Talk:Everlasting Boreal Tonic

I just saw one of these with a bugged under construction icon, but the guy had a blue hat, :) --Lemming 14:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A new under construction icon? yay! xD —ZerphaThe Improver 15:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It is the same blue as the tonic, so I think it may just have been a colour glitch. --Lemming 15:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverts on both this and Boreal Tonic

I believe it's obvious that there is some discussion needed on both of these pages regarding the inclusion of the form image. I don't believe it is necessary because it is linked on the form page through the infobox, but I would like to see some discussion before any more reverts occur.-- Wyn 07:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe placing the image on the main page of the norn tonic (both pages) will produce less problems in serching the apearce of a tonic. The link in the Info box is for normal and fast information gathering a bit hidden (see counter stats ~4500/~3000). There is also the question why should the image be placed on the Form page. Maybe the hole tonic pages should be reworked. If you compare all Main Tonic Pages with their own "form" page you see the counter says "Main">"Form". I think the in game appearance of a tonic is an essential information and should be found directly by clicking the first most important item (in this case the main page).--Tamil 07:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I might point out that the form images do not appear on ANY of the other tonic pages. So for consistency, doing without it here is better.-- Wyn 08:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes if we look in the other Tonic pages we see no images of the forms (except: Transmogrifier Tonic, Frosty Tonic) but i already pointed out that we could rewirte those pages beacause of the visit rate. I think people click on the link Everlasting Boreal Tonic (Beetle Juice Tonic etc.) to see the images of the form. You can call these links Main links because of the visit rate. The links to the Norn Form etc. are a kind of sub links and contain less import information like duration. Duration of the forms are all the same, the apearence of the forms are different. Hope i can figure out what i mean ;). So what we need to do is put those images on the pages with a higher visit rate. --Tamil 10:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The visit rate is not an accurate measure of page popularity so it shouldn't be used to justify how information is organised. This page is more visible simply because this is the name that players usually see and remember compared to the skill effect name. But in any case, I also think it should be fine to just put it in anyway, but it must be on a smaller scale, so as not to overly lengthen the page and make that big patch of empty space like on this article. In this article, the focus is on the item, so the form image is secondary. The large form image should only be on the form page, since that is where the form is the focus. -- ab.er.rant 10:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes the visit rate is no clear fact how to build up the information but trust me if we would put something like a vote on the page and ask "What have you searched for by visiting this page" people would click on the option "to see the image of the form". Every month people come to the new apearence of the new tonic and they dont get them becacuse they dont look in (see Everlasting Phantasmal Tonic (12.634) > Rift Warden Form (3.005)) . I agree that the biggest problem of the current page is that people dont like the space between the text and the image. I dont like it too but when I visit this page at the beginnin of the month to see the an image of the new Tonic I would click on Everlasting Boreal Tonic and not on Norn Form. Both pages have the potential to include an image of the form.--Tamil 11:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You are making generalizations based on your personal opinion. I am hoping to get Backsword involved in this discussion since it seems to also be something he is working on (the standardization of tonic/form pages) as part of an ongoing wiki project. As I've indicated, I don't think the image is necessary, but I also don't want to see you two reverting each other back and forth, thus the discussion to find a consensus. I say we leave it for a few days to see what everyone has to say. -- Wyn 11:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I think it is unneeded I also don't see the harm, however it needs vastly scaled down as its leaving alot of dead space on the page which looks fugly IMHO. -- Salome 11:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As Wynthyst said, you are making sweeping generalisations of user behavior based on your own behavior. Not everyone who visits that page came from searching the wiki or from the main page. I think many came from the in-game help link and because it's more obvious to remember the item name than the form name. That's what I meant about this page being more visible than the form page. Feel free to put up a vote on some forum. While I have already agreed that having an image there is harmless, arguing with a "trust me" point is not a very convincing point. -- ab.er.rant 11:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Im managing my own site with over 20k Members for over 3 years and think i got a bit experience in how to offer information, how to do that in an comfortable way and how the mainstream of Users act. Thats what I wanted to say with "turst me" ;)... Fact is the main goal of a tonic is to transform the apearence of a Player so we need an image to transport this information. A wiki is a well of information where you should become your information fast and so its logical that we place the ("Main information") image on the most visited place where its best to find. Theres no problem in resizing the image or placing it on both sites and a little gap wont destroy the whole experience ;). Ill wait now for Backswords opinion he undo'ed the page of me and other authors back.--Tamil 12:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are using an argument of 'trust me' in a community that also has years of experience in presenting data to HUNDREDS of thousands of people, AFTER coming to consensus of how that data should be presented. It's really not a convincing argument. -- Wyn 17:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That was so predictable... If ya both just focus on my summery of why i used "tr** m*" because you feel your self offenced in the greatnes of this wiki. That was not my intention, i never said that my idea is the right way and the only way because of my expirence. I told you the "facts" and that were my "arguments". Pleas read my text again and dont focus just on one sentence. --Tamil 06:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Wyn. Honestly your "experience" isn't of any importance to anyone but yourself and "trust me" is never a convincing argument to stand on. -- Salome 22:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far Salome, but on the wiki we discuss our different ideas and approaches, and everyone's voice carries equal weight. There are reasons other than number of views why some information is placed where it is. It makes the overall organization of information better. First an foremost is consistency, to make users comfortable in searching and finding information, all like pages are done the same way. -- Wyn 23:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you trying to be diplomatic by focusing on the content issue, Wyn. But it was never really about the article, and this is keeping that active. Better to let it die.

As for the article, do what you think best. Backsword 12:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was something a bit too trivial to argue about. Tamil, I think the wording of your "my experience" and "trust me" sentences just came across as a little too assertive. No one is saying that you're wrong and no one is saying that we're better than you. It was just an unexpected way to respond to people who have basically agreed with you on your changes. So we just got off on the wrong foot here, and as Backsword said, let's just forget about it. -- ab.er.rant 04:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)