Talk:Foraging puzzle

I question the logic of having this page separate. Surely most people who seach for "Foraging" are looking for information about the puzzle, and the page on its own doesn't have a great deal of information on it without the puzzle information. --Belthazar451 03:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I did think long and hard about how best to approach this. Initially when composing the starter for the puzzle, I was unsure on what to do. In the end, sticking the little starter information on the foraging article worked. As we've added more content, images and standard crafting puzzle article items like navigation boxes - the divide between the concept of foraging and the puzzle itself became messy. Splitting it off onto its own article seemed the best way to resolve the problem. I tried to make it clear on the foraging article that the puzzle has a separate article. The concept and puzzle are very different subjects, and with the puzzle section gradually dominating the article, I figured a separate article was in order. --Sagacious ^(talk) 03:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

But we don't need a divide between the concept of sailing and the sailing puzzle, so I don't understand why we need a similar divide for foraging. Granted, foraging still existed before the puzzle came out - unlike the other missing crafting puzzles - but I'm not really sure what about the old concept of foraging still needs to be retained separately from the puzzle information. --Belthazar451 03:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The concept of sailing fortunately has been covered under different names and is broken down into different types of transportation such as merchanting and the sea battle mechanics. All puzzle articles currently benefit from having a dedicated article and I don't see why foraging should be different.

On another note, I disagree most people searching for "foraging" would be looking for the puzzle alone. The first line of the article does link them to the puzzle article if that is all they are interested in. If you type "Cleaver" into the wiki search, the first page is our beloved CEO. I would imagine that a slightly higher percentage of searchers would probably be looking for the sword, but the difference would be marginal. I believe the same would apply to foraging. --Sagacious ^(talk) 03:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you're separating the puzzle information FROM. What is it about the concept of foraging that you think is smothering (or being smothered by) the foraging puzzle information? Other than the short foraging blurb, all that's now on the Foraging page is how to start foraging (which ought to be on the puzzle page anyway), what you get from foraging (which should also be on the puzzle page) and historical notes. On that note, the what you get from foraging section needs a good re-write anyway - I'm sure it's no longer 50/33/17 for good fruit/better fruit/nothing. Possibly you're getting confused with the concept of fruit running, which already has its own page.

As for your Cleaver illustration, typing "Cleaver" <enter> into the search box gets you the sword page, and that's how the majority of people will be using the search box. "Foraging" <enter> will get you the almost-empty concept-of-foraging page, with yet another click to get to the foraging puzzle information. At the very least, the foraging puzzle information should be left at Foraging, and the separate concept-of-foraging page (if it's still needed) can go at Foraging Theory, or something like that. Every other puzzle gets a page named after itself, and not a "Puzzlename puzzle" page, so why should poor Foraging be the odd one out?

Basically I think what I'm trying to find out is why you think the concept-of-foraging needs its own page, and I'm not sure I understand the justification you give in your previous comment. --Belthazar451 03:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I honestly though it was a good idea, but I have now rewritten the foraging article to make it about the puzzle. --Sagacious ^(talk) 11:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to sound like I was trying to shoot you down. I do think it's better this way, though. --Belthazar451 13:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)