Category talk:Spellcasting Gear - Revision history

Waite at 15:33, 14 March 2006

2006-03-14T15:33:54Z

DaveGarber1975 at 20:03, 13 March 2006

2006-03-13T20:03:16Z

Waite at 16:29, 13 March 2006

2006-03-13T16:29:48Z

JonDooger at 21:09, 12 March 2006

2006-03-12T21:09:25Z

DaveGarber1975 at 01:01, 11 March 2006

2006-03-11T01:01:33Z

Waite at 23:27, 10 March 2006

2006-03-10T23:27:34Z

DaveGarber1975 at 22:57, 10 March 2006

2006-03-10T22:57:45Z

DaveGarber1975 at 22:40, 10 March 2006

2006-03-10T22:40:47Z

DaveGarber1975 at 22:37, 10 March 2006

2006-03-10T22:37:40Z

DaveGarber1975 at 22:34, 10 March 2006

2006-03-10T22:34:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:33, 14 March 2006
Line 127:		Line 127:

	I agree that a few tables would be very helpful. Offhand, I'm not sure if I favor using separate pages or sections for each table or not. If put in sections, then using grey boxes for these tables might minimize the amount of space that they consume. I'd like to give this matter a bit more thought but I'm pretty preoccupied today with things related to the contest areas. --[[User:DaveGarber1975\|Dave Garber]] 15:03, 13 March 2006 (EST)		I agree that a few tables would be very helpful. Offhand, I'm not sure if I favor using separate pages or sections for each table or not. If put in sections, then using grey boxes for these tables might minimize the amount of space that they consume. I'd like to give this matter a bit more thought but I'm pretty preoccupied today with things related to the contest areas. --[[User:DaveGarber1975\|Dave Garber]] 15:03, 13 March 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	Good points. My first instinct was to make a few tables and insert them onto the main page of [[:Category:Spellcasting Gear\|Spellcasting Gear]] but this would make that page too busy and bloated. Instead of having a different article for each table we could try putting all them all on a single article, named something like [[Suggested Spellcasting Gear]]. --[[User:Waite\|Waite]] 10:33, 14 March 2006 (EST)

	----		----

@@ Line 125: / Line 125: @@
 *spells provided
 For the healing objects we could also have a column for amount of hp restored, so people don't have to calculate whether cure crit x3 is better than heal x2.  These tables should probably be sorted by level, similar to the layout of [[Treasure-Hunting]].  Also, I think these four articles should all be categorized under [[:Category:Spellcasting Gear|Spellcasting Gear]].  Sound good? --[[User:Waite|Waite]] 11:29, 13 March 2006 (EST)
 ----

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:29, 13 March 2006
Line 115:		Line 115:

	I think category structure is less important, however, than being able to find what you are looking for in an easy way. In your examples above, looking for an object that casts ANY curing spell (which is more likely desired than any object that casts cure light), is not possible. You would have to look in the categories for each different healing spell one at a time. So look at the most effectively organized spaces on the wiki(the Main page and the Gear pages in my opinion) and you will find what I think is the most effective solution to the problem: A well designed table on an easy to find page. -[[User:JonDooger\|JonDooger]] 16:09, 12 March 2006 (EST)		I think category structure is less important, however, than being able to find what you are looking for in an easy way. In your examples above, looking for an object that casts ANY curing spell (which is more likely desired than any object that casts cure light), is not possible. You would have to look in the categories for each different healing spell one at a time. So look at the most effectively organized spaces on the wiki(the Main page and the Gear pages in my opinion) and you will find what I think is the most effective solution to the problem: A well designed table on an easy to find page. -[[User:JonDooger\|JonDooger]] 16:09, 12 March 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	----
		+
		+	I think [[User:JonDooger\|JonDooger]] has some good points. I propose we create four new articles, named something like [[Table Of Gear That Restores HP]], [[Table Of Gear That Restores Movement Points]], [[Table Of Gear That Casts Offensive Spells]], and [[Table Of Gear That Gives Affects]]. As usual I'm flexible on the actual names. Each of these pages will contain (surprise!) a table. Each row of the table will correspond to one piece of gear. These tables will have columns such as:
		+	*name of gear
		+	*level
		+	*object type
		+	*number of uses
		+	*spells provided
		+	For the healing objects we could also have a column for amount of hp restored, so people don't have to calculate whether cure crit x3 is better than heal x2. These tables should probably be sorted by level, similar to the layout of [[Treasure-Hunting]]. Also, I think these four articles should all be categorized under [[:Category:Spellcasting Gear\|Spellcasting Gear]]. Sound good? --[[User:Waite\|Waite]] 11:29, 13 March 2006 (EST)

