Talk:Fame

Please put your speculations on the page Lemon Fame 2 This page should contain discussions about the Fame page itself, i.e. if anything on there is unclear, badly written, etc.

Change Notices

When reading the Fame page, check the history. If anything was changed after my last edit, it may or may not be true. The addition that was added to hero death details, for example, was false. The number of fame points has nothing to do with the size of the battle the hero dies in. --Tom 23:02, 21 November 2006 (CET)

Old Format

I think the old format is more readable, you can snatch the ideas of the article just in a fast glance, so why replaced it with more plain descriptions?

Since this version of MediaWiki seems like not supporting the reference function I decided to use a quite ugly way to mimic it. Not pretty but it does work. This should help organizing those minor details. -- Gsklee 23:33, 6 December 2006 (CET)

The Fame article now takes up more space than before length-wise, leaves a lot of white space to the right and the line breaks that strech only so far across the screen also don't look right. I think this new layout looks far worse than the original I'm afraid.

I also think those notes at the bottom are largely irrelevant anyway. For example: "[1] For being elected or appointed." That adds nothing to the page. It's common sense you're writing down there, pointing out the obvious. It's not worth saying. Likewise statements like "most of the details are unknown."' Why does this need to be said? This page is meant to be dealing with known information about fame. Not unknown. The Fame page isn't a walkthrough guide anyway. Just a point of reference for whether a fame point exists for that task...or not. - Revan

Don't look at me, those you are having problems with are exactly written by Tom. I just play with the format, the content is unchanged. -- Gsklee 00:01, 7 December 2006 (CET)

Format Rollback

I changed the format for a reason - the old list style was completely unreadable.

Yes, it's probably not perfect, and can be improved. But I'd rather have a total change discussed first, before it's done.

--Tom 07:49, 7 December 2006 (CET)