Difference between revisions of "Talk:Records of BattleMaster"
(wiped old/irrelevant comments + my opinion on recent debate)
|Line 114:||Line 114:|
-[[User:Revan|Revan]] April 27, 2006 22:59 (CEST)
-[[User:Revan|Revan]] April 27, 2006 22:59 (CEST)
Revision as of 23:11, 27 April 2006
I have removed the player records.
One, fame and gold are already listed in-game and that is much better because it's always current.
Two, I do not want any contests around medals. All you're doing is tickling the idiots to find any dirty trick imaginable to get more medals, and that runs contrary to their purpose.
--Tom 10 February 2006 12:15 (CET)
- Here, Here! - Revan
What exactly is the "Most Poisoned" record supposed to be? - LilWolf 18 February 2006 14:00 (CET)
- "Sir Blah Blah was captured and taken into custody after being seen hanging around the camp of Sir Joe Bloggs with a poison dagger under his cloak"
- Well, it's something to that effect anyway. So just a strange way of saying, most Assassinated troopleader I guess?
- Revan February 19, 2006 20:24 (CET)
- In fact this record could do with being renamed most Assaulted or most assissinated or something. But it isn't very measurable. - Revan April 27, 2006 22:59 (CEST)
What are the odds of the two largest battles in known history have the exact same total CS? I found that pretty amusing :D Marouane
- Yeah it was, especailly since i had two of my Chars in the battle and both of them on the winning side. Thats gives a nice record for my family :D ScottSabin 7 March 2006 13:47 (CET)
Is this having a victory every turn, or victory streak? I know my current Talerium unit hasn't been in a losing battle, well, ever, which may be like 20 battles.
But if it's winning turn after turn after turn, then I guess it's different. Malitia 8 March 2006 10:20 (CET)
Hmm, I made that catagory with the though of Turn after turn, as that is currently what I am doing, but I think it might be better changed to over a long term, in which case you should update it... Centauri 8 March 2006 11:43 (CET)
Frogs?? "Biggest Monster unit seen: About 5000 Frogs (About 6000 CS) seen in Enweil, Beluaterra. 2004. --Eldar Family 24 April 2006"
Yes, a group of 5000 frogs was around Lopa, they fought some militia and their experience went up, skyrocketing their CS to about 8000. They made their way west and we engaged them in Clejorg and defeated them by killing the Frog King. --Neoro
There is a problem with guilds, saying that there is 10 guilds on EC? I KNOW thats wrong because I am in at least two which are not listed on the wiki, and know of 1 more that definitely exists, albeit only in one realm so far. This should be fixed, or removed. --The1exile 25 April 2006 16:13 (CEST)
- My vote is for removed actually, unless someone can find a concrete way of finding out the actual numbers - the wiki page for guilds is in no way an accurate reflection of the actual number (I can name at least 6 FEI guilds that don't appear there for instance)--Roy 25 April 2006 17:38 (CEST)
- Well, you're right, that some of the guilds even like to stay as unknown, so we would never know about them, because it wouldn't be publicly shown. Since i am the one who created this Records, i decide to erase the records of "Most Guilds in a Continent/Realm". The other two may stay, since it's not a problem if those unknown don't want to be recognized.... Does the same happen to Religions? Well i wouldn't think so as the main goal of religions is to get famous and known so to spread their faith, so i don't think they want to keep everything secret... - Shoenaemaeh 25 April 2006 23:52 (CEST)
- Okay, what is a "shrine"? I was under the impression that that was just another word for a small temple. Is it something else?
