Talk:Statistic growth rate: Difference between revisions

The official GemStone IV encyclopedia.
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Line 6: Line 6:


: I've always used growth interval myself. It sounds so much more smoother. [[User:DRIZZT-12|Adam]] <sup>[[User talk:DRIZZT-12|talk]]</sup> 16:19, 12 December 2009 (EST)
: I've always used growth interval myself. It sounds so much more smoother. [[User:DRIZZT-12|Adam]] <sup>[[User talk:DRIZZT-12|talk]]</sup> 16:19, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::My only contention with the way "growth interval" is traditionally used is that the number does not actually represent any interval. I understand where the creators of the term were coming from, since given a traditional "growth interval" it's easy to calculate the actual interval of growth, but I think their choice of name was rather unfortunate. [[User:SMO2099|S]] 17:31, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Revision as of 17:31, 12 December 2009

Major Rewrite

I rewrote the entire Statistic Growth Rate article. I mostly did this because certain terms were not defined and the flow of logic was not as linear as it could have been.

I did take some major liberties. While I was consistent in using the Krakiipedia term "Growth Rate", I basically redefined in the article what is meant as a Growth Interval. I did this primarily because (a) the old terminology was awkward (b) this is as good a place as any to try and introduce cleaner terms. I very much hope that if you have any objections to my use of the term Growth Interval you give it some consideration. I understand any reluctance to change terminology (I encounter it all the time in my academic field). I would be happy to try and modify the article to keep it consistent with whatever standard Krakiipedia has or even keep it consistent with old terminology (once I get some time). S 14:00, 12 December 2009 (EST)

I've always used growth interval myself. It sounds so much more smoother. Adam talk 16:19, 12 December 2009 (EST)
My only contention with the way "growth interval" is traditionally used is that the number does not actually represent any interval. I understand where the creators of the term were coming from, since given a traditional "growth interval" it's easy to calculate the actual interval of growth, but I think their choice of name was rather unfortunate. S 17:31, 12 December 2009 (EST)