Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Trap"
From MHWiki
m (addendum) |
Kytti khat (talk | contribs) (dood srsly, what's more important people or machines?) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:Only a tiny fraction of players will actively use categories for navigation. I strongly question the usefulness of a category whose only purpose is to hold two (and only two) other categories, particularly when even the most novice user has been made aware from the moment s/he began playing the game that traps consist of bases and weapons. This is just bloat. And at the ''very'' least it should be plural, not singular, but restrictions in place on this wiki prevent category moves and so the cat should be deleted regardless. --<span style="border:2px ridge #aaf;background-color:#fff;padding:1px 8px;font:normal 10px Verdana,sans-serif;margin-left:-8px;">[[User:Brossow|<span style="color:#358;">B.Rossow</span>]] · [[User_talk:Brossow|<span style="color:#35d;">talk</span>]]</span> 13:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC) | :Only a tiny fraction of players will actively use categories for navigation. I strongly question the usefulness of a category whose only purpose is to hold two (and only two) other categories, particularly when even the most novice user has been made aware from the moment s/he began playing the game that traps consist of bases and weapons. This is just bloat. And at the ''very'' least it should be plural, not singular, but restrictions in place on this wiki prevent category moves and so the cat should be deleted regardless. --<span style="border:2px ridge #aaf;background-color:#fff;padding:1px 8px;font:normal 10px Verdana,sans-serif;margin-left:-8px;">[[User:Brossow|<span style="color:#358;">B.Rossow</span>]] · [[User_talk:Brossow|<span style="color:#35d;">talk</span>]]</span> 13:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::You are assuming the bit about "only a tiny fraction of players." In reality there might be readers that are quite familiar with wiki usage and navigation and as such might be inclined to navigate via categories. Additionally not everyone reading this wiki is necessarily a player, some might be contemplating playing. As for the bloat the cost of storage these days is dramatically small, and the amount of CPU time involved for the times that the data is retrieved from storage is negligible at best. The amount of network bandwidth is strictly driven by the number of persons enquiring. So before assuming that it is "bloat" consider all the factors involved first. <!-- Why is it that so many people are more concerned about the technology and efficiency of computers when today's machines are incredibly fast, and moreover why be more concerned about something trivial in the tech world compared to the more important thing, that being the END USER, sheesh --> Moreover, why make things more difficult for those with styles of browsing than you assume to be "normal" or "common?" {{user:kytti_khat/sig}} 01:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 01:48, 3 November 2009
considering that Bases and Weapons individually are only half of a Trap, this new category is useful for users navigating via Categories. ~kytti khat– 06:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Only a tiny fraction of players will actively use categories for navigation. I strongly question the usefulness of a category whose only purpose is to hold two (and only two) other categories, particularly when even the most novice user has been made aware from the moment s/he began playing the game that traps consist of bases and weapons. This is just bloat. And at the very least it should be plural, not singular, but restrictions in place on this wiki prevent category moves and so the cat should be deleted regardless. --B.Rossow · talk 13:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- You are assuming the bit about "only a tiny fraction of players." In reality there might be readers that are quite familiar with wiki usage and navigation and as such might be inclined to navigate via categories. Additionally not everyone reading this wiki is necessarily a player, some might be contemplating playing. As for the bloat the cost of storage these days is dramatically small, and the amount of CPU time involved for the times that the data is retrieved from storage is negligible at best. The amount of network bandwidth is strictly driven by the number of persons enquiring. So before assuming that it is "bloat" consider all the factors involved first. Moreover, why make things more difficult for those with styles of browsing than you assume to be "normal" or "common?" ~kytti khat– 01:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
