User talk:Farman: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
I'm not so sure naming a page "Manipulate Ability (Empath)" is really needed. When naming pages I like to think of how (likely) will someone search for a page, "Manipulate" sounds much better, and if that is taken, surely you could name it "Manipulate ability" adding text in parenthesis like that usually dictates that the page-title is disambiguated and thus needs a context clue. In this case, I do not know of a Manipulate ability other than for Empaths. Might you be willing to move this (and the few similar) pages? --[[User:Callek|Callek]] 13:17, 3 May 2007 (CDT) |
I'm not so sure naming a page "Manipulate Ability (Empath)" is really needed. When naming pages I like to think of how (likely) will someone search for a page, "Manipulate" sounds much better, and if that is taken, surely you could name it "Manipulate ability" adding text in parenthesis like that usually dictates that the page-title is disambiguated and thus needs a context clue. In this case, I do not know of a Manipulate ability other than for Empaths. Might you be willing to move this (and the few similar) pages? --[[User:Callek|Callek]] 13:17, 3 May 2007 (CDT) |
||
:I agree the (guild) part is unnecessary in most cases, but that 'ability' should remain. My own take on it is that an article title should be as brief but still '''precise''' as it can be; for common search terms that nonetheless are more vague, redirects can be used. "Manipulate", "Link", "Lead", "Roar", etc. are all still words on their own and the articles are about the ability not the word. IMO for consistency and clarity across the whole wiki, it is much better if article titles make it plain exactly what the article is about. Cf. the 'skill' pages which, admittedly, I created, but they illustrate my point. I was thinking of 'shift' when I put the guild in parens but I agree that should be only as needed. --[[User:Farman|Farman]] 10:33, 4 May 2007 (CDT) |
|||
Revision as of 10:33, 4 May 2007
Infoboxes
In case I don't catch you on AIM before ye see, I added some css stuff for your info boxes! Take a look Template:Infobox--Naeya (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
Great job on the infoboxes!--Naeya (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
Forum Stuff
Hey, I see you copied one of the forum posts over to your sandbox. If you want to use the following page for stuff you think should be moved from Forum posts (Player or GM alike) feel free to utilize the page I just (recently) created: Forum_Posts_Of_Note Might save you a few steps, and will allow others to grab the info and put it up in your place if you're busy doing other things at the time --Callek 23:24, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
- Thanks Callek, that's a useful page. I definitely intend on converting the post into an article given the strength of its content, but I'll add it to the notable posts page too.
- No fair snooping in my sandboxes though ;) --Farman 19:06, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
Page Naming
I'm not so sure naming a page "Manipulate Ability (Empath)" is really needed. When naming pages I like to think of how (likely) will someone search for a page, "Manipulate" sounds much better, and if that is taken, surely you could name it "Manipulate ability" adding text in parenthesis like that usually dictates that the page-title is disambiguated and thus needs a context clue. In this case, I do not know of a Manipulate ability other than for Empaths. Might you be willing to move this (and the few similar) pages? --Callek 13:17, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
- I agree the (guild) part is unnecessary in most cases, but that 'ability' should remain. My own take on it is that an article title should be as brief but still precise as it can be; for common search terms that nonetheless are more vague, redirects can be used. "Manipulate", "Link", "Lead", "Roar", etc. are all still words on their own and the articles are about the ability not the word. IMO for consistency and clarity across the whole wiki, it is much better if article titles make it plain exactly what the article is about. Cf. the 'skill' pages which, admittedly, I created, but they illustrate my point. I was thinking of 'shift' when I put the guild in parens but I agree that should be only as needed. --Farman 10:33, 4 May 2007 (CDT)