Talk:Booty share

From YPPedia
Revision as of 06:52, 24 August 2011 by Gascony (talk | contribs) (Question: explaining my edit)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Wikicities Migration
This page migrated from Wikicities (now Wikia) in July, 2005. The following contributors agreed to relicense their material here:
  • Barrister
  • Bemis
  • Callistan
  • Yaten

Singular-Plural Move

I'm afraid I do not agree with the decision to move this page from "Booty shares" to "Booty share"; while I understand the desire to remove excess plurals from titles, it seems to come at the expense of accuracy and sensibility here: If one looks ingame, it is written as "Booty shares" (if you look at it under "Change Articles"). --Emufarmers 17:56, 2 April 2006 (PDT)

I'm not eliminating the redirect from the plural, so everything should still work "as expected". --Barrister 18:20, 2 April 2006 (PDT)
I guess as a matter of anal-retentive principle, I have to argue that the page should be "Booty shares," with "Booty share" being a redirect. --Emufarmers 18:22, 2 April 2006 (PDT)
Pretty late in the discussion, but I have to agree with Emu on this one — Callistan (talk/contrib) 17:37, 12 December 2006 (PST)


The article currently states, "It's important to note that a higher number does not necessarily indicate a higher share." This seems counterintuitive, and the examples that follow don't clarify the point.

With a given amount of booty and a given distribution scheme, obviously the higher number will indicate a higher share. Is the point being made that, with a given amount of booty and a given number of players in each classification, but comparing two different schemes, a player might get more in the scheme that gives him or her a 4, instead of the one that gives a 5, because the 4 turns out to be a higher percentage of the total? If that's the idea, it needs rewording. I'll give it a try if someone with more experience confirms that that's the intended meaning. Gascony 08:28, 23 August 2011 (PDT)

Yeah, I am pretty sure you are right. The article has contained this wording and those examples since its inception in 2005. Any improvement would be welcome. Chupchup 10:05, 23 August 2011 (PDT)
OK, I took a whack at it. I removed the reference to "near even" and mentioned only the three favorable breakdowns that were included in the chart. Gascony 23:52, 23 August 2011 (PDT)