Most weapon page have a "Mechanics" section. They link to a sub page. 95% of them are not written, and even if they were, I doubt anybody would really take the time to read them.
I would like to propose that we inline the section into the article. The point of the section would be to discuss the weapon part that actually gives the effect, as well as part stats, in a pure "Matter of Fact" writing. For example:
What does the community think of such a proposal/approach? If we can agree on it, I don't plan to change the entire wiki, But I'd rewrite 1 weapon per day. I have a lot to say about each weapon, and understanding part mechanics really provides better understanding on the weapons.Happypal 08:10, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
The original reason behind listing the specific effects in a subpage is that some weapons may have long descriptions and detailed stats which may clutter the main article. On another note, I would also suggest a comparison between, e.g. the Destroyer's barrel5 unique and the standard combat rifle barrel5.08:28, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
I like the page, however, you would have to include a link to define the specific mechanics of the gun (the parts and such). The general mechanics are nice on the page :) I think Nagy is in charge of the mechanics of the Main pages and he is a busy guy (especially dealing with me :p). The specific mechanics of the gun define whether it is legit or not. Anything you would have to add to mechanics would be entirely welcome (at least by me). Know that if you choose this path, you just may have to change the entire Wiki LOL, since it has been neglected. The Anarchy/Mechanics is a good example of decent, but incomplete, data. The best thing that you MIGHT do is just add content to the mechanics section for each gun. If it is given in a form that is first for casuals, then for specifics, it would go a long way to what you want :) 08:31, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I changed it a little, for the comparison with barrel5 to be more visible, yet still keep the essential data. I understand the original reason to keep the effect on a subpage, but to be honest, what else is there to put on the main page anyways? I did notice the Anarchy Mechanics page, Its good, and I also think it should be inlined (and discussed in much greater depth). Happypal 08:50, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
To me the other parts should be listed... here is what I propose: General descriptions of specific guns, then all the notes and maybe strategy on the Main page. A link to the mechanics which would give the BEST gun of that type (pic) first, so peeps can compare. Then a list of the BEST legit stats of the gun. Then MAYBE a sub page of discussions. I'm tired and that is all i can think of at the present. Will check you later when others have added thier input :) VERY NICE idea of adding content to otherwise dead end pages :D 09:06, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
in point of fact the mechanics pages were a concession to a threatened overhaul of the wiki lead by L3VIATH4N and a surgical strike team of crack wiki editors from THE GBX forums. levi lost interest after we pointed out that part_5 is not everyone's idea of the bestest best part and moved on to EVEonline. the assault squad never left jimmy's basement because his mom caught him smoking and said he could only have friends over and may not leave their prop'ty for 2 years.
i would rather see this:
as that is how we set this up. with the added bonus of not just copy/pasting from duncanfogg, xanderchaos & jack schitt et al.16:53, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
I see. I'm still relatively new, so any background info on the wiki's history is welcome. Just to be clear, I don't want to discuss things like "Best Parts" or "Best Construct", but simply have the pages state what parts the gun get their effect from, and what stats they give. Maliwan Hellfire/Mechanics looks pretty good to me (though info like "Must spawn on Maliwan + Must Spawn on Maliwan Materia" is pretty redundunt, IMO). And again, I don't see why Maliwan Hellfire/Mechanics can't be merged into Maliwan Hellfire. The current Hellfire page is frighteningly empty. I wouldn't want to fight the community though.Happypal 16:55, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
I took a look at the Hellfire page and I don't like it at all. Above all, articles should be clean, and not cluttered or overstuffed with information. Having all the numbers and percentages right there on the front page don't allow for that. Besides, any person who is truly interested in the mechanics of the gun would not mind clicking one more link to get to what they were looking for. I think the mechanics pages should stay as a sub-page to the gun itself. If happypal wants information on the page about where the gun draws it's special effects from, that's fine. But instead of a big ugly table, it should just be under "notes" with a bulletpoint next to it, like the Patton page. 17:14, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
^ the pages were separated to prevent lengthy discussions over what is this and why cant i see it in the game. articles are to be based on info available prima facie. mechanics is for people who want to get into the game more deeply. this is not for everyone so they are separated to satisfy both parties. anyone willing to fill out the mechanics pages (correctly) will be awarded a space for their name/sig on the bounty board of sorrow.17:35, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
- which of you deleted my appeal? 17:19, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
- The Evil Dr. F's Note - it was happypal :(
- Sorry, I was in a rush and I botched the merge. Happypal 19:15, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
IMO, the "we'd be inundated with questions/forum pages" is not a valid argument. The point of a wiki is to provide as much information as possible. The question is not "at what point do we stop giving the information", but "how do we serve and structure this info". I understand (and appreciate) the points raised here. Still, I find it ridiculous that:
- Pages without a single paragraph of text that have subpages.
