Category talk:Spellcasting Gear

While we're re-evaluating the structure of the wiki I want to spend some time working on this category. First of all, it seems like we're getting strict about the "only put articles in the most specific category" rule again. So, this category would no longer contain every single spellcasting object, instead it would contain subcategories for pill, staves, wands, etc (yes I know it already does that).

In the early days you could search for "heal" or "water breathing" and get a list of all the items that would cast that spell on you. Now that we have individual articles for all these spells (good thing, don't get me wrong) this trick doesn't work any more. I don't think it's fair to ask our users to wade through the list of spellcasting objects, clicking on each one until they find the spell they want. This probably won't come as a surprise to anyone, but I think we should use categories to regain this functionality.

So, we'll use categories, but how?

At first I was thinking of making categories like:
objects that cast offensive spells
objects that cast defensive spells
objects that cast healing spells
objects that cast curative spells

But the more I thought about it, I realized there are problems with this approach. There's some spells that don't fit into this kind of layout. You could lump refresh in with healing spells, but it doesn't quite fit. Where are you gonna put a pill that gives you fly: defense, curative, or another category altogether?

Instead of this, I think we should just make a category for each spell that can be cast by using an object: "Objects That Cast Cure Light", "Objects That Cast Acid Blast", etc. Each of these categories would be a subcategory of "Spellcasting Objects". We would also link to "Objects That Cast Water Breathing" from the Water Breathing article.

I would say not to operate under our usual strategy of "create a bunch of categories and eventually they'll be populated". The main reason for this is that you can't distinguish between a empty category and a populated one, and I don't want to reduce the usefulness of "spellcasting objects" by filling it with empty categories. Also, there's a ton of spells that can't be cast by using an object, so those categories would never get populated.

Sound like a good plan? --Waite 14:37, 14 February 2006 (EST)

On second thought, the categories should probably be called "Water Breathing Casting Objects", "Heal Casting Objects", etc, just so they don't all start with the same letter. Makes the automatic category layout work better.

Sounds OK to me. Another way to solve the problem could be to have a series of tables on the main spellcasting objects page which would be seperated into the aforementioned categories of defensive, offensive, healing, miscellaneous, etc.. with columns for name, level, spell, and charges. It requires a bit more overhead, but that could be done by the "regulars" whenever a new spellcasting item is added by someone else if they don't know the convention. I'm rather fond of tables I suppose :). Definitely not adverse to them being filed in a categorical system either. JonDooger 15:03, 14 February 2006 (EST)

Great thinking, you two! I love your idea, Waite, for not filing any pages here but, instead, providing some means for players to easily find objects that cast whichever spell they want. That would be far more convenient than clicking through every object page below one-by-one in this growing list to pick out those items that are most relevant. I agree that some spells are very hard to categorize; I made a rather primitive attempt to do this same thing in the Skills & Spells section, which could probably use further revision and refinement at some point. I'm not sure whether I like categories or tables better for this function, myself. Perhaps spell-by-spell categories below plus either tables or sections-&-lists or some other such thing above for easy access to only the most-demanded spells (like HEALING SPELLS: * Cure Light: ... * Cure Serious: ... * Cure Critical: ... * Heal: ... ). Hmmm. As for category names, Waite, your "second thought" would spread names out more, yes, but their titles also also sound a bit unwieldy (well, to me, at least); offhand, my vote would be for a system more like your "first thought" and similar to that in our Gear category where object-type categories are spread out while Gear In... categories are consolidated. In any case, I promise that, at least in this instance, I won't go ahead and make categories to cover every possibility that might arise--just ones that we already have items for, if we decide to go ahead with this plan. --Dave Garber 16:02, 14 February 2006 (EST)

Oooo! Looks like you've already started. Cool. Hmmm. I still have my reservations on that category-name format but, of course, nothing here is set in stone. And I may yet have second thoughts. Heck, on at least a few occasions, I've plunged ahead with something, looked over the final product, played around with it for a bit, and then reconsidered my decision and immediately undid it all. I enjoy experimenting and trying stuff out. Will be nice to see how this turns out. Anyway... Go, Waite, go!!! You the man. --Dave Garber 16:12, 14 February 2006 (EST)

Wow! So, we have two different types of items here now, then? Both objects that cast spells on you when you consume (either quaff or brandish) them and objects that affect you (via their affect flags) when you wear them. Interesting. If that's how we're gonna do it then we may have to find a more accurate name for this category... --Dave Garber 17:49, 14 February 2006 (EST)

Yeah, adding items like exquisite diamond and ring of the rat to these categories was an afterthought, but I think it makes a lot of sense. If you want sanctuary and you can't cast it yourself, then you probably don't care if you get it from a potion, a staff, or a light source. I think the category name is still pretty appropriate, since the aforementioned items seem to cast their spell(s) on you when you wear them. Hence when you wear your second enchanted bangle you see "Enchanted bangle sparkles as its enchantment fails" (or whatever the message is). I guess one case where you could be nit-picky is the displacer cloak. Along with pass door, it gives you movehidden, which is technically a skill, not a spell. In any event I'm not too worried about people getting confused by the name of this category. --Waite 10:12, 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. --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 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?

---