FANDOM


  • Orion Invictus
    Orion Invictus closed this thread because:
    Served its purpose
    10:29, July 30, 2015

    At my behest, Ylimegirl created a table that serves as a condensed version of spell articles. Right now we have two possible courses of action:

    1. Merge all the spell articles into List of Spells using this table
    2. Keep the articles separated, and add this table to the List of Spells

    Both tables are just examples of how the articles would look like. They are not guaranteed to contain 100% factual information. Both tables would also be filled with every spell in the series.

    Since we can't make two conflicting suggestions simultaneously, this thread is for you to explain which idea you prefer and why. Afterward, a suggestion will be made for users to vote on. To reiterate: this thread is just for you to post your opinions, so we get a general sense of which idea the wiki prefers.

      Loading editor
    • I personally don't like Option 1 because I think it looks way too crowded. Not all spell pages are short, so this hovering method could get messy when it's about a page like Tur-bo, a spell with multiple uses, images and appearances. There are also spells which have a longer etymology sections, like Valieris Mihi Occoltus Valieris Meus Amicitia Occoltus. I think it's just easier to have all the info in front of you without moving the mouse to different locations. Also someone who is just looking for a spell they saw in the series, the list of spells will surely satisfy their needs.

      EDIT: We could no longer link to spells if we go with Option 1.

        Loading editor
    • I prefer option 1 (which is not to say I don't like option 2), because the information is more easily accessed. Since spell articles are often packed with filler, option 1 offers more information with little to no filler. Additionally, since most users are just looking for one particular thing about a spell, it's faster than looking through entire paragraphs of filler. As for multiple images per spell, we only use one image for character infoboxes, and I see no reason not to do the same with spells.

        Loading editor
    • Orion Invictus
      Orion Invictus removed this reply because:
      Off-topic
      10:06, July 13, 2015
      This reply has been removed
    • I don't like option 1 since merging all spell articles into their list would make things messy and I'm not a big fan of the hovering system either. I prefer option 2 since it improves upon the list page. The page seems to have too much detail for each spell's effect despite most of the spells having their own articles for that purpose. Option 2 fixes that problem.

        Loading editor
    • Option 1 is the way forward for me.

        Loading editor
    • Content Removed.

        Loading editor
    • When will this change be implemented?

        Loading editor
    • First, we're trying to see which one the wiki prefers. Afterward, there will be a vote.

        Loading editor
    • i prefer option 2 ,i am not the big fan of just simplifying everything in one page whit barely any description and information on a table and it just will unnecessary reduce the wiki size.

        Loading editor
    • Blaziken rjcf wrote:
      First, we're trying to see which one the wiki prefers. Afterward, there will be a vote.


      Ok.

        Loading editor
    • Shouldn't there be a proper vote on which option to be preferred?

        Loading editor
    • BenBFF wrote: Shouldn't there be a proper vote on which option to be preferred?

      Read what the original post says, also listen to what Blaziken told you.

        Loading editor
    • Oneofthosedf wrote:

      BenBFF wrote: Shouldn't there be a proper vote on which option to be preferred?

      Read what the original post says, also listen to what Blaziken told you.


      Sry. Anyway if suppose we go with option 1, will all the spells articles be removed ?

        Loading editor
    • BenBFF wrote:

      Sry. Anyway if suppose we go with option 1, will all the spells articles be removed ?

      Yes.

        Loading editor
    • I totally agree. Man the spell articles were annoying, stubs and in need of cleanup. It would be nice to remove them all and instead replace them with a list containing detailed information about all spells in a proper manner. 

      So right now it is 3-2

        Loading editor
    • BenBFF wrote: I totally agree. Man the spell articles were annoying, stubs and in need of cleanup. It would be nice to remove them all and instead replace them with a list containing detailed information about all spells in a proper manner. 

      So right now it is 3-2

      Have you looked at them at all? I spent days updating them. None of them are stubs now, none of them need cleanup and all have proper images. Seriously, read what the original post says and ensure you know what you are talking about before posting.

        Loading editor
    • The idea is to display all the information in the same place. Instead of going to the List of Spells, then searching for whatever spell you want, then going to its article, then wading through entire sentences of filler, just to find a tiny piece of information, you get all the information in the same place, without any filler. The articles will be "removed" in the same way that grabbing four quarters and exchanging them for a dollar "removes" the four quarters.

        Loading editor
    • I agree.

        Loading editor
    • A lot of the spell pages are pretty small (practically stubs), and several spells have only been used once. Putting them all into a list would save some space.

        Loading editor
    • The Nth Doctor wrote: A lot of the spell pages are pretty small (practically stubs), and several spells have only been used once. Putting them all into a list would save some space.

      Just because they are small, they are not stubs. None of them are stubs anymore and there is no need for "saving space."

        Loading editor
    • True, but having pages for minor spells that were only used once seems like a waste to me.

        Loading editor
    • I'll go with Option 1, there's simply too little content for most spell articles. Almost all of them are stubs. It's like creating a page for each form of Rook's prototool.