- Systematically linking to a (potentially non-existant) page, when there is virtually nothing to say about the mechanics of the gun.
I could be wrong, but wouldn't this be a per-page decision thing? We start with the inline, and if the info becomes too big, we move to the subpage? I think the fact that each and every page has a link to a subpage dilutes the information. I don't even check to see if the mechanics page exist anymore, I just assume it doesn't. If on the other hand, I see some info on the page, and then a link called "Further details on mechanics", I'd actually click it.
PS: I agree that the info should probably be served at the bottom of the page, after a review in the body of the article. Happypal 19:15, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
^ That. Adding 3. Pages without a single paragraph of text that have non-existant subpages. (redundant as the pages are) You are extremely correct about the per page thing. 19:33, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
i will say this one last time for the cheap seats and then sit out this discussion and await you cats to advise me of the final verdict. mechanics were not posted on the articles because that information is misleading to the average user of this wiki. that is why there are still the useless statistics in the infobox. range of statistics has naught to do with anything but that is what the average user wants to know:do i (the user) want to keep this or sell/trade it? what if anything does it do? having to put more than five minutes thought into this decision not in the realm of possibility with regards to a player getting on to the next mission. </rant> lemme know how it is decided. happypoint 1. articles are trimmed by the "regulars" to this size. happypoint 2. i ran a bounty board mission to add all legendary mechanics links to pages in response to the aforementioned threat. 2Ayes i realize it was never supported as promised by levi & crew. 2Bi implemented this plan on the understanding that The Evil Dr. F would not be doing all the work. SO, that said, keep in mind that what you decide is not going to be half done nor done half assed period (full stop) 22:08, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
I think we should keep the details of the mechanics to a separate page, most people dont care about what each special part does...That was the reason why I suggested adding the specific parts to the item card. People may want to know what part the special effect comes from, but to go into the details it's too much06:19, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
Per-legendary-weapon mechanics pages might be more comprehensible if there were pages on elementary weapon mechanics for them to reference. I can find no such elementary parts.mech on the wikia (other than the Accuracy page which is very very good IMO). Might be a good place for me to pitch in, try to add some value. Daemmerung 19:10, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
I can understand users not wanting to spend 5 minutes to know if a gun is good, but sometimes you have to. I have excel spreadsheets and scatterplots to keep track and compare my guns.
Another alternative we might want to look into (as mentioned by Daemmerung), would be having more mechanics page. I'm not sure where to start, but I think the following pages are mandatory if we want anybody to understand anything about anything:
Our current Accuracy page is good, especially for users that don't want to go into massive details, but more info can be given, especially in regards to how parts affect these stats. Happypal 11:02, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
After reading all the reactions from the community, here is what I am going to. I'm going to go ahead an be bold, and add more mechanics information into the weapon pages, like for the Hyperion Destroyer. I'm going to try my best to keep it short and to the point, and at the bottom of the page. For weapons where I feel the info is too long, I will move the info to a sub /mechanics page. Finally, as I go along, if I realize a page like "Rifle Barrels" is required, I will create it.I do not plan to do everything in 1 day. On the contrary, I want to do a single weapon at a time, to create quality pages. I will not go to every page and do minor edits, for the sake of normalization. Most of all, I will try to add content to pages that don't have any (and there are a lot). My work will not be half-assed, botched, aborted after 1 week.We'll see if it works out at first, and maybe change approach if it doesn't workout of course. Here's to making the wiki all that it can be. Happypal 11:02, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
- Jumped on for a few seconds and I have to say "applause". Or, at least, ITS ABOUT TIME (not to you personally) that someone did something :) 13:13, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
Nice work on the Mechanics, very informative. However I still believe that stuff should be saved for a separate mechanics page..07:38, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
