Wulves
commented
3 months ago Only reason I could think to keep subgroups is if someone wanted to easily compare all accessories since they take up the same slot (would need to have 3 tables on the armor subgroup for boots, chest pieces, and helms.) However you could accomplish the same thing by just including the slot data in a complete equipment chart and giving the option for users to sort by equip slot instead of alphabetical. If that's something we can do, then I think removing subgroups grants better navigation at no loss.
We have a few options for how to approach equipment groupings. The article Equipment will exist either way, but the question is whether we also erect subgroupings for Accessories, Weapons, and Armor. The idea would be that these sub-groupings go into a little more detail than would be present on Equipment. I think we have two of these sub-groupings already set up.
At present, these sub-grouping articles are just copies of everything on Equipment, and there's not much to add to make them worth the separate articles. That means it wouldn't make the Equipment article too much longer to keep it all there. Second, where would a piece of equipment link back to? Equipment, or one of the sub-groupings? I feel this may cause some navigational frustration.
I think we should consider removing the sub-groupings. It'd simplify where we link equipment pieces back to, we can collapse tables by default if necessary, and we'll only have to manage one set of data for all that gear. If there are still valid uses of Weapons, Armor, and Accessories, they can merely be linked to anchors within Equipment.