Talk: Equipment

Page Split[]

Ok, what is going on here? Why has the Equipments page been split off with 'non lethal' items being shoved off into a separate page? --Mysteana 16:52, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Well Basique? --Tyroney 23:28, July 23, 2010 (UTC) (I just left a message on his talk page)

Same answer here, because it made organizational sense to separate the weapons and non-lethal equipment. --Basique 23:34, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

(warning- off the cuff) What organizational sense? It shortened the weapons page by a small fraction, and split up the equippable items info somewhat arbitrarily, (what about the armors on the weapon page?) and basically makes things a bit less useful for a player who comes here looking for info on something they can equip. In my opinion. --Tyroney 23:43, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree. I don't like the split. There's no real reason to exclude the tools that are in the current "Equipment" page from the other equipment. If you want to separate items that deal damage from ones that don't, that can be accomplished by simply changing the highlight color for the link.

However, if you think a separation or indication of some sort is necessary, I feel that a more appropriate separation would be weapons from support items, although what exactly a "support" item would be is a bit vague. The x33 Damage Amplifier, the Medic specific equipment, and the Ammo Satchel would be support items, but would Sentry Guns count? ChaoSpectre 00:05, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

It seems the main problem with the split is defining what goes into each category, if we can work that out, we could reach a compromise. However, I still think a page with every piece of equipment/weapons on it would be useful to vistors of this wiki. --Erthilo 02:24, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

I agree moving all the support items to Equipment makes the most sense. That's how it was initially before I separated them into non-combat items. And I think it would also be the easiest change. --Basique 02:30, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

The simplest, most intuitive way to categorise things on the uppermost level is, IMO: the exact same way the game does it. Thus, "Equipment" should include everything that is selectable for that slot in the briefing screen. Within the page, they can then be separated into "Offensive" (things that do direct damage), "Defensive" (traps, sentry guns, and things that reduce damage), and "Utility" (everything else) sections. But putting the offensive-use "Equipment" in the Weapon page(s) is counter-intuitive (I can't choose Freeze Grenades for my secondary weapon, after all), and may even serve to be misleading or confusing.--PaxArcana 04:29, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this line of reasoning. --Mysteana 04:50, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Done and done. All Secondary items are now listed under Equipment, infoboxes and categories have also been updated. --Basique 04:50, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Equipment is now a sub-category of weapons. --Basique 11:52, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Split Secondary Catergory[]

Split up the secondary scatergory into Active/Deployable/Passive/Special

It goes like this:

Active - Must push a button to activate it
Deployable - After activation something is created seperate from the player
Passive - Requires no action
Special - Cannot be equipped normally in loadout

From a suggestion by Chkui900. --Erthilo 10:42, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

weapon template[]

OK! The weaponframe template has been beaten into shape. let's move some discussion to its talk page

IAF prefix[]

Should the equipment require the IAF prefix? It interferes with the alphabetizing. --Sin2501 18:52, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

I say we drop it.--Tyroney 19:02, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

I started moving, but only got through a few before I was throttled. Manually creating new for stubs. --Tyroney 20:16, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of prefixes - what about all the various weapons/items with model numbers and manufacturers at the beginning of their names? Would removing those be going to far? (like the autogun under special weapons class)--Tyroney 23:24, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

I'd say remove the prefixes for the purposes of the listing just to make scanning for things quicker and easier. However IMHO, the full name looks 'proper' in context of the detailed page. --Mysteana 11:55, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

You could set up redirect pages for ease-of-linking purposes, so just Autogun redirects to S23A SynTek Autogun. It seemed better to give the 'full' names as people can be very, very literal and stupid sometimes when told to look things up. Also, as a wiki, we should try and be as 'accurate' as possible - use the terms used in-game over short-hand and slang.--Arcalane 12:21, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Thankfully, moving pages automatically sets up a redirect page, so there should be no problems in having a 'slang-word' page link, but a proper full named title. --Erthilo 15:59, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to use the original terminology at all times. And if IAF is what it is called in game then that's what it should be called in the wiki. --Basique 17:10, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, however, many people use the short hand names, without the prefixes infront, so on this page, we should list them as such and create redirects to that effect. Each articles own page though, can be it's full proper name. That should please both parties. --Erthilo 02:22, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

New links[]

in the list of active passive etc... they should link to a page spacific ex: click active and it takes to a page of all the equipment combined together. this will make it better and add more pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.45.39 (talk • contribs)