are we sure we need to compare non legendary parts on each page? i had thought part of the plan was to expand accessory. 14:18, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, yes. You can't know if a part is good or not without comparing it to something. That said, part of the plan is indeed to expand accessory. I don't know if and when I'll ever do it though. Happypal 15:25, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and second Happy's idea. The few pages he's "Happy-fied" are working out quite well. The special parts do need to be compared to their normal counterparts, especially considering that one part makes the gun what it is. 15:33, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
"I don't know if and when I'll ever do it though".please dont say that. as a sysop you must know how damaging a half done overhaul can be? 20:24, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
I realize what I said, but borderlands IS a big ass wiki, and I won't be able to edit each and every page all by myself. I'll keep working as best as I can, and I appreciate NOhara's and your support in participating in re-editing the pages I've edited. I wish there was a bit more community support though, or just plain more initiative from the users all around. There are very few editors left that are actually still editing mainspace articles. If every user took some time to go all out on a single page, or section, , a complete rewrite, once per day, I'm sure we could achieve greatness. Happypal 08:01, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
to date i have been studiously avoiding the mechanics debate as i (and, i believe, most other wiki users) have little interest in what does what to what. it's important to me that a gun does what it's supposed to do: fill fools full of hot (flaming / electrified / etc.) lead. that said, i do have a vested interest in making the wiki a fun and accessible place for all users. perhaps my opinion, as one who not only does not care what a part does, and therefore cannot make sense of "part5.barrel.blah.blah.blah," may be of value in keeping the wiki articles fun and accessible.
therefore i humbly submit the following:
- remove the "special part(s)" line from the item card. a casual reader may find this line confusing. wiki convention typically dictates that technical jargon belongs at the bottom of the page, e.g. the "mechanics" section.
- if the Destroyer mechanics section acts as a template for future edits i would suggest the following clarifications:
- define the Destroyer "effect." the present wording makes it sound as if the Destroyer actually does something and it would do well to define what that something is.
- use italics to separate the weapons parts code from the rest of the text. to a layman (non-mechanic) the sequence of periods and quotation marks are difficult to differentiate from the rest of the text.
- trim extraneous wording. let the table speak for itself.
- italicize the differences in-table. (see "proposed format" table)
The Destructor effect comes from it's barrel, titled "barrel5_Hyperion_Destroyer". Apart from the special effect, it is mostly the same as a standard "gd_weap_combat_rifle"."Barrel.barrel5." Differences are an extra +3% damage, +5 tech, and an increased zoom (FOV -50%).
The Destructor effect (what is the "destructor effect?") comes from it's barrel, titled "barrel5_Hyperion_Destroyer".
Not that my opinion matters much, as I have never put a lot of real meat and potatoes into this wiki (though I love it all the same), but I have never felt like the mechanics should be on the weapon pages themselves, in all the times it was attempted. Examples are on the talk page, why not put the mechanics along with them, and also have a proper place to espouse opinions on best part combos to boot?
This isn't to say that I don't think the new pages look good, I just think there's more there than really needs to be. It feels somewhat cluttered, and I'm not sure how useful the casual B-Lander will find it anyway. No personal offense meant to anyone. 03:06, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
Mechanics should be on the weapon pages, because it is factual information that highlights the strengths and weaknesses of a particular weapon, and pretty much makes it what it is. I 100% agree that talks about best part combos and constructs should be on the talk page. But my personal opinion is pretty adamant that the part that makes a weapon what it is should be on the main page... At the bottom... So that people that don't care can stop reading.
For the weapon boxes, I really don't care if or if not there is a "specific part".
To fryguy: I agree that we can still explore possibilities. I don't think the Destroyer is my best piece of work, and there are still kinks to work out in the phrasing. Indeed, what is a Destroyer effect. I also think these are minor points, and things like "templatized format", as noble as it is, is getting in the way of actual article content. I (IMO) dislike your proposed format, as I think text should always complement a table (and vice versa), but I'm fine either way.
Also, you say you want to keep the articles fun and useful to all users. Removing the mechanics section is not going to make the rest of the article any funner. And you'll notice that every article I have touched, I have added a paragraph to describe the gun in a fashion that anybody can understand and appreciate (And I believe that even if you don't like the mechanics section, the overall article is better).
