Forum:POLL: Spell article's merging policy

Topic[edit]

There has started a lot of work lately to order the articles about the different spells in the games. There has been talks about infoboxes, here and here, and about its naming scheme and categorization here.

However, some differences have arised regarding when to merge spells for different games into the same article, for easier sorting. Right now, we have all spells for U4-U7P2 merged into one article when equivalent spells are found. This logic is made easier as the magic system for all this game (with the possible exception of U4) is pretty similar, both in structure and in function.

However, questions have arised regarding similar spells from games with different magic systems, namely U1, U2, U3 and U9 (and perhaps UW and UW2). As Wikis are composed of a community of editors, I guess the best way to decide what to do is to vote for different options on how to arrange this, adding arguments in favor or against the choices. And after enough time has been given, go with the majority. Therefore, I'm opening this poll (and hoping that enough contributors will participate in it in order to reach a consensus.

I'll present the choices I see so far; but if anyone else has another choice besides the ones I'll list, feel free to post them and we can add them too.

Choices[edit]

Add your name as in a line below the "Votes:" line of the choice you prefer:

Merge everything equivalent into one article[edit]

This means putting everything that is somewhat equivalent in the same article. This means, for example, merging the U1 Kill spell, with U7's Death Bolt, and U9's equivalent (if any). Any differences will be explained in the article.

Votes:

I'm a merger. Dungy 18:15, 7 March 2011 (PST)

Me.--polygoncount (Polygon Dragon -==(UDIC)==-) 15:56, 6 March 2011 (PST)

This way makes the most sense to me. Salicias 20:05, 6 March 2011 (PST)

I'll go with this option.--Sega381 04:21, 7 March 2011 (PST)

Throwing my hat into this ring as well. --Terilem 06:39, 7 March 2011 (PST)

If all of the spell names are redirected properly, and the infobox has the correct info for each game, this is definitely the way to go! --Browncoat Jayson 14:09, 11 March 2011 (PST)

Separate by magic system[edit]

This means merging spells from similar magic systems into one article, but separate articles when the magic system is different. This is roughly how it is now, with one article for spells from U1-3, another for U4-U7P2, another for UW-UW2, and another for U9.

Votes:

I'm for this.--Tribun 15:54, 6 March 2011 (PST)

I'm a curmudgeonly pedant who studies magical cosmology as a hobby. Count me for this option.--Blu3vib3 00:51, 7 March 2011 (PST)

Separate all spells[edit]

This means creating one different article for each spell in each game. Therefore, we would have, for the Kill spell or equivalent, as many articles as games have it in them.

Votes:

I fail to see what's wrong w/sparse articles, which this option would clearly produce, but I do see a problem w/mergers. The Ultra-Mind 21:08, 8 March 2011 (PST)

Arguments[edit]

You may only vote above, or vote and add your arguments here.--Sega381 15:22, 6 March 2011 (PST)

For my "merge similar" vote: If I'm playing U1 and want more info on its Kill spell, I'm going to search by name and get sent right to the "Death Bolt" page, where I'll get a lot of info I don't need before figuring out I'm not on the right page. If the two pages were to to be merged, all the other pertinent info will be right there. The magic system almost doesn't matter, but if I needed to know more about U1's magic system, I'd go to that page from there (which is a link that should be easy to reach from each spell page as well, IMHO) --polygoncount (Polygon Dragon -==(UDIC)==-) 16:01, 6 March 2011 (PST)

I'm still not 100% sure, but I think I'll go this way, too. I think it's the clearer way, and if we're already merging spells, there is no good reason not to merge the rest. The only reason I can think against that, is that somehow the differences between the spells betwen games have to somehow be clearly stated on the article. Otherwise, a reader may get confused when this effect or the other doesn't apply to a particular game. And I think the magic system pages and the categories can be enough to sort the spells by magic system or game.--Sega381 04:24, 7 March 2011 (PST)

Sega381 and I have discussed something interesting:

Hey, I just thought about what if it is indeed decided to merge articles. I think it would be a bad idea to mish-mash everything into one big mess, as people who only want information on one or the other subject would be annoyed at having to read through that mess. What if instead, the whole Sosarian spell article is put seperately below the britannian spell, thus having both in one article but still clearly seperated. Having redirects to jump down there then would be easy. Also that would save us considerable headaches.--Tribun 05:09, 7 March 2011 (PST)

That could be a very good idea, and goes somewhat along the lines of what Fenyx once suggested. Why don't you move this over to the forum poll page? It will probably be seen more over there, and we can continue the discussion over there.--Sega381 05:12, 7 March 2011 (PST)

What do you think of it?--Tribun 05:22, 7 March 2011 (PST)

No objections here. Sounds like a good compromise to me. --Terilem 06:42, 7 March 2011 (PST)

Yeah, if the majority decides to merge similar spells together, having the Sosarian versions separate within the article makes sense. --polygoncount (Polygon Dragon -==(UDIC)==-) 10:19, 7 March 2011 (PST)

Fenyx objected to the Separate all spells idea because it would create a lot of sparse articles. But if it was explained why that was bad, I missed it. It's simple, it delivers only the information solicited, it makes a bit more work for us, but is that so bad? The Ultra-Mind 13:42, 7 March 2011 (PST)

