Talk:Commemorative Weapon

Delete ?

Why delete? Waar Kijk Je Naar 10:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, this whole page is reproduced on the Grahame (Commemorative Weapons) page. --RoyHarmon 11:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This should link to the category, not to a page. Hence, delete. Lillium 20:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete and make links go to grahame. The Emmisary 20:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the delete. Grahme is the NPC; this is a list of the weapons he offers. The category simply lists the names, but doesn't compare attributes or display skins. I believe this page should remain and be setup so that Grahme's list is a transclusion of this one.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to the page creator, i vote to delete, you should have follow the "format" of Amulets of the Mist. Please look at Amulets_of_the_mists, it has a list of the collectors, like the Medal_of_Honor page and subsequent link to the collectors with the list of weapons you can get from them ... Pumpkin pie

I see no reason to delete. Leroi 16:37 EST 11 July, 2010

Likewise. A reference to Commemorative Weapons should link to a page on Commemorative Weapons.Sjhshh 02:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Commemorative_weapons and the NPC page essentially makes this page useless. I agree with the delete. 02:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Consistency. Every other "_____ Weapon" page points to its category. --JonTheMon 02:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and not outright deletion, just change to a redirect. --JonTheMon 02:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do we point to the category instead of the list? I get that we want things to be consistent, but why is this the right consistent thing to be done?

• A category is essentially an ambiguous redirect (the reader has to follow another link and has to figure out which one)
• an article would have all weapons in one place, arranged suitably for comparison (plus the same followable links).
• Why are weapons different from other items?
  • Sweet doesn't point to category:sweets,
  • Focus item doesn't point to category:focus items, and
  • Trophy doesn't point to category:trophies.

Before we follow tradition here, wouldn't this be a good opportunity to discuss why the category redirect is better? Thanks  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 05:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Because this is a specific categorization of weapons. I'm guessing that one reason that you want a table of all the weapons is that they have set stats. But that's already covered at Grahame. And the only difference here (as opposed to, say, Droknar's weapons) is that they all come from the same-named NPC. --JonTheMon 13:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"Because this is a specific categorization of weapons." Yes, just as Sweet is a specific categorization of Consumable. The difference is that there are waaaay more weapon types (and subtypes) than consumable types or subtypes. I haven't changed my mind about the Grahame article: great that he has a lot of weapon data, but his article is still an NPC page, not a weapon article.

What I'm looking for is to make things easier for two types of readers: new-to-GW/Wiki/topic and people researching cool-skinned or easily-obtained weapons with specific stats. I think we currently force both groups to jump around more than necessary. By pointing searches/links to actual weapons articles (instead of categories), I don't think we make things harder for anyone else.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see how making an article for this would help those people like you're thinking. If you're looking for a weapon with a certain stat, wouldn't you go to somewhere like List of monk unique items or something like that? And Grahame has weapon data because that's part of his dialogue, so why make a redundant list elsewhere? Yes if this points to the cat there is another click required, but you can go to Grahame to see a summary of all of them, or to an individual article to see that weapon's stats and the picture, or to the gallery to see all the pictures. Those are all available from the cat. --JonTheMon 20:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why it's a problem to have a Comm Weap article (and similar other weapons articles). Sure, it's going to transclude similar information (as Graeme's article already does). I understand that the benefit isn't obvious to some, but others of us find category pages unhelpful and prefer to see the weapon-type information collated onto one page.

In other words: keeping the article cost: 0 + benefit to some % of ppl vs redirect to category cost: detriment to some ppl + no direct benefit.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not of no direct benefit since over-information can lead to confusion/not finding what you want in the time it should take. 20:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that this is a duplication of Grahame (Commemorative Weapons)/Collector I don't see a need to keep it in it's current form. I agree that this should redirect to the category, where there is a prominent link to the NPC page that contains the details. All of these HAVE been added to the Unique Weapons lists. -- Wyn talk 08:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)