	----		----

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:09, 12 March 2006
Line 103:		Line 103:

	In any case, thanks much for your input on all of this! I think that I understand all of your points and I hope that you understand mine, too. Two heads are certainly better than one. And I'm curious to hear comments from some other folks on these matters, as well. Thanks for all of your effort here! --[[User:DaveGarber1975\|Dave Garber]] 20:01, 10 March 2006 (EST)		In any case, thanks much for your input on all of this! I think that I understand all of your points and I hope that you understand mine, too. Two heads are certainly better than one. And I'm curious to hear comments from some other folks on these matters, as well. Thanks for all of your effort here! --[[User:DaveGarber1975\|Dave Garber]] 20:01, 10 March 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	----
		+
		+	Here's the problem as I see it:
		+
		+	If I'm someone who wants to look up gear that I would use to cast curing spells on others, I am going to search for "brandies" or "brandishes" as this is what they are actually called on the mud. The first will lead me to a non-existant page, but I can see a link to the brandishes category down below, and then I'll click that. This takes me to a page with two links in it, one for wands, and one for staves. I hesitantly click staves, because I guess that's what I want. This takes me to a page with several items, but I don't know what spell any of these things cast, really. So I have to click them one by one to find out. Really irritating for me. What would I like instead? The first page I get to, broken into sections by what kind of spell is cast; not a specific spell, but kind.. like healing. and then a list of the items that do that.
		+
		+	I'm all for the easiest way to find what I'm looking for. So I think the best way to organize things would be to think of how the average user is going to search for things. They aren't going to be searching for "Gear that casts cure light" or "cure light gear" or even for "cure light" they will be searching for "brandies" or "healing potions".
		+
		+	This is not to say that a good category structure is a bad thing. On the contrary, I beleive it is very important. Once I get to a page for an item, I would like to be able to see a category for other items like it, in case I can't get an item or it's too high of a level for me. For this use of categories, Gear that Casts Fly or Fly Gear amount to the same thing.
		+
		+	I think category structure is less important, however, than being able to find what you are looking for in an easy way. In your examples above, looking for an object that casts ANY curing spell (which is more likely desired than any object that casts cure light), is not possible. You would have to look in the categories for each different healing spell one at a time. So look at the most effectively organized spaces on the wiki(the Main page and the Gear pages in my opinion) and you will find what I think is the most effective solution to the problem: A well designed table on an easy to find page. -[[User:JonDooger\|JonDooger]] 16:09, 12 March 2006 (EST)

	----		----

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:01, 11 March 2006
Line 95:		Line 95:

	--[[User:Waite\|Waite]] 18:27, 10 March 2006 (EST)		--[[User:Waite\|Waite]] 18:27, 10 March 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	----
		+
		+	You're welcome. :) I saw the affects list without any apostophes and felt entirely satisfied with it; heck, I think that I may even like it slightly better that way after seeing it like that. And, yeah, we could certainly easily make Level 1-10 Potions That Cast Faerie Fire (lol) but I agree with you 100% that there comes a certain reasonable limit and I believe that we have currently achieved it. And you forgot Poisioning Kits; becuase Poison Gear presumably poisons things, right? Hee hee, just kiddin'... :) So, yeah, it seems that our only remaining disagreement is in (1) how best to name these categories and (2) how best to structure them all in relation to one other.
		+
		+	As for putting these categories in parallel and tied together via links, I didn't really see this as "divorcing" these categories (any more than I divorced, say, Stat Gear from Level Gear or Gnomes from Deep Gnomes) but simply joining them arm-in-arm as closely-tied equals within the Wiki heirarchy. Though their purpose is essentially identical, I don't see either one as a subset of the other, conceptually, nor anything wrong with putting both immediately under Gear; in fact, using my recommended category names, they'd be found right next to one other on Gear's big alphabetical list. And I do see those advantages that you see to putting the spell name first in these spellcasting-gear category names. This can potentially look nicer when they're all listed together. Then again, I don't think that the Gear That Applies Skills & Spells category list looks too shabby. Or even the Gear category, although its G section is pretty darn enormous; using Gear In AreaName rather than AreaName Gear does have one advantage in that it lets non-area-gear categories like Ticket Quest Rewards stand out more rather than being lost somewhere amidst all of the zillion area-gear categories. Then again, I made links to all of these non-area-gear categories at the top of the Gear page so this advantage is negligible. Another advantage that I see in my preference is that it makes these category names a bit more consistent with each other. An object that casts a spell would go under Gear That Casts Whatever and an object that applies this same spell to its wearer would go under Gear That Applies Whatever; this might make things slightly simpler for folks trying to remember how to file new pages. Or, then again, it might not matter a hoot. I dunno.
		+
		+	In any case, thanks much for your input on all of this! I think that I understand all of your points and I hope that you understand mine, too. Two heads are certainly better than one. And I'm curious to hear comments from some other folks on these matters, as well. Thanks for all of your effort here! --[[User:DaveGarber1975\|Dave Garber]] 20:01, 10 March 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	----