Doc's only older than gregor by a few days. I'm pretty sure that they're the two oldest, and double checking the next closest to those two is Gollum (alexander) who is as of writing 49 (three years younger). Next player ID is Eric, James B., and TK all top out at 40 (12 years younger). Might want to throw gregor in too? Loren 26 April 2006 04:20 (CEST)
- Are those characters also the literally (in terms of creation) oldest too? With each character's individual actions affecting how he physically ages, it is possible that the oldest character in the game could actually have been created after someone elses...so who's been around the longest? --Roy 26 April 2006 13:36 (CEST)
- Well i would say you should post the age of the character and also the date of the character-creation if possible. This way we can get to know who's older. But someone could have started with 17 years and another one with 20 and today they have the same age (40, for example), which means that theoretically the one who started with 17 years is older. Let's post both things: the current game-age and the date of creation. Plus, i don't think there's so much people in tie, right? Or maybe i should make another different record to distinguish the case given...? Suggestions?
I deleted the Temple Size element in religion records. If we want the largest temple sizes, too, it should be a seperate record, as I'm making right now.mAlexTurner 26 April 2006 21:23 (CEST)
- Post also the sizes of the temples. In case of tie in the number of temples, the record lies in that religion with the most-sized temples. Before erasing anything, please post comments in the talk-list: that's why it exists. - Shoenaemaeh 26 April 2006 23:41 (CEST)
So if there is no tie size doesnt matter? Alex 26 April 2006 23:47 (CEST)
I don't think posting size is a good idea. The record is "Most Temples" not "Most Temples, filtered by temple size, with those having the largest size being prefered over those with the smaller combined number of temple levels." Records should be as straitforward as possible. AlexTurner 27 April 2006 01:10 (CEST)
So, what do you have against putting more information in the records?? The tie will stay as "tie" if there are two different religions with the same number of temples, even if one has only small temples and the other one has nearly reached the maximum levels in all temples. But i think it gives more info to know also the sizes of the temples, because this way you can check quantity and quality... I don't think this causes problems to anybody. - Shoenaemaeh 27 April 2006 13:30 (CEST)
- I just think records should be straitforward. I don't think temple size is unworthy of a record (I made a 'largest temple' record) but it seems to me like temple size is irrelevent to number of temples. Every other good record on that page is in the format:
<Name of Record>: <number + location or person> AlexTurner 27 April 2006 22:38 (CEST)
In my opinion, it breaks the flow of the page to have a record formated:
<Name of Record>: <number + location or person> <different numbers/numbers/numbers/numbers> AlexTurner 27 April 2006 22:38 (CEST)
Furthermore, it further breaks the flow when the <different numbers> are not directly related to the <Name of Record> (number doesn't have anything to do with size). I suppose we must dissagree; does anyone other than me or Shoenaemaeh have comments? AlexTurner 27 April 2006 22:38 (CEST)
Warning against Edits
The admonisment against people editing anything but the records is more or less contrary to the spirit of a wiki. Discussing important changes is good and all, but not required, and not always the best way to get a page to its 'best-case' state. AlexTurner 27 April 2006 01:07 (CEST)
No, just erasing what you find on other's pages without consulting it's editor goes against the wiki spirit. I created this page to collect records and i also accept it's not a perfect one, so i will gladly accept your comments in the talk page (here). But erasing just what you feel isn't right, is not precesely the good way to do things. For example: Some days ago i stated the records of guilds and religions. I created also the records of "most guilds in a realm" and "most guilds in a continent". As you can see in this same page a bit over this, i was told how unaccurate the number of guild was, since some of them don't want to get known and therefore its existance isn't known for us. That argument convinced me and as you can see the record has been erased. I just ask of you to do the same before deleting anything. It won't be a big effort, will it? - Shoenaemaeh 27 April 2006 13:30 (CEST)
Ah, I understand what you're saying. Because you created the page, you have appointed yourself as the editor of it? That's not how wikis work. Provided it isn't vandalism, no user has to get permission to edit a public page, nobody has to consult you before editing a page, nobody has to convince you of anything. From right below the "Save Page" button:
- "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here."
