Forum:Should retired items be split from current?: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:50, 12 January 2010

Forums: Index →

→ Forum:Should retired items be split from current?

Was just looking through the Category:Retired, and noticed a lot of stuff you can still obtain in there, maybe it would be less confusing to people if they were split. --Immortalbob 18:34, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, can't the items that have new icons, stats and/or artwork have a 'older version' category or something maybe? --Tiger1986 18:51, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that they should be moved to Item Name (Retired) --Immortalbob 19:29, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

I think that would work well. The multiitem pages have been awkward to construct in a consistent manner. I'll make a crosslink template for tying related pages together. --Tlosk talk contr 20:13, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe just link to the old/new version in the notes? --Immortalbob 20:26, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

The {{Intro}} template can now display links to multiple retired versions as well as a link to the current version.

For example Acid Axe and Acid Axe (Retired).

--Tlosk talk contr 18:04, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

I see that a lot of progress has been made on this subject. But I am a bit confused on why some things are counted as retired versions. For example, the scint gem. All that changed was the icon art, and I believe that this change effected all scint gems that existed, meaning there are no scint gems with the old icon. I would consider this an update to be listed under notes, rather than a totally different version of the item.

I may be wrong on the case of scint gems (not sure, never had any back then) but I know for a fact that all pyreals and mhoire coins had their icons retroactively changed, and we only have a single entry for each item, with the old icon displayed under notes. Likewise, if there was a typo in an item's description or a change in any of its stats that changed all in existence, we wouldn't list the old version as retired, we'd simply list the changes under notes. Icons seem to be getting a special treatment that isn't needed IMO.

So to sum up, I feel that an item should only receive a retired version article if that older version was allowed to continue to exist, like the Diamond Shield. A Mana Stone on the other hand simply had its icon and stats updated, and not a second version created, so those older stats and art should be listed under notes. --An Adventurer 15:50, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 --{{User:Tlosk/Sig}} 18:04, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
+}}
+{{Post
+ | Indent = ::
+ | Text = I see that a lot of progress has been made on this subject. But I am a bit confused on why some things are counted as retired versions. For example, the scint gem. All that changed was the icon art, and I ''believe'' that this change effected all scint gems that existed, meaning there are no scint gems with the old icon. I would consider this an update to be listed under notes, rather than a totally different version of the item.
+I may be wrong on the case of scint gems (not sure, never had any back then) but I know for a fact that all pyreals and mhoire coins had their icons retroactively changed, and we only have a single entry for each item, with the old icon displayed under notes. Likewise, if there was  a typo in an item's description or a change in any of its stats that changed all in existence, we wouldn't list the old version as retired, we'd simply list the changes under notes. Icons seem to be getting a special treatment that isn't needed IMO.
+So to sum up, I feel that an item should only receive a retired version article if that older version was allowed to continue to exist, like the [[Diamond Shield]]. A [[Mana Stone]] on the other hand simply had its icon and stats updated, and not a second version created, so those older stats and art should be listed under notes. --[[User:An Adventurer|An Adventurer]] 15:50, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
 }}