Split[]
There are way too many artifacts to have a separate page for each. This information is useful for completionists who want to make sure they didn't miss any artifacts. All of this information on a single page will be helpful so one needn't know the name of every artifact. —This unsigned comment was made by 65.190.18.240 (talk • contribs) .
- Why would it matter about how many pages there are? Separating the content makes it easier for users to find things. Pages can be categorised and linked from the navigation bar, which simplifies the searching for information.
- And no, aggregate pages are never useful, that's what the point of categories is for. An aggregate page just makes it very difficult for a user to find the specific detail they need, leading to frustration. --Sajuuk talk | contribs | Channel 20:22, January 29, 2016 (UTC)
- With you at the helm, it's no wonder this wiki is in such a sad state of affairs. If you spent half the time actually adding content instead of making nonsensical edits and arguments this wiki probably wouldn't be the graveyard it is. You can have it. I wonder how many contributors you have driven away just to have things your way. —This unsigned comment was made by 65.190.18.240 (talk • contribs) .
- I have actually done a lot more to improve this wiki. Whereas you just complain and act like anything I do to pages you edit is a sin. I have been on Wikia for many years and know how to operate a wiki, presumably far more than what you can. Unless you think me spending a huge amount of time recategorising, renaming and standardising everything on this wiki, including the removal of loads of fanon, is "nonsensical edits", which nobody else has bothered to do.
- Clearly you haven't bothered to look up my credentials or edits here to see I have done a hell of a lot to improve this place to remove most of the fanon and make things easier to find. When I first became a sysop here, it barely got 10k page views. Now it always gets above 10k pageviews, why is that?
- Managing a wiki isn't about "adding content" either. You just sound like some user who doesn't understand how a wiki works anyway and doesn't understand how aggregate pages are never necessary. --Sajuuk talk | contribs | Channel 20:28, January 29, 2016 (UTC)
- With you at the helm, it's no wonder this wiki is in such a sad state of affairs. If you spent half the time actually adding content instead of making nonsensical edits and arguments this wiki probably wouldn't be the graveyard it is. You can have it. I wonder how many contributors you have driven away just to have things your way. —This unsigned comment was made by 65.190.18.240 (talk • contribs) .
- I haven't played the game, so I can't help writing the article, but if those descriptions on the page are indicative to the finished work, I don't think there is enough content to warrant giving every single artifact a separate page; it's no use having I don't know how many articles two short sentences each. Better to be able to read all of them without having to reload the page. And even if there is enough info to have a full article for each, it's often convenient to have also a listing page that gives short information about all of them at the same time.
- I'd suggest renaming this page "Homeward: Deserts of Kharak artifacts". It could explain what they are (who built them?) and how they are collected and used; articles mentioning use of artifacts could link to it.
- In the last case, if the listing is truly unnecessary, I'd still wait with removing it until at least some the entries on artifacts are done and those two approaches can be compared in practice.--Nathan2000 (talk) 13:13, January 31, 2016 (UTC)
- We can still do lists, but doing it through categories is more efficient without a whole article that just lists everything :P
- For example, we have no articles on the wiki that lists every mission in every game, because it would be pointless and confusing to the reader. We have categories and a list on the game's article that covers all required needs for that, the categories in question being linked in the navigation bar at the top.
- If the anon IP is right and that there's "way too many artifacts", then multiple pages will be more appropriate, but I haven't played the game to confirm the IP user's claim. --Sajuuk talk | contribs | Channel 14:08, January 31, 2016 (UTC)
Splitting[]
With the numerous artifacts now listed here, there is now a compelling reason to split up this article. I will develop an infobox for Artifacts when I'm feeling somewhat better (been ill for a couple of days) and then create articles for each item listed here and then delete this article. --Sajuuk 14:14, May 26, 2016 (UTC)
- There are too many entries on this list. I will create stubs for each and every artifact listed here, which users can expand upon, and then this page will be deleted. --Sajuuk 11:57, June 2, 2016 (UTC)
Just a reminder that all of the artifacts you find in missions are randomized from this list. There are also not enough artifacts in the campaign to get them all.
The exception to ths are the artifacts that are tied to story objectives. The ones in mission 3, and mission 12, are always the same, because they do specific things you need for that mission. Im pretty sure you also get one from destroying the Ashoka at the end of mission 6, and that one is fixed as well. There may be more, but I dont remember atm66.18.212.50 17:06, June 2, 2016 (UTC)
missing artifacts or random carrying over to missions[]
Is it possible to miss chances at artifacts therby weaking yourself later in successive missions? I replayed mission 5 and found different artifacts, but when I went to mission 10-ish, I didn't have those artifacts, I had the same ones I had before. To be clear I'm not really concerned about randomization, I'm just worried that by going through some early missions as quickly as possible that I have left behind some upgrades. I tried searching the internet for information but there really is not much to be found Dragonalumni (talk) 08:16, July 8, 2016 (UTC)