Talk:Fast Metabolism

"Note: This Trait will also decrease the amount of time between intervals when using RadAway or Antidotes."

What intervals? Were you trying to say that if you have Fast Metabolism, you can use RadAways and antidotes and benefit from it more frequently than those without the trait? If so, what's the source of that info if I may ask? Prof. Torr (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2013 (CEST)

• I (and i think i can speak for Marko too in this) verify everything myself before i post it here. This information was gathered during Glow runs with various characters. -Ronillon (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2013 (CEST)
  • This does not change the fact that right now, the note reads pretty much like this: "this trait will also decrease the intervals between some other intervals." This is uninformative, confusing to the reader, and hence does not contribute anything to the article. You're more than welcome to add the note back as soon as you REWRITE IT specifying WHAT THE INTERVALS ARE. Prof. Torr (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2013 (CEST)
• Source of info: in-game experience. Torr, do you play this game anymore? "intervals between some other intervals", yeah, i can do better. It needs to express that while any player might guess that his beer, mentats, buffout, and psycho expenses will double when he has this trait, that also the time between radiation reductions from using RadAway occur twice as fast, which might be a sweet outcome most players would not expect. When i discovered this, i felt prompted to share the info. Please also note that when i find questionable content you post in this wiki, i will NOT do anything to tempt you. For example, i won't delete your posts first and ask questions later. We should all talk on voice chat asap. Torr, can you use Mumble? Maybe we can get some live collaboration amongst the wiki editors going. -Marko 5 April 2013
  • My complaint wasn't that the note was factually inaccurate. I removed it because the way it was written was, to say the least, unclear. There's nothing more to discuss here. Just phrase the note in such a way that it can actually be understood, and add it back. I have no idea why you haven't already. Prof. Torr (talk) 06:52, 6 April 2013 (CEST)
• As i understand it, a wiki's value is in how effectively its info is linked to other parts of its info, thus creating a Cris-crossing, highly connected network of data, which serves as a type of database in a web-based text format (assuming the content itself has value, i.e. it is accurate.) When i add gambler-related links to the Gambling page, that is exactly what i have in mind. Cards and dice may not have any function for an in-game gambler NOW, but the links themselves are (oops, were) still validly related to that page. They relate to the topic. That is an example of this wiki getting stronger. Then someone removes the links. I do NOT need to suggest more collaboration since you already know better. -Marko 5 April 2013
  • Dice and so on are related to gambling, eh? Sure. But why stop there? Caps are related to gambling too. And so are ALL other items (since you can sell them for caps which you then use for gambling, and so on). In fact, if you look at the big picture, everything is connected to everything. If you want to argue that X is related to Y, you will ALWAYS be able to do this. The question we need to ask ourselves each time we feel like adding something to the "See also" list is whether or not the connection between the topic of the article and the other thing is immediate enough to warrant the inclusion of that other thing in the "See also" list. Suppose you're writing an article on real-life gambling for wikipedia. Would you honestly consider it appropriate to include cards, dice, and other such items in the "See also" list? Or would you rather choose to include, say, casinos and bookies? Prof. Torr (talk) 06:52, 6 April 2013 (CEST)