Hello again good sirs. I would like to convey a proposal for the inevitable splitting of spell and status, which some users are hellbent on doing. To illustrate, I shall use the Haste example. I do believe the split should be done in the manner of subpages, aka Haste/Status or Haste/Spell. The software will recognize this as being branched from the main Haste page and insert the link on top. Something of this manner can be seen in userpages and walkthrough pages. Then a simple summary can be written on the Haste main page - the same as how this is portrayed. I do believe this is a sound solution rather than using brackets - simply because Wikia designs have enabled us something simpler. I have taken this up with Diablocon, and he approves of the idea. Action is inevitable, although I am very, very interested to hear any opposition to this idea: you know, the usual "No with a period" and the administrative "No"s. If anyone should wonder if this goes against this wiki's practices, this would go actually go in line with the practice of Parenting enemy pages - ones that are recurring and most familiar to the series. If one wonders if this should applied to ALL the existing pages, I think no. Leeway and exceptions should be given to this practice of making ALL things standard. This should apply to the spell/status/element pages only >;3 TLDR version:
| |||
Not entirely in favor of this, but not really opposed either. My concern is that this could snowball into other pages with tags becoming subpages (like Red Dragon, for example).
If the community likes it, go for it. | |||
As I have expressed, this should only apply to our inevitable split of spell/status pages. If the community feels on applying this to all other pages not entirely relevant, that is absolutely not my intention >;3 | |||
- So in other words, if one were to say, do this to the Water page for instance, it'd be just split up into Water (Element) and Water (Spell) with a brief description of them right? And would that also include Watera and Waterga as well?? Xenomic 05:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- No because subpages are ridiculous. The only subpages used on the site are for videos, so they don't clutter the main article. Dissidia characters are in subpages but that's so we don't have to "clutter" the main character article with it, something I would have preferred myself. In these cases, they should be separate articles, and aren't just cut-offs from a main article, so no. Template:ILHI 13:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- If they are truly different things, they shouldn't be subpages. I'm pretty skeptical about just how different these things really are, but if the wiki has decided the other way, I'm not going to argue against them. (It hardly matters anyway.) --BlueHighwind ツ 13:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Breaking up the status and the causing spell is a good idea, but I'm kind of torn between whether subpages or tags are better. It's probably on a case by case basis, like you said, exceptions. Like with Poison, the spell sometimes inflicts damage, sometimes it doesn't even cause poison, and it's also an element. In that case, tags win.
- If they are truly different things, they shouldn't be subpages. I'm pretty skeptical about just how different these things really are, but if the wiki has decided the other way, I'm not going to argue against them. (It hardly matters anyway.) --BlueHighwind ツ 13:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Haste, however, is basically a straight shot: cast Haste the spell, and you're imbued with Haste the status. A subpage would make sense there.
- Personally, I like tags more. I'd rather link to a tagged page than a subpage, but I don't fully understand AJ's reasons for subpaging. Can you explain what you mean by the software recognizing branching and "inserting the link on top?" 8bit 15:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- He's talking about the little thing at the top that says "< User:8bit BlackMage". I assume it's in place on all skins. Template:ILHI 15:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. Yes, I do have that now that I've switched to Monobook (and not Monaco, which I confused the former with initially). Basically, the only purpose for subpaging is that so the reader can always go back to the parent Haste/whatever page just by clicking a link on the top? That is useful..., but if it's the only reason... I just like how the Poison article currently is, using main article sections with tags. Then you get into matters where some status effects are subpages and some are tags. 8bit 15:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Fortunately for us there's only a handful of these pages that carry the (Status), (Spell), (Element) tags. I'll seek out these tags and see if its tangible to do such things >;3 AJDurai 02:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- You have smaller hands than you think you do. Template:ILHI 18:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Fortunately for us there's only a handful of these pages that carry the (Status), (Spell), (Element) tags. I'll seek out these tags and see if its tangible to do such things >;3 AJDurai 02:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. Yes, I do have that now that I've switched to Monobook (and not Monaco, which I confused the former with initially). Basically, the only purpose for subpaging is that so the reader can always go back to the parent Haste/whatever page just by clicking a link on the top? That is useful..., but if it's the only reason... I just like how the Poison article currently is, using main article sections with tags. Then you get into matters where some status effects are subpages and some are tags. 8bit 15:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- He's talking about the little thing at the top that says "< User:8bit BlackMage". I assume it's in place on all skins. Template:ILHI 15:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, I like tags more. I'd rather link to a tagged page than a subpage, but I don't fully understand AJ's reasons for subpaging. Can you explain what you mean by the software recognizing branching and "inserting the link on top?" 8bit 15:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the link at the top is easily replaced with a little text that says, "See also ... (Spell)". There's no reason to switch to subpages and never will be for anything outside of reuses like Dissidia. Master Conjurer 13:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm leaning against on this, as subpages tend to indicate a heirachy in terms of organisation, and all the other pages use tags (with the exception of Dissidia pages). The backlink can be easily replaced with a note as Master Conjurer said. — YuanSaluto!Acta 05:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- "subpages tend to indicate a heirachy in terms of organisation"
- Which is exactly what the subpage was meant for. As I said, this applies for the term that share similar properties - hence spell and status.
- Despite the opposition, I will put this on a trial run. If Diablocon feels against this, he can revert if he wishes >;3 AJDurai 07:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Heirachies can cause issues: when articles can be placed in multiple subpages, for example, and the fact that you can only have one level of heirachy. Using subpages implies that Haste/Spell and Haste/Status are subtopics of that page, and that page only. It's the difference between saying "This is the spell sub topic of Haste" and "This page deals with a spell named Haste". Why use subpages here, when disambigs with parentheses will do the job? Why create an inconsistency, which could confuse users?
- "Despite the opposition, I will put this on a trial run."
- If there's opposition, then that's a signal to discuss further to solve the issues, not for you to go ahead and do whatever you want. Otherwise, there's little point in creating a discussion. — YuanSaluto!Acta 07:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)