Difference between revisions of "File talk:UT3 StasisField Icon.png"

From Liandri Archives

Jump to: navigation, search

Latest revision as of 11:12, 1 January 2008

Should this be deleted or shall I upload the icons for the other three Nightshade deployables as well? --Wormbo 20:09, 31 December 2007 (EST)

IMHO the other icons would be nice, if every deployable would be described inside the Nightshade section. However they are described in deployables. Describing them again in the Nightshade section would be redundant and putting the icons into the deployables section would be a overkill of pictures, and the "real" pictures are more important. So my conclusion: the icons are not needed. --Awaw 09:55, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Another option is splitting the article. U2 and XMP are more or less the same game, but their deployables don't have much, if anything, to do with UT3's. If I remember correctly I was the one to start the article as it is now, but there wasn't nearly as much info in there then, so no use in creating 2 tiny stubs at that time. I'm sure someone could flesh out a bit the new, after splitting relatively small, U2/XMP article as well. Thinking about it, I think this is the way to go. The deployable icons could be added in a smaller size so they (or all images) wouldn't overpower the article. Also they could be added as images without the border and description, so they take less space, and are much less obtrusive. That's my two pence worth. Retodon8 12:12, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Retrieved from "https://liandri.beyondunreal.com/File_talk:UT3_StasisField_Icon.png?oldid=6946"

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Should this be deleted or shall I upload the icons for the other three [[Nightshade]] [[deployables]] as well? --[[User:Wormbo|Wormbo]] 20:09, 31 December 2007 (EST)
 :IMHO the other icons would be nice, if every deployable would be described inside the [[Nightshade]] section. However they are described in [[deployables]]. Describing them again in the Nightshade section would be redundant and putting the icons into the deployables section would be a overkill of pictures, and the "real" pictures are more important. So my conclusion: the icons are not needed. --[[User:Awaw|Awaw]] 09:55, 1 January 2008 (EST)
+::Another option is splitting the article. U2 and XMP are more or less the same game, but their deployables don't have much, if anything, to do with UT3's. If I remember correctly I was the one to start the article as it is now, but there wasn't nearly as much info in there then, so no use in creating 2 tiny stubs at that time. I'm sure someone could flesh out a bit the new, after splitting relatively small, U2/XMP article as well. Thinking about it, I think this is the way to go. The deployable icons could be added in a smaller size so they (or all images) wouldn't overpower the article. Also they could be added as images without the border and description, so they take less space, and are much less obtrusive. That's my two pence worth. [[User:Retodon8|Retodon8]] 12:12, 1 January 2008 (EST)