Category talk:Object Affects

Before I get started, let me reiterate my primary concerns about wiki-layout:

• users find what they want with a minimal amount of hassle (clicking)
• category names are easy and intuitive so contributors don't have to look them up each and every time

Object Affects isn't an appropriate parent category for its current subcategories (Gear That Applies 'Invis' etc). To understand what I mean, compare Object Affects to Object Flags. Object Flags contains flags: Dark Flag, Magic Flag, etc. It makes sense.

By the same logic you would expect Object Affects to contain affects: Strength, Armor Class, Height, etc. IMO this wouldn't be a useful category. But Object Affects doesn't contain affects, it contains categories of objects. Maybe the name of the category should be Objects That Have Affects, but then it would contain all the other crap (Level Gear, Tank Gear, basically every piece of gear that's potentially useful) so the category (as is currently named) sounds too broad and not useful.

A separate but related issue: why separate the spellcasting potions from the spellcasting swords? Why can't there be a category for ALL objects that provide a character with Protection Evil? I guess the root of my issue is that I don't see the big difference between "applies" and "casts". I've read the builder's guide and I understand that they're coded differently, but joe newbie doesn't know that, so I don't think the distinction is useful. However, after thinking this over for a while, I do recognize that there are cases where a user will be looking specifically for a potion, and not for a sword. One example is if a player already has a good set of tank gear, and wants a way to provide themselves with Protection Evil without swapping out a piece of their ac set. Therefore I'm willing to compromise. We'll keep Gear That Applies 'Protection Evil', but we'll make it a subcategory of Protection Evil Objects.

With that all said, here's what I'm actually gonna do:

• Since Spellcasting Objects was renamed to Spellcasting Gear, for the sake of consistency I will go ahead and rename Sanctuary Objects to Sanctuary Gear (etc).
• Rename Object Affects to Objects That Applies Affects. The name's a little ugly, but a better description of what is actually contained here.
• Rename Gear That Applies 'Protection Evil' to Gear That Applies Protection Evil (no apostrophes). I have a feeling they're just gonna be a pain in the butt to remember.
• Make Gear That Applies Protection Evil a subcategory of Protection Evil Gear (etc)

So that's my plan. I don't have time to do all this right now, but I'll get around to it soon. If someone wants to start on this, feel free, but by no means feel obligated. I'll get there sooner rather than later.

</rant>

--Waite 17:45, 9 March 2006 (EST)

---

Good points about this category and I appreciate them greatly. I find myself agreeing with much of what you're saying here. And I know that I do, at times, care very much whether I get spells from an object that I can put on or take off at will or from, say, quaffing potions regularly. I'm kind of ambivalent about the apostrophes; I'm not sure it matters one way or the other on them as long as it's consistent. Thanks so much for your thoughts on this! --Dave Garber 20:03, 9 March 2006 (EST)

Whew! Project somewhat completed... So, to give a little more detail...

• I agree completely with you that Object Affects was not an entirely sensible place to file these subcategories and I'm very grateful to you for pointing this out to me. I immediately made major changes here that I hope will satisfy both of us.

• I maintain that people sometimes do care whether a certain spell affect comes from consuming an object or from wearing it. Perhaps because I'm one of them. In most cases, for example, I'd much prefer to wear an object like a Ring of the Rat than to, say, quaff an Invis potion each time I want to re-disappear. And sometimes I'd prefer to obtain and use, say, a lens of experience rather than to stockpile and quaff, say, vials of gremlin blood. Or vice-versa. And I'd be much more interested in an object that cast 'blindness' on a mob than one that applied 'blindness' to its wearer.

• On the other hand, I'm not sure that I'm all that keen on putting Gear That Applies 'Whatever' underneath Whatever Gear. I kinda prefer the way it is now with these two categories in parallel with each other and clearly linked to one other so that people can (just as would be the case, essentially, with your proposal) easily toggle back and forth between them with only a single click. So, I'd kinda prefer to keep these categories as equals arm-in-arm rather than to make one subordinate to the other. But I dunno.

• I do agree very much with using the word "gear" for Spellcasting Gear subcategories like in so many other categories (Tank Gear, Level Gear, This Gear, That Gear, etc.), especially since we've agreed that potions and staves and such are gear as much as clothing is. Speaking of changing these subcategory names, perhaps I should mention that I've also been strongly inclined for some time to change all of these Whatever Gear categories to Gear That Casts 'Whatever', also to provide a degree of consistency (if it casts, then Gear That Casts, and, if it applies, then Gear That Applies). But, so far at least, I've refrained from doing this for your sake.

• I'm quite undecided about the apostrophes-around-spell-names matter. I know that, when you ID the objects or check your affects, the spell/skill names always show up with apostrophes around them. I use them habitually when casting spells. And I kinda like how the category names look with them. Not that any of this really matters in the slightest. And I'm not sure that it really makes any difference whether these category names have apostrophes or not to contributors. But, then again, it may and you may be entirely right about their causing trouble over time. Hmmm. I wish that we had some evidence to give us some guidance on this matter. Or could do a poll or something. Or... Hmmm... Heck, I dunno. Anyone else care to add to our apostrophe discussion? Anyone?

--Dave Garber 22:55, 9 March 2006 (EST)

Well, I implemented all of the changes that we're both in agreement upon except for those that you got to first. It's definitely an improvement, I'd say. As for the more minor matters of apostrophes and such, I let them be for now. I'd be happy to discuss any of these matters further. --Dave Garber 03:23, 10 March 2006 (EST)