Whoa, stop right there. The wiki is intended to be just that - a wiki, not a database. When Kiddy made changes to the Shield page on RI, they must have gone under the radar because to be honest that's just way too much like a database. If people want information on equipment and items, they can go and check doddler's database.
This isn't decisive, but I'd really recommend not making pages like these on a wiki. --Deviattor 05:18, 17 October 2007 (MDT)
- Obligatory question is: Why? The only particular reason I've heard is to avoid duplication of work. If that is the reason, then I must ask why duplication of work is a bad thing if it makes the wiki and the data it contains more useful. Hadas 06:39, 17 October 2007 (MDT)
- Wiki software is not designed to handle large volumes of similar data, as a purpose-built database is. Whenever there is an update, for example, someone would have to go through and manually edit EACH item that was impacted by it, which is very time consuming in a wiki. There is also no way to compare items before and after updates, as there is only one "live" database verion. These, as well as other shortcomings (lack of search tools being a major one) make a wiki "database" inferior to those such as doddler's or even (sorry to say) ROE's. --Resplendent 12:50, 17 October 2007 (MDT)
- I don't think anyone is saying we should have a database on the wiki. Obviously, though, a clarification is needed on the matter of what is "database content" and what is acceptable for the wiki. I don't think the right balance is just to have a list of items (as is the case on some pages), but having individual pages for each item is also unwise. I would say that the situation that exists on Shields is possibly the right balance; a quick reference of what kinds of items are out there, but not enough information to actually achieve the database level of verbosity. Hadas 17:18, 17 October 2007 (MDT)