Hi! Could you please move the page 'Wheelbarrow' to 'Wheelbarrow (Age of Empires II)'?
Because there is an Age of Mythology Wheelbarrow as well.
- I've moved the page now.Narve (talk) 15:36, May 25, 2016 (UTC)
Yesterday you changed my edit on the Indians. I think I am right and I want to explain why. At least I want to make clear that the article is not very understandable as it now is.
It is about the civ bonus of cheaper villagers. We first should agree that in the Forgotten that bonus was already present and needs to be listed. I think we should both agree to that.
Now if I read the page and look for the Forgotten civ. bonusses, How am I supposed to now that the bonus for the forgotten? Well, maybe it is in the 5% less after the change in AK. When I read that I thougt the 5% had to do with the number 10,15,20 and 25 who differ all by 5%. I do not think this is the best way of listing it. To my opinion one might think that the bonus does not exist in the Forgotten after reading the page. Maybe I am just not seeing something, but this arem my views about it.
Similar to other civs, like italians, if you have a bonus it should(to my opinion) be listed initially and the changes should be listed below. In case of the Indians you have to look at the changes in the forgotten and use that information to conclude there is a third bonus in the Forgotten. Please let me know how you think about it after giving it a second thought. Lord Vipertooth (talk) 06:35, May 31, 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I've reversed my change.Narve (talk) 16:35, May 31, 2016 (UTC)
Very good that we talk about it, because in fact, I am unsure there, either. To clarify: In the civilization bonus section (of units, also (!)) we should first list the initial version and then add the changes later on? Because I dealt with it differently so far.. I will work on the changes tabbers in the near future, anyway, so it would be great to have consensus there. Thanks for bringing it up!
- It might be a good idea to create a blog post or something to start a discussion on the subject.Narve (talk) 15:24, June 1, 2016 (UTC)
I've noticed a distinct lack of image categories on this wiki. There's a sizeable number of images, particularly in the form of icons, and yet none of them seem to be organized accordingly. Should this be done or should the matter be left alone? Kimarous (talk) 06:50, June 6, 2016 (UTC)
- I've been aware of that issue for some time, but haven't been sure whether we should do anything about it. I guess we could start organizing them.Narve (talk) 18:16, June 6, 2016 (UTC)
- I was thinking of at least starting with Age of Mythology images, organizing subcategories like "Myth Unit icons", "God power icons", "God portraits", and the like into a central "Age of Mythology images" category, which of course links to the central Images index. That at least seems like a reasonable and relatively easy place to start. Kimarous (talk) 19:21, June 6, 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Go for it.Narve (talk) 16:17, June 7, 2016 (UTC)
- On a slightly different but image related note: I apologize if this sounds like a stupid question (I'm treading lightly due to an unrelated but recent suspension elsewhere), but given the formatting of the Age of Mythology pages having small icons next to their links, is it worth going through older pages and applying said icons to other pages (for example, the overall *Period* Age pages)? Kimarous (talk) 23:00, June 6, 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know. Why don't you try it out on a page, and maybe we can try to get other people's feedback on it.Narve (talk) 16:17, June 7, 2016 (UTC)
So,Are you really from norway,I'm from bosnia
- Yes, I'm Norwegian.Narve (talk) 06:17, July 17, 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up the paragraph I added on the Shennong page. That fraction of a sentence that jumped next to the "stub" box really bugged me.