Talk:Panel System

Bro01 - "I'm sane... most of the time!." TALK - "Prepare to get your ass kissed... KICKED, I meant kicked!" this is probably highly inaccurate, since i know nothing about the panel system, but i felt that it need an article. Please add more info!

Bro01 - "I'm sane... most of the time!." TALK - "Prepare to get your ass kissed... KICKED, I meant kicked!" Thanx to whoever added this info, it is good but we still need more.

Link Zones?

is there any point in specifying the different sizes and configuration of panel link zones (e.g. "LV Doubler ⑤, LV Doubler ⑥ (four configurations)", "Phantom Gear ④, Phantom Gear+ ④, Phantom Gear++ ⑤")? they should all be listed, if at all, on the individual pages (LV Doubler, Phantom Gear, etc.) and not here, where it's just confusing (same goes for the Gear page). (there also shouldn't be links to pages for each version of a panel) --Neumannz 18:58, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

1. Any official term that appears in the games should be searchable here. There is no guarantee that every reader of this wiki is a KH expert (in fact, it's very unlikely).
2. Those two articles are not summaries, they are lists. Of every gear. For example, what if someone for some reason wants to know how many different types of panels there are? (Maybe they are trying to see if they have the same count in their game) Truncating the list because of similar entries would screw them up, and it's a less elegant solution to say "Just go to every page linked here and see if there are multiple versions listed".
3. Finally, this list especially should use the actual names, not the general names. The specific articles collect information on multiple, related objects with similar names, which is why they don't need the (3) or + in the title - however, this is a list of the actual objects themselves, not a list of related articles.Glorious CHAOS! 22:28, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

alright, i can accept that. aside from that, relying on the redirections is unnecessary (and why are you going out of your way?) when there aren't individual articles. why have a link Aeroga when Aeroga is more correct? etc. having redirection is good and we should have those, but i don't understand deliberately putting them in the article. (sorry if i'm sounding rude here) --Neumannz 22:40, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

Well, it makes for cleaner code, and in general, editors shouldn't have to remember what page information is filed under unless they are using an unofficial descriptor for it (for example, linking to Marluxia with "the pink-haired one"). It just makes it easier and cleaner in general.Glorious CHAOS! 00:12, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

well, i guess i can't complain about it now that i'm doing that for the "recipe" panels... --Neumannz 00:17, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

Grouping?

Should we group all of the material panels into one page instead of all these seperate ones?

Most of the material types are legacies of synthesis items from previous games, and since a lot of info can be done for each material type, it would probably be best to continue in the manner we've been doing.Glorious CHAOS! 00:13, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

I meant with materials like iron and moonstone. Serendipitous

I get what you mean, but since 50% of the material types in Days trace back to things from earlier games, and those already have separate articles (Mithril, Orichalcum, etc.), it will be easier to just have separate articles for each.Glorious CHAOS! 01:53, October 15, 2009 (UTC)