On a public page like this one, you are just another member of the community. You can edit, revert, and comment the same as anyone else, but so can, well, anyone else. It's considered bad form to edit personal pages that arn't yours, but community pages are editable by everyone. If you want a Records page that you're the editor of, move this one to User:Shoenaemaeh/Records of BattleMaster and I'll fork it to make a page for the actual community. AlexTurner 27 April 2006 19:54 (CEST)
As i can see, your desire is not to improve the page, but to prove your ideas don't need to be discussed for this page. So if we accept this as a public page, you should also think to discuss publicly your ideas, instead of erasing the parts you don't like.... I mean, you can always add things, but to erase what other people have written (of course, i'm not referring to overwrite records, which is obviously the goal...) is really against the wiki-spirit. Talk pages were made in part to discuss and comment things before deleting them. See, if you add, you don't disturb anybody, but deleting you're just overwriting an idea (leaving it blank). I'm just defending a posted idea which you erase and you're defending your right to delete whatever you feel isn't good... Who's against the wiki-spirit? - Shoenaemaeh 27 April 2006 20:59 (CEST)
- "I'm just defending a posted idea which you erase and you're defending your right to delete whatever you feel isn't good..."
This is not about deleting vs. adding, this is about you declaring yourself the editor and putting a big ALL CAPS warning telling users what can and can't be changed. I'm saying you can't do that; you have no more right to edit the page than anyone else. But let's go with your topic for a second.
- "As i can see, your desire is not to improve the page, but to prove your ideas don't need to be discussed for this page."
False dicatomy. My desire is to improve the page, and to show you that ideas don't intrisically need to be disussed on this page. Unless there is significant dispute, there's no reason to discuss every change (addition or deletion), or run them by you. If there is a significant dispute (as there may be in the Temple size topic), then the Talk Page comes into play, (as it has in that case).
- "I mean, you can always add things, but to erase what other people have written ... is really against the wiki-spirit."
Why? I disagree; deleting the parts you don't like is exactly half of editing.
- "I'm just defending a posted idea which you erase and you're defending your right to delete whatever you feel isn't good... Who's against the wiki-spirit?"
Neither of us? Both Person A posting an idea and Person B deleting what he thinks isn't good are doing exactly what they should be doing.
My writing must be unclear. I'm not saying that disputes shouldn't be discussed. I'm saying you can't tell people what they can and cannot edit, and can't appoint yourself as the editor of the page. Instead, if someone makes an edit you don't like, you should do one of two things. Either revert it and bring it to the talk page (like you did with the Temple issue) or bring it to the talk page first (as I've done here). AlexTurner 27 April 2006 22:23 (CEST)
A Simple Solution?
I'm with Alex on this one. It is pointless to stop people editing anything but new records. I know you created the page Shoenaemaeh but the nature of the page has turned it into a community effort, clearly. And a very popular one too, you should be proud! But it is not for you to control, or indeed Alex or anyone. The wiki is a community effort afterall. Hence why we have a simple solution. It's like this:
- You let people add their own categories onto this page and edit it the way they like, but:
- Discuss any bad changes in the talk page. It's what it's here for! Not to debate putting something in an article, but to debate whether to change or remove something from it. Then once you get a consensus from one side or another, act on it.
-Revan April 27, 2006 22:59 (CEST)
An Editor's Opinion
A wiki is a collaborative work. No one has absolute control over the wiki. If you think you can improve something, edit it. It is impolite to edit someone's family page, but a general page like this is a group effort. In fact there are quite a lot of contributors. You should be proud. Of course, if you disagree with someone's changes, feel free to edit the page. If you believe the changes are entirely without merit, you can revert them. Just try to avoid a revert war.
I have removed the warning against editing from this page. I also did a little rewriting of the intro. If you don't like something I changed feel free to edit it. But please don't put large "don't touch" signs up on the wiki. If you honestly think that a page needs to be uneditable, you can ask Me, Tom or another editor to "Protect" it. But you must have a good reason.
--Nicholas April 27, 2006 23:11 (CEST)