Talk:Tiny Rough Sapphire

Separate gem(type+size+cut) pages

Im against personal pages for gems.. --Kitsuneg (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2019 (EST)

SanCoca - Lets see:

• Problem one: Duplication of input points for the same data:
  • There is a Gemstones page that holds some gem data, and there are 12 additional gemstone specific pages holding additional gem data.
  • In order to have separate gem pages per gem-(type+size+cut).
    • 1) Users would need to update both pages to not introduce data discrepancies across the gemstones related pages.
      • I don't see that going to work, and I also don't see anyone that might be willing to that job (including me). Ergo: this option is out as its deemed unrealistic.
    • 2a) The data that is used on the separate gem pages would need to be removed from the general gemstone pages. And this would need to be done for all separate gem pages in a relative short time (like some days). Or we will have gemstone data split up in two separate systems (which is overall confusing and a headage to maintain).
    • 2b) Considering there are 12 gem-types which have 6 different sizes and 6 different cuts. Where talking about 432 separate gem pages.
      • Other than the fact that I don't see anyone doing this data moving in a rapid way ... having 432 separate gem-pages is just going to be a headage to maintain.
        • Ergo: RoB is not going to support 432 separate gem-pages for each gem-(type+size+cut) page.

Note: A bare personal preference, without any specified reasons, carries no real weight. And can't be truly discussed (other than "I'm for" vs "I'm against". which is a very short, and technically a none-discussion.)

--.MvGulik. 14:22, 18 February 2019 (EST)