Board Thread:Wiki discussions and announcements/@comment-1990160-20140521040036/@comment-1330314-20140523134207

Shaw Fujikawa wrote: ...

Thank you. Everyone here needs to read this post. I tried to address some of the points in post #2, but this one summarizes things perfectly and clearly, so hopefully this time people will acknowledge these arguments.

TehAnonymous wrote: Numerical vote-counting is never the deciding factor. What would be the point of a discussion, then?

Actually, Deshiba was the first to propose a vote:

Deshiba wrote: It's about time we tally the votes or something...

Which I don't agree with:

Willbachbakal wrote: I personally don't think decisions that hinge on an intellectual, and therefore logically resolvable, conflict should be decided on a popular vote, but if it is your wish and the wish of others I gladly defer to you. :P

TehAnonymous wrote: You are framing the proposed resolution inaccurately, in stating the gold efficiency analysis would in some way be "hiding information from viewers", when in no way would consolidation stop it from being "freely available and easily accessible to readers".

What I am opposed to is shifting content to a place on the wiki where readers wouldn't immediately think to look and that would be less practical for the purposes of the information, when there is a much clearer and more visible way of presenting that same information. That is what I mean by hiding information from viewers. Trying to rearrange data in such a way that it is needlessly difficult to access is a form of obfuscation, which completely contradicts the central tenets of any wiki.

TehAnonymous wrote: Additionally, you bring up concerns about having a single "bloated" page. This would hardly be any better than your suggested distributed bloating, with disclaimers reproduced over dozens of pages in addition to the individual sections.

If it were up to me, there would be no disclaimers at all. Even so, in nearly every case the cost analysis of an article is as big as, if not smaller than, its indicated recipe. Keeping it on the pages does not bloat them at all, and if you truly wanted to solve the problem of bloating you would be proposing to add the sections in the form of a collapsible template, as with the "additional info" sections on a champion's ability page.

Your proposal to smoosh everything on the same page also contradicts previous decisions to remove content from secondary sources to avoid tedious re-edits and reduce bloating, as with the armor page. User:ProtonZero's reason for removing the table there was: "Anyone seeking the information it used to have can find it just as easily at the primary source, without editors having to constantly update this section as a secondary source." I understand that you wish to turn the gold efficiency page into the primary source itself, but that is also fundamentally wrong, considering gold value is a property inherent to items, and should therefore be on the items' page first and on the gold efficiency page second.

TehAnonymous wrote: The comparison to a hypothetical shared champion page is not nearly the same, given that item details are much less compared to champion-related content. It would be far more analogous to pages featuring large tables like List of champions or List of runes, which are admittedly still large, but are hardly comparable to a monstrosity consolidating all champion-related pages.

And yet the cost analysis for any article takes at least five lines, which is tiny in terms of a single article, but absolutely massive when you realize that there are 178 items (not counting the removed ones) here. If you think the list of champions or runes would be large, a centralized gold efficiency page would be several times the size of both lists put together. That is what I mean by bloated.