Talk:Power Bracelet

Page looks good to me. A few thoughts I have on redirects though (these are general issues, which also apply here):


 * 1) Should the pages merged here be left categorized? E.g. the Golden Gauntlets are still an item in themselves, whether we want to display this on an individual page or not. Could/should the redirect still be categorized under "Items" so that someone can still browse the relevant category to find it? If they click it, it would just redirect here anyway.
 * 2) The redirecting itself; my preference is for it to point to the specific relevant section of the page for ease of use, i.e. #redirectArticle . That way when someone is redirected while looking for a particular item, they jump straigt to it rather than having to find it themselves. Any thoughts?

—Adam (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with both. However, I'm unsure exactly of how to do the second bit of what you suggested. When I get a free moment, I'll re-categorize the redirect pages. --Yuvorias (Talk),21:45, 15 April 2008 (EST)

Edit: Never mind, I re-read what you wrote. Thanks!

Move
It is far more common for there to be only a singular Power Bracelet in a game instead of a pair. Articles are usually singular. This one is both singular and plural. Typically, a article title is plural only if it is about several characters or a group of similar items from one game. Articles about similar items from different games (i.e. Bow) are singular. So we should move this article. 19:59, July 23, 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, most recently they have been called power bracelet s . 20:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That is because they are a pair in that instance. But on the same token, the bow in the games is called by different name in different games. That does not mean that the Bow article has to include every possible name in the title. Even this one doesn't. This article also has items that have completely different names but have a very similar function. All the "(s)" does now is make the title look sloppy. 20:12, July 23, 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh. That makes sense. 20:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Split
I'm going to suggest splitting this article up. I think it would be best to have it set up so that there's a page for bracelets, and a page for gloves. Right now, the sections seem kind of jumbled/disorganized. Thoughts? 19:24, November 18, 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * 1) I agree with Alter, but in a different way. The page just needs a reorganization, AND a renaming if the glove sections are to stay. "Power Bracelets" as an article name, does not cater to the glove section at all, and it makes it seem as if we just threw the glove sections in this page because we had no other place to put them. Otherwise, if an adequate name cannot be found, I suggest splitting them out - while they do perform the same duties as the Power Bracelet, their name and appearance don't match it, and in my opinion, warrants a page simply to curb possible confusion. 17:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. It just feels out of place. I think Cipriano just placed it into better words than I. 03:39, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest having someone give it a rewrite, and then taking a look. Right now, it has a lot of potential, but is quite ugly and disorganized. 18:04, November 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) The items are functionally identical, just with different names. I vote against the split. 21:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't think splitting it could save it. The sections are sparse. A split would get my approval if the sections were overwhelming large. 05:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) To a split, I say "nay". Everything relates in function, after all. Noble Wrot 05:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What this page truly needs is a reorganization; in its current form it looks very sloppy and only adds to confusion. There simply needs to be more of a synthesis of the Glove/Bracelet sections, which I believe can be done successfully and on the same page. I'll take a crack at it tonight, if time permits. Cool? 21:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I love the Power Gloves
They're so bad. Noble Wrot 15:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)