Perfect Repair

"cannot be repaired any further" = the item being at full durability; literally semantics. I also don't see how something being unintuitive (to you) is reason enough to make it its own bullet point when it can be merged with the point that would otherwise be above it without taking away from its meaning.

"full durability" can easily be misinterpreted as Perfect Repair being perfect. You're not considering people getting the information from skimming for important points. They'll read "Perfect Repair repairs to full durability" and then be surprised when it loses max durability.

This information isn't for the people who already understand how the system works. Some people are going to view this page already assuming that "Perfect Repair" is actually perfect, and the page must make sure it doesn't reinforce that. After all, Perfect Repair costs more than a single point repair (doubtful they'll notice it's exactly the number of single point repairs needed).

For the record, this isn't about my understanding of the page; I've known for a long time how repairs work. This is about the people I've met in the past who were confused by how repairing works.

You're also missing the word "attempt." And even if they somehow interpret it the wrong way through skimming, it's their fault for not reading the next few bullet points.

You're making quite a few number of assumptions about the readers you know.

The only assumption I'm making is that we can't assume anything about the reader's knowledge upon reaching this page.

I'll be blunt since you seem to be missing the point. Your argument of "skimming" is moot since they could skip over the extra lines that you'd make anyway. If a person is given an instruction manual, skims it, and ends up fucking up because they missed a detail that was on the same page, is the fault on the reader or the writer of the instruction manual? Again, all the details regarding perfect repairs are on the page, but whether visitors decide to read it in its entirety is out of our control.

Is it the fault of the reader that no one reads the EULA for any game?

It's the job of the writer to make sure that the important points are put in front, with the smaller details out of the way for those interested.

That's a terrible comparison. No one reads those because almost no one cares. However, in the case of this wiki, people come here purposely looking for information. If someone were interested in learning how repairs work, but fails to read the whole article, then it is his fault.

Things that would be our fault would be things like poor wording that leads to misunderstandings, poor layout that makes information hard to find, or straight up wrong information.

Once again...completely missing the fucking point e-e...

Also, it technically and legally is the user's fault, so yeah.

Ha, good luck trying to hold up a EULA with anything questionable in court.

Either way, it's pretty clear that out of the 3 people that actually care about this page, I'm in the minority here. Therefore, I have no choice but to back down.

You have no idea how the legal system works do you?

Once again, for the 3rd time (in this thread alone).

“	either attempt a one-point repair or attempt a Perfect Repair, which are consecutive one-point repairs until the item is at full durability.	„

I think it is very clear from this part of the article that a perfect repair is multiple one-point repairs. Further down, there's even a bullet point that says:

“	If a failure occurs in the middle of a perfect repair, the rest of the repair will be done at the non-blessed success rate.	„

This makes it even clearer that a repair can fail in the middle of a perfect repair. I don't see what the issue is with Yinato removing the extra bullet.