I personally feel like having a bunch of sparse articles for spells that do virtually the same thing is total overkill, especially when more than a few of them have the exact same name. --polygoncount (Polygon Dragon -==(UDIC)==-) 16:07, 7 March 2011 (PST)

I feel that it is more useful to have information about a spell in the same article. It is interesting to see the differences between the games, its evolution, and what remained constant. It is a lot simpler to have them in separate articles, but I think something would be lost in that case.--Sega381 18:05, 7 March 2011 (PST)

What people said above. Lots of sparse articles would duplicate information across many pages and make it hard to compare the difference between the games. It would also make it more difficult for people to find the exact version of the spell they want even with everything linking to eachother (and at that point 50% of most spells' pages would be links).

I fall somewhere between merging everything and separating by magic system. In the example for resurrection that Ultra-Mind linked to above I felt that the U3 versions should be separate (you can sort of see it here when I was experimenting with spell infoboxes) but for something like Cure and Alcort I'd probably leave them in the same article. So, yeah, my vote would be "Try to merge everything except where it doesn't work". Probably doesn't help much. hehe -- Fenyx4 08:03, 8 March 2011 (PST)

Fenyx -- THAT SPELL INFOBOX LOOKS SWEET! All of our existing ones look totally clunky, but that one ups the ante. --polygoncount (Polygon Dragon -==(UDIC)==-) 10:29, 8 March 2011 (PST)

Yes, I didn't know that template existed... I in fact liked the Spell Wrapper template concept, which I find much better than the current "secondary" attribute I created. The style, if we like it, can easily be added to the current template.--Sega381 12:11, 8 March 2011 (PST)

When I try to look at this from a reader's perspective, I don't see myself being so interested in a spell as to want to see its siblings. I also would think that the reader would know full well which spell is the subject, since the article need only mention the game.

Also, I see a problem w/the merger. When we merge spells, what do we call the article? This might seem a trifle, but think about it: the name is the most important part of the article and I predict confusion. As a matter of fact, I believe it was the name of a spell article that inspired me to bring up the issue of an info box. The Ultra-Mind 21:05, 8 March 2011 (PST)

I think we're just going to have to disagree on this. I look at it coming from the same direction and come to the opposite conclusion. Say we've merged the spells. I'm coming the wiki to look for "Alcort" (a.k.a. Cure in Ultima III). Say that I don't remember it's esoteric name so I search for Cure. Bam I'm on the page with cure information. Look at the infobox or it's subsection and there's the info I need to cast it. If I remember Alcort and search for that then I get redirected to the Cure page and once again there is the info.

With it being separate I search for Cure. Wait I'm on (random Ultima's Cure page) which doesn't have the information I'm looking for. Click to go to Disambiguation page. Ah here's a list. Click on the cure spell I actually want. Ah, here's the information I wanted only had to load three pages to get it.

Call it by it's clearest and/or most used name. Redirects for the rest.

RE: My infobox. Merf, sorry, I didn't mean to step on anyone's work. I was really happy to see that people created the Spell Infobox. And currently my Sandbox version doesn't even look like how I intended it as the grey borders and background were added by accident due to stuff that happened in the move. It's supposed to look like the NPC infoboxes and like the current Spell Infobox looks. >_< -- Fenyx4 22:53, 8 March 2011 (PST)

Ultra-Mind: about the article's name thing, there is already a discussion over Forum:Spell article's name and categorization. Anyone that feels like contributing there, please do so.

And besides Fenyx arguments, I simply cannot find it logical to create an article called "Cure (U4)" with contents "Cures poison". Then "Cure (U5)" with "Cures poison". Then "Cure (U6)" with... "Cures poison". For tons of the spells, except for the infobox, the article contents will be exactly the same. That somehow seems wrong. I agree that merging presents several challenges, such as the article's name, how to present information when the spells are different, etc. And separate articles is by far the simplest solution. But I can't see it as the best one.--Sega381 05:02, 9 March 2011 (PST)

Results[edit]

In order to start wrapping this up, it seems that the following consensus has been reached:

• Most of the people have voted to merger all equivalent spells into one article, regardless of the different magic system underlying the spell. That is, spells that are basically equivalent in function are to be in the same article, even if they are cast in different ways, or have ifferent requirements.
• It has been suggested to use sections inside the articles to separate the spells that belong to different magic systems, in order to explain more easily the differences in how they are cast, or minor differences in their results.
• It has been suggested that, if some spell is similar but not quite the same as other, to leave it in a separate article, in order not to force spells to be merged with others which are not really the same.

I think this sums up the poll. Does anyone has anything else to add?--Sega381 13:23, 12 March 2011 (PST)

It's clear enough. Now, before anything is done I think we need a list of the spells in question, so that we can discuss if it's to merge or not.--Tribun 13:35, 12 March 2011 (PST)

I have created a new forum here Forum:What spells to merge, and how in order to continue the dicussion on what and how to merge, now that we have reached a consensus.--Sega381 12:38, 15 March 2011 (PDT)