Talk:People
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Immortals/Temples:
- FYI, I posted in the followings that I had temples for... most of them are from 2x or early 3x. I don't have most of the modern era temples - no offense is intended. Cordir
- Am wondering if there's a better way to organize this page... any suggestions? Cordir
- Do we need to list FLIs at the top of the page and also in the following table? It adds length, but no real additional information. Tynian 11:10, 20 January 2011 (MST)
- I agree, but I'm also not sure that a followings list is appropriate for the "people" page. Moving the followings list to its own page would perhaps satisfy both issues? Tambalor
- Sounds good. I'll do that. Tambalor, great addition to the page, btw. Those sortable tables are cool! Cordir 09:09, 16 March 2011 (MDT)
Retired Players
- In regards to the Retired folks... I've been including titles, just for the spiffy factor, but as we add more Retired folks, I also don't want it to get overwhelming. At some point, should we strip out titles and just have the name? or should it be broken off onto its own page? Your thoughts? Cordir 14:39, 1 April 2011 (MDT)
- In my opinion it should be just name only, titles and possibly even full names could be added on the detail page. --Natilena 15:39, 1 April 2011 (MDT)
Entry Requirements
- Hi Cordir - What do you think of implementing some sort of entry requirements for the "People" page? Rath 24 April, 2011.
- I'm going to copy this over to the Discussion for the People page so we can get more feedback. As for my opinion: I'll be honest, I don't much like the idea. Here's why: Who is to say who is important and who isn't? If we say, 'only level 40s' ... well, I would never have made it as a mortal. Nor would Nyx. Or Pez. Or Typhon. Or a large number of other really awesome, notable, historical folks. I think if someone wants to put in the work to create a page, then no matter who the subject is, then great! Cordir 14:01, 24 April 2011 (MDT)
- I guess I was hoping that the People page would be a "Who's Who" page. I've heard people question why certain players are on there; I'm not bringing this up because I care, but because I'm using it to point out -other- people do see the People page that way. Currently, it seems more like an index to PC pages. If that's the intention, that's great. I think it would be cool to start a "Who's Who" page otherwise. Re: your question - that has been the burden of the historian since the dawn of mankind =) Rath
- True, that. I've removed the '(in)famous individuals' tag from the page to help calm folks down. We've got a discussion going on a Category for Legendary players (which you know, you're already taking part). Hopefully that addresses both concerns? Cordir 09:45, 26 April 2011 (MDT)
- I guess I was hoping that the People page would be a "Who's Who" page. I've heard people question why certain players are on there; I'm not bringing this up because I care, but because I'm using it to point out -other- people do see the People page that way. Currently, it seems more like an index to PC pages. If that's the intention, that's great. I think it would be cool to start a "Who's Who" page otherwise. Re: your question - that has been the burden of the historian since the dawn of mankind =) Rath
- I'm going to copy this over to the Discussion for the People page so we can get more feedback. As for my opinion: I'll be honest, I don't much like the idea. Here's why: Who is to say who is important and who isn't? If we say, 'only level 40s' ... well, I would never have made it as a mortal. Nor would Nyx. Or Pez. Or Typhon. Or a large number of other really awesome, notable, historical folks. I think if someone wants to put in the work to create a page, then no matter who the subject is, then great! Cordir 14:01, 24 April 2011 (MDT)