You claim you have no interest in what part does what, yet you also state that "it's important to me that a gun does what it's supposed to do". How do you even know "what it's supposed to do" without a mechanics section? How do you the Crux better than a normal Corrosive shotgun? Is it your original research? The amount of time you've spent on the talk page? Why not just write it black on white in the article section?
PS: Mechanics are fact, and not an opinion, so they do belong on a wiki. Users can make their own opinion based on facts, if they so desire. Happypal 08:01, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
Well, just because it's factual doesn't mean it belongs on the weapon's page, and it seems like a few people agree with that. There was already a dedicated link for anyone that was actually interested. Illustrating what makes a weapon what it is, such as defining the difference between a regular corrosive shotgun and the plague, is as easy as stating the effect under the existing "Special weapon effects" section and simply noting that the effect is derived from whatever part is pertinent; In the Maliwan Crux case it would be as simple as saying "Corrosive x3-4. This affect is derived from the accessory." The exhaustive mechanics just look like gibberish to someone who's just trying to learn what the gun actually does, or not really a gearhead, and it's a bit messy looking and out of place on what were fairly streamlined and efficient weapons pages. Really, the issue ought to be held to a community vote, as most other semi-major format changes are. 18:32, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
please do not misunderstand my stance on this matter, happypal.
a) at no point have i ever recommended removing the mechanics section. in fact...
b) i have always been a staunch defender of "mechanics," regardless of my actual interest in them. this dates back to the days of the "wiki overhaul" threatened by L3VI and his ilk. my only disagreement was with his technique, not the proposal itself. this stance is evidenced mainly by heated steam / xfire vox debates with fellow admins, rather than official wiki posts. (in fact, just last night during one such debate i maintained, as you did above, that "mechanics" belongs at the bottom of the article.) see also
I have not been following this for a while, since, I have been endeavoring to give conceptual, accurate information to peeps that want a custom signature. I think Fry is the most correct and the fact that you proposed doing it one page at a time is the best, since, applying half ass format across several pages is undesirable, at best. When I get the time, I will follow your contributions to see what you have done. I truly wish I had more knowledge about such things to help you. Adding my thanks. 08:11, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
I honestly understand your (legitimate) concern of a half assed overhaul, which I do not believe you should worry about, since all the pages I have edited are (more or less) "complete". If I ever do stop at half the pages (Besides, I can't do them all by myself: I know next to nothing about pistols), none of the pages will be left "broken".
As I've already said, I don't want to fight the community, my main goal is just bringing in-depth content to the pages, and I simply don't see how that's possible without a discussion of the parts that make up the gun. Happypal 09:17, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
Whether I'm part of the community would prolly depend on who you talk to LOL. I only was refering to what Fry said and that a format should be done and applied one page at a time. I did check one page you did and it definately adds information that I, myself, got content out of :). I do not think that anyone here (I hope) expects you to do it all yourself. There are plenty that could help you, this I know. I only wish I could. One minor thing: It is more conceptual to put barrel-5 instead of barrel5 :) I also propose a general mechanics page that can be linked on every mechanics section that gives general information on what mechanics actually are. This would keep down on possible questions and would help people. 09:46, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
- No. The gun codes say barrel5 so it shall be stated as barrel5. How is your proposed barrel-5 "more conceptual? Conceptual? Conceptual of what? 09:53, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
- (You confused me for a second there because the word "conceptual" does not make any sense in the context.) To "viewers who know nothing of code", there is no difference between barrel5 and barrel-5 because it is all gibberish anyway - I don't see how adding a hyphen makes things any clearer if it was not already clear enough; to viewers who know something, they will be surprised that the wiki has wrong notation for parts. 10:02, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
It's just that I, personally, know nothing of the code of the gun so I had to read it twice to understand what it meant. As I said, it's minor. The best thing would be to give a page explaining in general terms what the mechanics are/mean. That way, new viewers can dig deeper :) 10:07, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
- I do not memorise statistics and am bad with lengthy but unbiased descriptions. I am preparing for a rather long army stint and I don't want to start something I can't follow up on. I will check happypal's revisions and edit where necessary, but I think it best to have people who can see it through for a longer period of time than two weeks, as I'll be gone by then. 11:33, February 19, 2011 (UTC)