Category talk:Gear - Revision history

DaveGarber1975: /* Gear? */

2007-02-19T02:52:08Z

Gear?

Llanor: Gear?

2007-02-18T22:46:07Z

Gear?

Llanor at 15:04, 7 February 2007

2007-02-07T15:04:36Z

DaveGarber1975 at 01:13, 14 February 2006

2006-02-14T01:13:49Z

Mel at 00:19, 14 February 2006

2006-02-14T00:19:14Z

DaveGarber1975 at 22:13, 13 February 2006

2006-02-13T22:13:10Z

Mel: This Category

2006-02-13T16:49:15Z

This Category

JonDooger at 09:01, 2 February 2006

2006-02-02T09:01:18Z

New page

It would be nice to see a table like the one on the main page here instead of the listings as they are. I haven't played with wiki tables at all or I'd jump in myself. It's nothing major, but if anyone has some spare time and wants to do it I think it'd look and feel better ;-). --[[User:JonDooger|JonDooger]] 04:01, 2 February 2006 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:52, 19 February 2007
Line 16:		Line 16:

	I've always thought gear to be something that could be worn. I never considered a potion or a piece of bread to be gear, but apparently they are by this category system. I'm wondering how that ever got in, and if people agree with me that it would be better off changed to something more appropriate. --[[User:MooNFisH\|Llanor]] 16:46, 18 February 2007 (CST)		I've always thought gear to be something that could be worn. I never considered a potion or a piece of bread to be gear, but apparently they are by this category system. I'm wondering how that ever got in, and if people agree with me that it would be better off changed to something more appropriate. --[[User:MooNFisH\|Llanor]] 16:46, 18 February 2007 (CST)
		+
		+	:I always thought this, as well. At one point, in fact, I tried to reorganize things so that Gear included wearable objects and Stuff included non-wearable objects. So, we had both "Gear in Midgaard" and "Stuff in Midgaard" categories and so forth. But Mel and/or Waite didn't like this and, so, that's why things are the way that they are now, with Gear including everything. --[[User:DaveGarber1975\|Dave Garber]] 20:52, 18 February 2007 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:46, 18 February 2007
Line 12:		Line 12:

	:I'd like to debate that one initial requirement. In some cases it can be more useful to add items to multiple categories. In this case though, it's pretty redundant to do so. And I have yet to come up with a case where it isn't, but it will come to me eventually :) --[[User:MooNFisH\|Llanor]] 09:04, 7 February 2007 (CST)		:I'd like to debate that one initial requirement. In some cases it can be more useful to add items to multiple categories. In this case though, it's pretty redundant to do so. And I have yet to come up with a case where it isn't, but it will come to me eventually :) --[[User:MooNFisH\|Llanor]] 09:04, 7 February 2007 (CST)
		+
		+	== Gear? ==
		+
		+	I've always thought gear to be something that could be worn. I never considered a potion or a piece of bread to be gear, but apparently they are by this category system. I'm wondering how that ever got in, and if people agree with me that it would be better off changed to something more appropriate. --[[User:MooNFisH\|Llanor]] 16:46, 18 February 2007 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:04, 7 February 2007
Line 10:		Line 10:

	Ah! Somehow I missed or forgot about that requirement (oops!). And I suppose that there are advantages to doing things that way, as well. Anyway, I'd be happy to go through each object page one-by-one myself (and, in this one case, maybe having every item of gear in one category may acually be handy--hee hee!) and make them all conform to this standard so that you can focus on more important things. I apologize if I've been causing you any headaches ("man, what on earth is that crazy Dave guy gonna tinker with next?") and I very much appreciate your feedback. --[[User:DaveGarber1975\|Dave Garber]] 20:13, 13 February 2006 (EST)		Ah! Somehow I missed or forgot about that requirement (oops!). And I suppose that there are advantages to doing things that way, as well. Anyway, I'd be happy to go through each object page one-by-one myself (and, in this one case, maybe having every item of gear in one category may acually be handy--hee hee!) and make them all conform to this standard so that you can focus on more important things. I apologize if I've been causing you any headaches ("man, what on earth is that crazy Dave guy gonna tinker with next?") and I very much appreciate your feedback. --[[User:DaveGarber1975\|Dave Garber]] 20:13, 13 February 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	:I'd like to debate that one initial requirement. In some cases it can be more useful to add items to multiple categories. In this case though, it's pretty redundant to do so. And I have yet to come up with a case where it isn't, but it will come to me eventually :) --[[User:MooNFisH\|Llanor]] 09:04, 7 February 2007 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:13, 14 February 2006
Line 8:		Line 8:

	Okay cool. One of our initial requirments was to only put nodes in the most specific category they can be in, so the sub-category hero tank gear can be placed in the category hero gear which can be in the category gear. But an item of hero tank gear should not be in all 3. I'll write some sql to clean this up when I get around to it.		Okay cool. One of our initial requirments was to only put nodes in the most specific category they can be in, so the sub-category hero tank gear can be placed in the category hero gear which can be in the category gear. But an item of hero tank gear should not be in all 3. I'll write some sql to clean this up when I get around to it.
		+
		+	Ah! Somehow I missed or forgot about that requirement (oops!). And I suppose that there are advantages to doing things that way, as well. Anyway, I'd be happy to go through each object page one-by-one myself (and, in this one case, maybe having every item of gear in one category may acually be handy--hee hee!) and make them all conform to this standard so that you can focus on more important things. I apologize if I've been causing you any headaches ("man, what on earth is that crazy Dave guy gonna tinker with next?") and I very much appreciate your feedback. --[[User:DaveGarber1975\|Dave Garber]] 20:13, 13 February 2006 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:19, 14 February 2006
Line 6:		Line 6:

	Hmmm. Offhand, I can't think of any uses for such a list, either, actually. Perhaps someone else can. I can't see that it's doing anyone any harm by our having it. I guess I just figured... (1) we had already lists of every area, every map, et cetera, and (2) well, why not? Anyway... --[[User:DaveGarber1975\|Dave Garber]] 17:13, 13 February 2006 (EST)		Hmmm. Offhand, I can't think of any uses for such a list, either, actually. Perhaps someone else can. I can't see that it's doing anyone any harm by our having it. I guess I just figured... (1) we had already lists of every area, every map, et cetera, and (2) well, why not? Anyway... --[[User:DaveGarber1975\|Dave Garber]] 17:13, 13 February 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	Okay cool. One of our initial requirments was to only put nodes in the most specific category they can be in, so the sub-category hero tank gear can be placed in the category hero gear which can be in the category gear. But an item of hero tank gear should not be in all 3. I'll write some sql to clean this up when I get around to it.

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:13, 13 February 2006
Line 4:		Line 4:

	What's the point? I can see having it and making it a super-category to the more descriptive categories, but why is every piece of gear being added here? It is entirely useless to see an alphabetical list of all of the gear on mid. --[[User:Mel\|Mel]] 11:49, 13 February 2006 (EST)		What's the point? I can see having it and making it a super-category to the more descriptive categories, but why is every piece of gear being added here? It is entirely useless to see an alphabetical list of all of the gear on mid. --[[User:Mel\|Mel]] 11:49, 13 February 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	Hmmm. Offhand, I can't think of any uses for such a list, either, actually. Perhaps someone else can. I can't see that it's doing anyone any harm by our having it. I guess I just figured... (1) we had already lists of every area, every map, et cetera, and (2) well, why not? Anyway... --[[User:DaveGarber1975\|Dave Garber]] 17:13, 13 February 2006 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:49, 13 February 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	It would be nice to see a table like the one on the main page here instead of the listings as they are. I haven't played with wiki tables at all or I'd jump in myself. It's nothing major, but if anyone has some spare time and wants to do it I think it'd look and feel better ;-). --[[User:JonDooger\|JonDooger]] 04:01, 2 February 2006 (EST)		It would be nice to see a table like the one on the main page here instead of the listings as they are. I haven't played with wiki tables at all or I'd jump in myself. It's nothing major, but if anyone has some spare time and wants to do it I think it'd look and feel better ;-). --[[User:JonDooger\|JonDooger]] 04:01, 2 February 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	== This Category ==
		+
		+	What's the point? I can see having it and making it a super-category to the more descriptive categories, but why is every piece of gear being added here? It is entirely useless to see an alphabetical list of all of the gear on mid. --[[User:Mel\|Mel]] 11:49, 13 February 2006 (EST)