Talk:Spell popularity

From CrawlWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is now out of date by 10 versions, provides evidence which is ghastly out of date since many, many more games have now been played online, and it would be difficult to extract such relevant statistics from the current player base. This page also references a topic, how often spells are used in practice, which in principle is unnecessary to reference on this wiki. Additionally, this page is linked to by exactly one main article (Spell), which means it is very rarely viewed and deleting it would have no significant consequences on the wiki as a whole.

Hence, I am posting this comment on the talk page to see if anyone has any ideas as to how this page can be fixed, and otherwise I will flag this article for deletion some time in the near future.

--NormalPerson7 (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2018 (CET)

I realise I haven't given much time for anyone to respond, however I think something needs to be done about this horribly out-of-date article which provides mostly unnecessary information. My thoughts on the potential options for this article moving forward are as follows:
  • Find up-to-date spell popularity information. Pros: This article and its information are kept. Cons: This will still remain difficult to gather and so will not be updated in the future; and spell popularity is not a good indicator of how good a spell is - for example Animate Skeleton is an amazing spell, but it is grossly underused because it is annoying and tedious.
  • Shift this article into something more about the general consensus of how good a spell is. Pros: The article is more maintainable, and provides a more useful measure of spells to pick up. Cons: The article will be very subjective, not what a wiki really needs.
  • Shift this article into a guide of some sort. Pros: This allows subjective issues to be more easily discussed, where the aim of remaining objective no longer holds - including spell popularity and strength. Cons: The article would take a long time to write, which I don't think many people are willing to put in right now (there are far more important things to do on this wiki), and would probably never get updated.
  • Leave this article in its current form. Pros: No work is required trying to update it. Cons: This article is the most out-of date article, and as such, updating it means that the entire wiki is updated by a version. The information on this page is so out-of-date it is hardly meaningful any more, and may provide misinformation regarding removed or changed spells.
  • Delete this article. Pros: No work is required trying to update it, the out-of-date information is removed such that it no longer provides misinformation or references removed spells, and the wiki can move on from a mostly hidden, unnecessary article. Cons: This article, its information and the potential for similarly quantitative data are lost.
I therefore believe that deleting this article provides the most effective method of updating the wiki, removing the horribly out-of-date information, since this page is hardly seen anyway so the effect of deletion is minor, and its topic isn't particularly necessary for the wiki - a similar page for god popularity could exist, but doesn't, for example. Even marking this article for deletion could deter readers if a convincing reason is given, and thereby prevent them from being misled or having to do extra research to work out why they can't find cTele.
I shall now flag this article for deletion (without removing any of its content), and this discussion may continue, depending on the attention it attracts.
--NormalPerson7 (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2018 (CET)
I'd be okay with deleting this page, though if somebody else wanted to take the time to find more up-to-date stats, I'm hardly going to stop them. I do admit I don't see much of a reason to keep this page around, though. --spudwalt (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2018 (CET)