Difference between revisions of "Talk:Zoom level"

From Ultronomicon
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(agreement)
 
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
:I agree. This term does not appear anywhere in the canon (usually my criterion for inclusion) and is more cruft than anything else. Some of the information could (emphasis on ''could'' - not ''should'') be merged to a some kind of "XXX Mechanics" page, though what kind of mechanics page is beyond me (Navigation maybe?), but still seems a little crufty. The only things of value (IMO) are the comments in the last two sentences correlating the edge of entry with SIS orientation, which again could go into a "Nav Mech" page (though I'm not advocating the creation of such of page). --[[User:Fyzixfighter|Fyzixfighter]] 05:55, 2 June 2007 (CEST)
 
:I agree. This term does not appear anywhere in the canon (usually my criterion for inclusion) and is more cruft than anything else. Some of the information could (emphasis on ''could'' - not ''should'') be merged to a some kind of "XXX Mechanics" page, though what kind of mechanics page is beyond me (Navigation maybe?), but still seems a little crufty. The only things of value (IMO) are the comments in the last two sentences correlating the edge of entry with SIS orientation, which again could go into a "Nav Mech" page (though I'm not advocating the creation of such of page). --[[User:Fyzixfighter|Fyzixfighter]] 05:55, 2 June 2007 (CEST)
 +
 +
::Having a complete "Game mechanics" category is nice. Merging is necessary, however - at least after we have enough material, of course. [[User:Valaggar|Valaggar]] 19:28, 3 June 2007 (CEST)

Latest revision as of 17:28, 3 June 2007

Isn't this getting a little ridiculous?

In my opinion, a criteria for inclusion in the Ultronomicon should be whether the contents might actually be of some value to the reader. This one fails miserably. I propose to delete. — SvdB 02:04, 2 June 2007 (CEST)

I agree. This term does not appear anywhere in the canon (usually my criterion for inclusion) and is more cruft than anything else. Some of the information could (emphasis on could - not should) be merged to a some kind of "XXX Mechanics" page, though what kind of mechanics page is beyond me (Navigation maybe?), but still seems a little crufty. The only things of value (IMO) are the comments in the last two sentences correlating the edge of entry with SIS orientation, which again could go into a "Nav Mech" page (though I'm not advocating the creation of such of page). --Fyzixfighter 05:55, 2 June 2007 (CEST)
Having a complete "Game mechanics" category is nice. Merging is necessary, however - at least after we have enough material, of course. Valaggar 19:28, 3 June 2007 (CEST)