Template talk:Fortification

Conventions
Fortification isn't being referenced as a percentage on new items. This is good since 100 doesn't mean that you cannot be crit. If we are going to use one convention for all items regardless of the actual description, the newest one should be used [no %]. Also the categories undeleted were mistakenly created due to the job queue and DPL caching. It might make more sense to have a wider discussion about how we want to handle the item enchantment convention changes that occurred with the Update 29 randomly generated loot changes. (There have been changes from Roman numerals to decimal, including some with the Roman numeral not matching the decimal equivalent, and many enchantment description updates.) —&thinsp; Zav &thinsp; (T·C) 02:26, May 12, 2016 (EDT)
 * Newer items: " Prefix Fortification + X : + X bonus_type bonus to reduced chance of taking critical damage on a critical hit." [no %] (e.g. )
 * Older items:
 * "Fortification X %: This suit of armor ... there is a X % chance ...." [no +] (e.g. )
 * "Exceptional Fortification ( X %): This item produces ... there is a X % chance ... This ability is considered an Insight bonus ...." [no +]. (e.g. )


 * About categories, two things:
 * 1. Let's make sure that all items with identical effect end up in the same category (Moderate Fortification items and 75% Fort items and items with +75 Fort and items with mod fort augment). I don't think we need to worry about the name of the effect displayed on the item.
 * 2. I'd get rid of C:Exceptional_Fortification_items and move its members under Insightful Fort (Exc Fort items give insight bonus).
 * About descriptions, I don't have a preference. We can use newest description everywhere if it simplifies things for us and does not affect reader negatively. -- Cru121 (Contribs • Message • Email ) 03:47, May 12, 2016 (EDT)