Talk:Battle Canyon

Edit-war
Obviously, there is an on-going edit-war here between ArchedThunder, Halofan1234 and myself. While I do have the ability to lock down the page, I choose not to do so as it would seem as an abuse of power. As such, could a third party (preferably an administrator) try to solve this minuscule issue between us?

As of now, ArchedThunder seems to be of the idea that the Forge variant should have its own section whereas the others ('the Others') thinks that a simple link to the map which it is dedicated to would suffice. The Others would like to point out that there is not much information about Battle Canyon and that having a section about the Forge variant would simply ruin the article's layout/format. The Others would like to point out that the current format/layout made by ArchedThunder looks squished/improper for those using 1024/1280 pixels screen. The Others are aware that it looks normal for widescreen users (1440px+). — subtank  08:03, 1 September 2011 (EDT)


 * The point of a wiki is to tell everyone everything we can. If we simply say, oh it's the same as this map, that's just an excuse for not fulfilling our duties as a wiki. Nobody seems to have problems with inserted pictures on other articles. The way I see it, we either have the section or it gets its own page. If we do neither then we have failed. User:ArchedThunder


 * The thing is, it's already in the article. The wiki has told everything it could; there is a link in the introduction; the information is displayed correctly; and the article presented all information in a standard, concise format like all other articles.
 * Read the article and do tell how the information is not presented properly. If readers aren't bothered reading the articles, then what's the point of displaying paragraphs of information? If your view of how information should be presented were to be applied to this wiki, then it's better replace everything with bulletpoints, add in repeated information as section titles and ignore those with smaller screen-size (i.e. 1024px wide).— subtank  12:00, 3 September 2011 (EDT)