 |
This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes. |
|---|
As we all know, the interactions overview table tells readers what NPCs are capable of in terms of being a merchant, or a doctor, etc. For example:
| Interactions | ||
|---|---|---|
 |
This character is essential. Essential characters cannot be killed. | |
 |
This character is a permanent companion. They grant the - perk. | |
  |
This character is a temporary companion. | |
  |
This character starts quests. |
- |
  |
This character is involved in quests. |
- |
  |
This character is a doctor. |
|
  |
This character is a merchant. |  -Sells: - |
  |
This character can repair items. | Max Repair condition: - |
  |
This character can modify weapons. |
- |
  |
This character rents beds. | -.
|
Now, I thought that maybe the template could be modified to include Barber under Services, to denote characters who have the ability to change your hair. I asked GhostAvatar what he thought, and he made the valid point that there are very few hairdressers, so it may be unnecessary to add it when we could always just state it in the text. However, the change to the template is a rather simple one, according to Ghost, so I thought that if it's easy to do, why not add it?
I'd like to hear the community's opinion on if we should include Barber under Services in the Interactions Overview table. Would it be worth it, or should we just stick with what we have? 
Discussion[]
Why not Barber/Plastic Surgeon, that way you can cover any NPC that alters appearance in general? Fallout: Shades of Grey, coming 2012 00:47, October 9, 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose that would be useful also. And it means that there would be more use for it, rather than just a handful of NPCs who change hair (not that many people change your face, but still).
- Just for balance maybe put it in general?
- I suppose that would balance out the table nicely, but it really is more of a service that people can provide. Although you do raise another issue - the change in size of the template, and if that has any bearing on pages.
- I suppose that would balance out the table nicely, but it really is more of a service that people can provide. Although you do raise another issue - the change in size of the template, and if that has any bearing on pages.
- Just for balance maybe put it in general?
My only real concern (as with most things like this) is information overload. Once you add this, what to stop adding other things - until the overview table becomes bloated to a degree it no longer becomes useful as a quick reference for the most important things. If you took it to the extreme (which I know is stupid, but hypothetically speaking) you can actually add all the detail from the interactions to the interactions overview table. So we have to draw the line as to what is most relevant and of importance to the reader. Considering that this info isn't even in the main characters overview page per game, I do have to question its relevance to the overview table on the actual characters page Since readers will be looking for a overview page that denotes this, if they are looking for this service, instead of trawling every characters page for the info. But that is just my viewpoint, others may differ. 
18:55, October 9, 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose the point of information overload does make sense, for something that will only be used for a minority of characters. 06:31, October 10, 2011 (UTC)
- I basically share GA's point of view. The original purpose of the interaction tables was to standardize the presentation for the most common/important interactions (or interaction-relevant properties), so in my opinion the question we should ask before adding new items to them is whether these items qualify as common/important enough. -- Porter21 (talk) 09:28, October 10, 2011 (UTC)