Difference between revisions of "Talk:Zoom level"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Fyzixfighter (talk | contribs) (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)