Weapon talk:Jade-inlaid bastard sword with a golden dragon head guard and pommel
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This, like many items on elanthipedia, confuse me. How is this item "styled or has special functions for Paladins. ". Really unless it actually does something for paladins that no other guild does, I wish these fields would not be set as such. Something has a lion on it? so what, Paladins are not the only people who can worship chadatru. This item has nothing suggesting its related to paladins. Using this field so much limits its usefulness when there are items that do indeed have very special funtions for certain guilds. Russell 21:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. So fix it. :P -Moderator Caraamon Makdasi(talk) 23:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I -- and it seems several other editors -- have been flagging items as guild-styled when they are sold at a guild shop. (I haven't flagged anything as Paladin-styled just for having a lion on it. For those items I just put lion in the symbol tag.) --Isharon 02:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the reason I didnt fix it here is its widespread, not just this item. Seemed like the way you powers that be wanted it, so I was using this as an example to start a discussion. Honestly, I think it would be a good idea to split "styled for" and "has special functions for" into separate fields. The distinction between an item that has a barbarian guild crest on it (styled for) and a roar helm (special functions for) is big enough to warrant differentiating. I can see watching to search specifically for items that have special functions for a certain guild/race, but not necessarily wanting to have to wade through every item thats barbarianish looking. Russell 02:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- In theory, I agree. The issue is whether a) it would create too many tag types, and b) whether the average editor would understand the difference. I'm not opposed to doing it, but I'm not sure there are enough items that are guild useful that aren't easily found through other means (soulstones, chakrel, etc.) -Moderator Caraamon Makdasi(talk) 03:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps not enough items merit separate tags, but I would urge more moderate use of the existing tag. Re: Isharon, sold in the Paladin shop I personally dont think should qualify solely as styled for Paladins. For instance if you did the same for Trader shops you would have all those old "platinum ring bearing the crest of xxxx guild" as styled for Traders. Honestly to make the tag more useful, it should IMO be strictly used when things are blatantly meant for a certain guild/race (having its crest other other identifying things, only usable by the guild. or does something special for that guild/race even if usable by others). This is just my opinion, which I am not trying to push on anyone, I will gladly not mention it again if others disagree, you folks by far contribute the most and should have final call on it. But if I understand others agree I will happily change it when I see it, till now I have held back because it appeared the policy was to use it as I have seen in cases like this bastard sword, I didnt want to step on toes, but thought the discussion was worth opening. Russell 03:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Nope, I totally agree with you. I'm going to change the template documentation to reflect it. -Moderator Caraamon Makdasi(talk) 04:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Trader shops are a bit different, in my opinion, because they are usually stocked with items that are intended to be resold to other guilds. --Isharon 05:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps not enough items merit separate tags, but I would urge more moderate use of the existing tag. Re: Isharon, sold in the Paladin shop I personally dont think should qualify solely as styled for Paladins. For instance if you did the same for Trader shops you would have all those old "platinum ring bearing the crest of xxxx guild" as styled for Traders. Honestly to make the tag more useful, it should IMO be strictly used when things are blatantly meant for a certain guild/race (having its crest other other identifying things, only usable by the guild. or does something special for that guild/race even if usable by others). This is just my opinion, which I am not trying to push on anyone, I will gladly not mention it again if others disagree, you folks by far contribute the most and should have final call on it. But if I understand others agree I will happily change it when I see it, till now I have held back because it appeared the policy was to use it as I have seen in cases like this bastard sword, I didnt want to step on toes, but thought the discussion was worth opening. Russell 03:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- In theory, I agree. The issue is whether a) it would create too many tag types, and b) whether the average editor would understand the difference. I'm not opposed to doing it, but I'm not sure there are enough items that are guild useful that aren't easily found through other means (soulstones, chakrel, etc.) -Moderator Caraamon Makdasi(talk) 03:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the reason I didnt fix it here is its widespread, not just this item. Seemed like the way you powers that be wanted it, so I was using this as an example to start a discussion. Honestly, I think it would be a good idea to split "styled for" and "has special functions for" into separate fields. The distinction between an item that has a barbarian guild crest on it (styled for) and a roar helm (special functions for) is big enough to warrant differentiating. I can see watching to search specifically for items that have special functions for a certain guild/race, but not necessarily wanting to have to wade through every item thats barbarianish looking. Russell 02:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)