User talk:Alpha Kenny Buddy/Sandbox5

Unique ItemsEdit

Hi AKB. I saw that you had put a notice on the Unique Items page, and I just wanted to let you know that I've been working on the remaining items pages in my sandbox while you've been off the wiki. I've done all the items except for the paragons, all they need is images. --AN|L (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2014 (GMT)

That's extremely convenient. Thank you so much for working on this! Although I'd like to fix some of those images so they're jpgs, that's a secondary task. I'll do the paragons tonight after I get home from my evening run. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 20:58, 9 August 2014 (GMT)

Hey guys, let me just chime in and say that both of your sandbox pages for remaking the unique items pages make the information incredibly hard to find. The transclusion style pages are really not always the way to go for a page with so many items, as they abstract information away and make the page far less useful than it is currently, and also make the page way too long for any conceivable value. Can we please not remake it into what you're currently proposing and keep it as a table like it is now? ∬(RisingDusk)dxdy 11:06, 10 August 2014 (GMT)

I understand that you worked to improve the current tables, but you have to understand that I started this project last year. I have dedicated too much of my time, during which time I have asked for feedback from multiple users, to not go ahead right after I finish the last article for the first step part of this project. I know that some people value tables more, but articles are just universally better for actually providing information than a small note next to it.

Additionally, these items have little linking them together, a table for these (as far as the game is concerned) randomly grouped together items makes no sense truly. Why do I care that a bow weighs less than a warhammer I get on a different quest altogether? People are more likely to search for the item then read through the list of unique items, so giving them articles makes much more sense from that point of view.

I mean, let's start comparing the two. The very first entry, Aegisbane in my version goes over the relevant information with its involvement in the game. The current article includes just the info in the table and what quest you get it in. You see what I mean? Just forcing these items into a table denies them the interesting facts relating to them, because it is so much harder to put that together if you are just limited to a table and not an article.

I'm sorry I didn't mark the pages as being worked on before, which you took an interest in, but I would have warned you if I did not fall sick and was unavailable on the wiki since the time you joined the site. However, not doing this for the sake of your edits, throws away hundreds of hours of work on my end that I find drastically improve the current version.

I'm also probably just going to split the page to avoid slow loading, as you were concerned about that. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 18:04, 10 August 2014 (GMT)

It has nothing to do with my contributions to the page. They don't hold a special place in my heart or anything; please do not mistake my concern here for having a self-serving motive.

The reality is that the transclusion style page is way too long for the entire unique items list, it abstracts information away from the tables, making the page far less useful, and makes the page gigantic. You're missing the type of player who simply wants to collect all the unique items in the game and just wants to know the key details about them like where to get them or what makes them special (if anything). If people are interested in the individual item, they will search it and find its page.

The transclusion style page works for artifacts because by our definition there are few enough of them that it isn't overwhelming. One of the biggest losses beyond that of the transclusion style format is that it loses the ability to be sorted like the table currently has, which is arguably the most valuable part of it being a table in the first place. People can find similar things this way. Maybe they just want to collect uniquely named light armor or something, and so being able to sort by that is great. The table is flexible, contains all the relevant information the transclusion approach would provide, and then goes beyond that and lets the reader view things how they want to in whatever context that they want to. Furthermore, because there are so many items, the table is shorter and makes the information more easily digested. Lastly, the transclusion format makes things look really, really important; these unique items just aren't that fancy. People aren't interested in a huge picture of generic-steel-warhammer-aegisbane on their list; that isn't useful. Please, if you were busy or sick, I'm sorry for that difficulty in your life, but this page is genuinely better as a table than as a massive list, and I implore you to seek other feedback from other major contributors before continuing with your current plan. ∬(RisingDusk)dxdy 23:01, 10 August 2014 (GMT)

I'm going to just have to disagree with you here since you just seem to hold the opposite views of me, like the usefulness of the table, the value of the images, the superiority of using articles, how interesting these items are... If you were in my position, with someone coming in when you are just finishing up the first part of a giant, eventually site wide project after a year, would you really want to just accept what you're asking me to? I have just spent too much time on this project to just accept "No I don't like it that way" when I'm just starting to finish the first article almost a year later. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 23:17, 10 August 2014 (GMT)

And just for the record, I have asked for feedback, all the way last year. Along the way, I've talked about the project with some of the most experienced users on the site frequently. I have gotten feedback, and for the most part, they agree with my ideas for this task. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 23:28, 10 August 2014 (GMT)

I would just like to jump in here. We have discussed in the past the benefits and drawbacks of a simple list in terms of how they are useful to collectors of things. We decided that making it a list so that it is easier for collectors isn't worth the drawbacks such a list would impose. We also figured that any collector serious enough to try and collect all unique items or all artifacts could also just create the list themselves using the category. Thus, the transclusion style page provides for more information and the drawbacks are minimal (i.e. slightly inconveniencing a small portion of our viewership). In general, UESP takes a "more is better" approach. If you think this should change site-wide (keep in mind this would have to be a site-wide change), then feel free to open up a discussion on the community portal. Until then, though, the previously agreed on style will stay. Jeancey (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2014 (GMT)

Can you cite those discussions Jeancey? I ask because where do you draw the line? What about the clothing pages? What about the unobtainable items pages? What about the items pages for specialty gear? If there was a huge discussion about it, why hasn't it been changed before? Furthermore, you cite drawbacks that the list format has, yet don't mention what those drawbacks are. And what about how huge these pages will become? Is no consideration being given to that? I'm more than happy to discuss it, but simply saying "we decided" is inconducive to having that discussion. ∬(RisingDusk)dxdy 00:44, 11 August 2014 (GMT)

(←) I'm a little drunk right now, and the discussions were months and months ago, but the drawback of a list were the lack of information and the difficulty identifying specific items at a glance. The items are unique for a reason. We only do this for unique things. So specialty gear of which you can get more than one, that's not unique. But Thieves Guild Armor, that gets its own page. Things like that. I didn't say that we decided 100%. I simply said that we decided at the time. I did suggest you start a Community Portal discussion if you wished to change it. Feel free to do that. I'm not trying to suppress anything. I have no vested interest in this page. Jeancey (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2014 (GMT)

Very well, I have created a community portal discussion for the matter here. Feel free to contribute.

Lastly, before I dewatch this page, AKB: I'm sorry that I didn't provide feedback earlier in your project. When you don't put the revamp template up until just recently, it's impossible for anyone to know that you're doing something like this and provide this sort of feedback. I apologize that you have put a lot of work into this only to have someone like me come along and disagree with the very premise of the revamp, but I strongly feel that the wiki and its readers will benefit from this not changing. Fortunately, the individual item pages you made would be useful no matter what, so at least there is that! Also fortunately, transclusion style pages themselves are merely lots of templates, which shouldn't have negated too much of your time. Again, I'm sorry, but I feel it's very important that we take a hard look at what the site needs from these pages and why we should or shouldn't do this revamp. Your work is appreciated regardless. :) ∬(RisingDusk)dxdy 11:21, 11 August 2014 (GMT)