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:27, 10 March 2006
Line 75:		Line 75:

	----		----
		+
		+	Hi Dave,
		+
		+	Thanks for finishing up my transition from "Spellname Objects" to "Spellname Gear".
		+
		+	I think that we both agree on the fundamental layout of this section. We both like the idea of splitting up these pages into categories based on the following:
		+	*level
		+	*object type
		+	*spells provided
		+	*temporary vs permanent
		+
		+	Where we differ in opinion is when to use categories, and when to use links. At the end of the day, this is a very small difference that most people will never notice. Both our categorization methods provide ample connections between relevant articles.
		+
		+	I don't see a need to divorce [[:Category:Gear That Applies Skills And Spells\|Gear That Applies Skills And Spells]] from [[:Category:Spellcasting Gear\|Spellcasting Gear]] to such a point that their only common denominator is [[:Category:Gear\|Gear]]. There is something more similar about these two categories than the fact that they're both "gear". Essentially, I consider [[:Category:Spellcasting Gear\|Spellcasting Gear]] to be synonomous with "ways I can get around not knowing a spell". Both "consumables" and [[:Category:Gear That Applies Skills And Spells\|Gear That Applies Skills And Spells]] provide you with a way of getting a spell that you couldn't otherwise cast. Whether or not that's a good thing varies case to case :). That's why I made [[:Category:Gear That Applies Skills And Spells\|Gear That Applies Skills And Spells]] a subcategory of [[:Category:Spellcasting Gear\|Spellcasting Gear]].
		+
		+	I understand the differences between [[:Category:Gear That Applies Skills And Spells\|Gear That Applies Skills And Spells]] and "consumables", and I've conceded that we should categorize them separately. But there's always more ways of carving up a section. We could differentiate between pill/pots/applies and wands/staves. Nobody's gonna want a faerie fire potion, so we could list the "useful" faerie fire objects from the crappy ones. But I don't propose we further separate this section into "gear that casts spells on you (pill/pot/applies)" and "gear whose spells can affect someone other than yourself (wand/staff)". I think at some point we have to count on our users being able to figure out that difference for themselves.
		+
		+	I'll agree with you that the current category names aren't perfect. For instances, I think [[:Category:Poison Gear\|Poison Gear]] versus [[:Category:Poisons\|Poisons]] is pretty damned confusing. But as I've said before, I like starting the category name with the name of the spell, simply for the reason that it leaves the automatically generated "articles in..." list better sorted. So yeah, in general I'm not horribly attached to the current category names for this section.
		+
		+	--[[User:Waite\|Waite]] 18:27, 10 March 2006 (EST)

@@ Line 72: / Line 72: @@
    * Yada, yada, yada...
-Hmmm.  Anyone else care to contribute their thoughts on this matter?  Anyone?  Or are Waite and I the only two who care at all about this?  --[[User:DaveGarber1975|Dave Garber]] 17:40, 10 March 2006 (EST)
+Hmmm.  Anyone else care to contribute their thoughts on this matter?  Anyone?  Or are Waite and I the only two who care at all about this?  Which format do you prefer, if either?  Why?  Or do you have a better structure in mind than either Waite or I have thought of yet?  Please let us know.  --[[User:DaveGarber1975|Dave Garber]] 17:40, 10 March 2006 (EST)
 ----

