I'm going to have to appeal this.
Fixed a few of the layout issues, including some support for more exotic multi-mode weapons like the LASR, fixed some links, and broadened the sections to reduce the sizes in each of the bullet points.It's really not that much more complex than the current template..
Personally, I don't think this is 'too specific' at all, especially since most of the added info can be summed up in a couple of words. I'm not sure if its 'easier' than the old template, but at least its more logical and doesn't repeat itself with some information. As a submitter, I'd be perfectly fine adding more info to my gun if people wanted it. As a player, this only increases some readability with the more pertinent RP information (DR, number of rounds, etc) up towards the top. If anything, I think the table that lists the operation modes is worth the new template in and of itself. If submitter usability is a concern, maybe make some of the added details optional or just say that they can be a few words. Example: Sighting System - Iron sights, 4x optical scope. Boom, done.
The main issue is that it REQUIRES more. I went in and checked what was optional versus required between the old template and this one. The old Template requires 4 less fields, with 7 additional ones being entirely optional. This one requires more with only 3 fields being optional.Personally, I don't think this is 'too specific' at all, especially since most of the added info can be summed up in a couple of words. I'm not sure if its 'easier' than the old template, but at least its more logical and doesn't repeat itself with some information. As a submitter, I'd be perfectly fine adding more info to my gun if people wanted it. As a player, this only increases some readability with the more pertinent RP information (DR, number of rounds, etc) up towards the top. If anything, I think the table that lists the operation modes is worth the new template in and of itself. If submitter usability is a concern, maybe make some of the added details optional or just say that they can be a few words. Example: Sighting System - Iron sights, 4x optical scope. Boom, done.
I think I've made it clear, repeatedly in the NTSE board, that weapon articles shouldn't reference 'Damage Rating'. Rather, it should be expressed as its 'purpose', as weapon articles listed purposes such as "anti-starship" in the past.
This submission does not fulfill this; in fact it seems to want to go out of its way to list DR as an entry of its own. Therefore, I can't endorse this at this point in time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?