 2007 (CST)