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
    * Blah, blah, blah...
    * Gear That Applies Skills & Spells:
-    * Gear That Applies A:      ''see also A and Gear That Casts A''
+    * Gear That Applies A:                ''see also A and Gear That Casts A''
-    * Gear That Applies C:      ''see also C and Gear That Casts C''
+    * Gear That Applies C:                ''see also C and Gear That Casts C''
-    * Gear That Applies E:      ''see also E''
+    * Gear That Applies E:                ''see also E''
    * Gear That Casts Spells:
-    * Gear That Casts A:        ''see also A and Gear That Applies A''
+    * Gear That Casts A:                  ''see also A and Gear That Applies A''
-    * Gear That Casts B:        ''see also B''
+    * Gear That Casts B:                  ''see also B''
-    * Gear That Casts C:        ''see also C and Gear That Applies C''
+    * Gear That Casts C:                  ''see also C and Gear That Applies C''
-    * Gear That Casts D:        ''see also D''
+    * Gear That Casts D:                  ''see also D''
    * Yada, yada, yada...
@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
    * Spellcasting Gear:
     * Gear That Applies Skills & Spells:
-     * Gear That Applies A:    ''see also A and Gear That Casts A''
+     * Gear That Applies A:              ''see also A and A Gear''
-     * Gear That Applies C:    ''see also C and Gear That Casts C''
+     * Gear That Applies C:              ''see also C and C Gear''
-     * Gear That Applies E:    ''see also E''
+     * Gear That Applies E:              ''see also E and E Gear''
-    * A Gear:                  ''see also A and Gear That Applies A''
+    * A Gear:                            ''see also A and Gear That Applies A''
-     * Gear That Applies A:    ''see also A and Gear That Casts A''
+     * Gear That Applies A:              ''see also A and A Gear''
-    * B Gear:                  ''see also B''
+    * B Gear:                            ''see also B''
-    * C Gear:                  ''see also C and Gear That Applies C''
+    * C Gear:                            ''see also C and Gear That Applies C''
-     * Gear That Applies C:    ''see also C and Gear That Casts C''
+     * Gear That Applies C:              ''see also C and C Gear''
-    * D Gear:                  ''see also D''
+    * D Gear:                            ''see also D''
    * Yada, yada, yada...

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:34, 10 March 2006
Line 35:		Line 35:

	It was a good afterthought to add these items, in my opinion, and I agree with your reasoning on why you added them. And I suppose that what these objects do could be considered casting, also. At least for now, I'm quite satisfied. Well done, Waite, and thanks for your work on this. --[[User:DaveGarber1975\|Dave Garber]] 15:03, 15 February 2006 (EST)		It was a good afterthought to add these items, in my opinion, and I agree with your reasoning on why you added them. And I suppose that what these objects do could be considered casting, also. At least for now, I'm quite satisfied. Well done, Waite, and thanks for your work on this. --[[User:DaveGarber1975\|Dave Garber]] 15:03, 15 February 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	----
		+
		+	Well, Waite, it looks like you made the rest of the changes that you wanted to these categories. Those interested in following our discussion about these changes may find it [[Category Talk: Object Affects \|here]]. My inclination is still to categorize these things as follows:
		+
		+	* Gear:
		+	* Blah, blah, blah...
		+	* Gear That Applies Skills & Spells:
		+	* Gear That Applies A: ''see also A and Gear That Casts A''
		+	* Gear That Applies C: ''see also C and Gear That Casts C''
		+	* Gear That Applies E: ''see also E''
		+	* Gear That Casts Spells:
		+	* Gear That Casts A: ''see also A and Gear That Applies A''
		+	* Gear That Casts B: ''see also B''
		+	* Gear That Casts C: ''see also C and Gear That Applies C''
		+	* Gear That Casts D: ''see also D''
		+	* Yada, yada, yada...
		+
		+	Instead of, according to your plan:
		+
		+	* Gear:
		+	* Blah, blah, blah...
		+	* Spellcasting Gear:
		+	* Gear That Applies Skills & Spells:
		+	* Gear That Applies A: ''see also A and Gear That Casts A''
		+	* Gear That Applies C: ''see also C and Gear That Casts C''
		+	* Gear That Applies E: ''see also E''
		+	* A Gear: ''see also A and Gear That Applies A''
		+	* Gear That Applies A: ''see also A and Gear That Casts A''
		+	* B Gear: ''see also B''
		+	* C Gear: ''see also C and Gear That Applies C''
		+	* Gear That Applies C: ''see also C and Gear That Casts C''
		+	* D Gear: ''see also D''
		+	* Yada, yada, yada...
		+
		+	Hmmm. Anyone else care to contribute their thoughts on this matter? Anyone? Or are Waite and I the only two who care at all about this?
		+
		+	----