        Loading editor
    • Stryzzar wrote: I'll go with Option 1, there's simply too little content for most spell articles. Almost all of them are stubs. It's like creating a page for each form of Rook's prototool.

      Do you guys know what stub means?

        Loading editor
    • Oneofthosedf wrote:

      Stryzzar wrote: I'll go with Option 1, there's simply too little content for most spell articles. Almost all of them are stubs. It's like creating a page for each form of Rook's prototool.

      Do you guys know what stub means?

      Incomplete page with barely any information? I've just seen the stub template on a lot spell pages.

        Loading editor
    • Stryzzar wrote:

      Incomplete page with barely any information? I've just seen the stub template on a lot spell pages.

      Then look again. They are not incomplete and please tell me which spell page has a stub template.

        Loading editor
    • Whether or not spell articles are stubs is beside the point. Stubs are defined as articles that do not contain all the known, relevant information. This announcement pertains to how that information will be displayed.

        Loading editor
    • I just wanted to make clear for them that they are not stubs or incomplete. Since their reasoning was incorrect and mostly based on that belief.

      Stryzzar obviously didn't see any stub templates on "lot spell pages" since I just removed the last one which only needed an image update. Just wanted to clear that, so people will not think that that was the truth.

        Loading editor
    • Oneofthosedf wrote: I just wanted to make clear for them that they are not stubs or incomplete. Since their reasoning was incorrect and mostly based on that belief.

      Stryzzar obviously didn't see any stub templates on "lot spell pages" since I just removed the last one which only needed an image update. Just wanted to clear that, so people will not think that that was the truth.

      Okay fine, it was a while back when I saw the templates. I hadn't realized a cleanup was done. My apologies.

        Loading editor
    • Stryzzar wrote:

      Oneofthosedf wrote: I just wanted to make clear for them that they are not stubs or incomplete. Since their reasoning was incorrect and mostly based on that belief.

      Stryzzar obviously didn't see any stub templates on "lot spell pages" since I just removed the last one which only needed an image update. Just wanted to clear that, so people will not think that that was the truth.

      Okay fine, it was a while back when I saw the templates. I hadn't realized a cleanup was done. My apologies.

      Apology accepted. Next time, I'll make sure that the cleanup is mentioned.

        Loading editor
    • I would prefer option number 2 since we have spell articles that are extensive with more information.

        Loading editor
    • Option 2 for me, for the,same reason that Superbike10 has given

        Loading editor
    • Option 1 with a added section giving more info on each spell.

        Loading editor
    • Madlooney6 wrote: Option 1 with a added section giving more info on each spell.

      What do you mean? There are no sections.

        Loading editor
    • I prefer option 2. When it comes to option 1, it is ideal to merge all the spells on one article as there isn't much info. However, some spells need a page of its own, and the option 2 table will be the right size. I personally like a short table of info with seperate links, rather than a table with all the spells included with more detail.

        Loading editor
    • Oneofthosedf wrote:

      Madlooney6 wrote: Option 1 with a added section giving more info on each spell.

      What do you mean? There are no sections.

      I got the options mixed up, I meant Option 2 with a additional column after the GS column giving more info (like who used it and whether it worked or not) on the spell.

        Loading editor
    • Madlooney6 wrote:

      I got the options mixed up, I meant Option 2 with a additional column after the GS column giving more info (like who used it and whether it worked or not) on the spell.

      So you meant Option 2, right? Well, I'd have to shrink the images and the episodes in order to do that.

        Loading editor
    • Oneofthosedf wrote:

      Madlooney6 wrote:

      I got the options mixed up, I meant Option 2 with a additional column after the GS column giving more info (like who used it and whether it worked or not) on the spell.

      So you meant Option 2, right? Well, I'd have to shrink the images and the episodes in order to do that.

      Thinking about it, the extra wouldn't be needed as the pages would still exist.

        Loading editor
    • I prefer option 2, because

      • The hover option doesn't always work (see mobile devices and how wikia is pushing that on us).
      • It looks crowded.
      • I like the spell articles, and would like them to stick around. Kudos to df for going through and cleaning them up, by the way.
        Loading editor
    • I prefer option 2, because one page for all the spells would be overcrowded.

        Loading editor
    • I prefer Option 2, the spell pages have enough info to be kept. It wouldn't be crowded, and it looks more appealing.

        Loading editor
    • I kinda like Option 1. It provides basic information and you don't have to wade through paragraphs to find what you're looking for. It's just a suggestion, but couldn't we add a column for episodes to it? That kinda seems important.

        Loading editor
    • So how many more days?

        Loading editor
    • Just a couple more days. Then we'll have a suggestion thread.

        Loading editor
    • Great.

        Loading editor
    • Option 2. I totally agree with ylimegirl that hover option doesnt always work. Option 1 is too crowded while 2 looks more appealing. Every spell dont have little info. We wont get link to episode in which the spell appears. Yes, oneofthosedf did outstanding job in the pages so removing articles will be a loss. "Also someone who is just looking for a spell they saw in the series, the list of spells will surely satisfy their needs." And yes, the biggest problem will be that we wont be able to link to spells.

        Loading editor
    • I think now is the time for a suggestion thread.

        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.