Board Thread:Wiki discussions and announcements/@comment-1990160-20140521040036/@comment-4091261-20140523031059

Let me answer your questions.

Q. Does it not bother you that some stats are inaccurate? A. Yes. Of course it does. That's why I suggest something. Why don't we fix it? As VVinrar stated himself in a blog that is a prime source of support apparently.

"What can we do to improve the problems encountered by item efficiency?  The solution is not to abandon it, but to integrate it into your research."

Q. Doesn't having SOME inaccurate stats impact the integrity and reliability of the entire system/article/whachamacallit? A. No. ._. Everyone might have thousands of reasons of why it's is a problem. Though it's everyone's job to realize, that it is precisely everyone that is responsible for the information placed on this wiki. Anyone can put information in, what are people just going to blame the moderators? Do people not realize there is the common man who suggested said changes that people are arguing about today? People like to argue all the time, especially when everyone has freedom. The main problem of Democracy is getting things done. Because there is so much veto power, so many opinions, so many things, that the best option seems to be letting it go. I don't believe in that philosophy at all. Hate that movie Frozen... But I digress. We are a wikia, not an encyclopedia. People know that we won't always be reliable, so having these unreliable stats are just another thing to add onto the nagging pile. So I'll explain what we should do with the next answer.

Q. Is it worth keeping on a main space article despite being incomplete? A. Yes. Actually, it is perfect. Things can't get worse than it already is. So when we do fix these problems, the world of LoL wikia readers will see, and they will know, that we are diligent. We are working on our problems. And most importantly, we are succeeding. If we do fail, we can at least say we tried instead of hiding from the crowd and trying to fix it by ourselves. Because maybe, just maybe. There will be that one person out there, that isn't in the group of people actively trying to fix it, that finds the solution to the ongoing problems of our scrutiny. And even if this person doesn't, it will give different perspective to how to solve the problem.

Q. Would it be better off to be limited to the Gold Efficiency article? A. I'm trying to save you guys stress. Removing this will give so much stress. I know exactly what's going to happen. The people who whined about the Gold Efficiency problems will shut up, but the populous of Gold Efficiency fanatics will rave and rage. That is not the fearsome part though, the silent majority will ruse from this change, this removal of something they took for granted... And they will rebel... Oh I'm sure, they will rebel.

Lol, I know it sounds kind of exaggerated. But it really isn't if you think about it. It is still going to be there, but i'm sure that in the process of placing it on the new page, there will be some lost information. That lost information will be the subject of complaints, and in that all the information will have to be put on one page. It'll sure as hell be hard to read. Maybe in a couple months there will be another big notification saying "Bringing it back: Gold Efficiency." But yeah, my big argument revolves around the fact that information will be either lost, or difficult to decipher. A plus side for keeping it on the pages would be showing people that someone out there is actually actively trying to fix this problem people are complaining about.

And about that calculation. Hehe... Hahaha! I knew there was something wrong! That calculation seemed too simple. I'm sure someone else thought of it before me. xD I never said this would be easy. I only said that it was possible. I'm sure we will figure out our armor and magic problem. Did you find a problem from the movement speed calculation though? I'm curious to know.