Talk:Two-Toned Boots: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
>94Connor949-gpuser |
>OmegaK2 No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
[[Two-Stone Ring]] uses the name of the elemental rings to separate them. Maybe these boots should too for consistency?--[[User:Illviljan|Illviljan]] ([[User talk:Illviljan|talk]]) 07:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC) | [[Two-Stone Ring]] uses the name of the elemental rings to separate them. Maybe these boots should too for consistency?--[[User:Illviljan|Illviljan]] ([[User talk:Illviljan|talk]]) 07:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC) | ||
:Not really no. Two-''Stone'' Rings actually have the same stones as the rings they're named after, whereas Two-''Toned'' Boots have no have discernible stones whatsoever. In fact they appear somewhat scaly. Personally, I think both the rings and boots should be changed to simply "fire and lightning", "fire and cold", and "cold and lightning".--[[User:94Connor949|Connor]] ([[User talk:94Connor949|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/94Connor949|contribs]]) 07:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC) | :Not really no. Two-''Stone'' Rings actually have the same stones as the rings they're named after, whereas Two-''Toned'' Boots have no have discernible stones whatsoever. In fact they appear somewhat scaly. Personally, I think both the rings and boots should be changed to simply "fire and lightning", "fire and cold", and "cold and lightning".--[[User:94Connor949|Connor]] ([[User talk:94Connor949|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/94Connor949|contribs]]) 07:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC) | ||
:: I was going to argue that they're ''ruby colored''. But when googling a bit it turns out these stones can have almost any color anyway... I don't mind using the resistances, I just want them to use the same naming style.--[[User:Illviljan|Illviljan]] ([[User talk:Illviljan|talk]]) 07:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
:: That's an interesting suggestion, Connor. I think it's fine the way it is, but let's think about whether a naming change is warranted. —[[User:Vinifera7|Vini]] ([[User talk:Vinifera7|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Vinifera7|c]]) 01:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
:: Honestly, I think naming by what they do rather then what they look like makes much more sense. I think we should change those pages to the "fire and lightning resistance" etc in the parenthesises --[[User:OmegaK2|OmegaK2]] ([[User_talk:OmegaK2|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/OmegaK2|c]]) 02:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 02:18, 19 August 2016
Title format
Two-Stone Ring uses the name of the elemental rings to separate them. Maybe these boots should too for consistency?--Illviljan (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Not really no. Two-Stone Rings actually have the same stones as the rings they're named after, whereas Two-Toned Boots have no have discernible stones whatsoever. In fact they appear somewhat scaly. Personally, I think both the rings and boots should be changed to simply "fire and lightning", "fire and cold", and "cold and lightning".--Connor (Talk | contribs) 07:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- I was going to argue that they're ruby colored. But when googling a bit it turns out these stones can have almost any color anyway... I don't mind using the resistances, I just want them to use the same naming style.--Illviljan (talk) 07:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- That's an interesting suggestion, Connor. I think it's fine the way it is, but let's think about whether a naming change is warranted. —Vini (t|c) 01:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Honestly, I think naming by what they do rather then what they look like makes much more sense. I think we should change those pages to the "fire and lightning resistance" etc in the parenthesises --OmegaK2 (t|c) 02:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)