Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Armor"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I'm considering axing this category while we're pruning the tree. My reasoning is that having a category of every piece of armor in the game isn't really useful, and it causes submitters to have to remember to put their new articles in extra categories. Other categories I'm considering doing away with are lights (for the same reason as this one) and brandishes (because wands, stave, and spellcasting objects should be enough). Anyone have any objections before I get to work? Or, does anyone have any other categories that they feel are unnecessary? | I'm considering axing this category while we're pruning the tree. My reasoning is that having a category of every piece of armor in the game isn't really useful, and it causes submitters to have to remember to put their new articles in extra categories. Other categories I'm considering doing away with are lights (for the same reason as this one) and brandishes (because wands, stave, and spellcasting objects should be enough). Anyone have any objections before I get to work? Or, does anyone have any other categories that they feel are unnecessary? | ||
--[[User:Waite|Waite]] 11:08, 14 February 2006 (EST) | --[[User:Waite|Waite]] 11:08, 14 February 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Hmmm. I spoke with Mel for a bit last night and agreed that we should get rid of both the "all gear" and "all mob" lists. I took care of the latter last night and was gonna take care of the former myself later today, actually. But I'm not sure that I agree with you on this one. I rather liked the idea of having one category for each object-type in the game (see [[:Category: Object Types |Object Types]])--or at least each of the ones that you can actually pick up and do stuff with (as opposed to Nexues and whatnot). And I also think that it might be easier for folks to remember to "put every object in its type category" rather than to "put ''only'' these objects in their type categories but ''not'' these". As for brandishes, hmmm. What if we kept Brandishes as is ''but'' just didn't file any pages underneath it? It would pop up when people searched for Brandishes, people could read all about what the heck "brandishes" are and such ("Brandishes are staves and wands, they use the brandish command, etc."), and then they could then click on its subcategories (Wands and Staves) to view individual item pages? This would also simplify what contributors would have to remember when filing things, too, I think. Hmmm. Having a good filing system is very important to me and so I've been thinking and working hard on this matter for some time now. See [[Format |Format]] for my (present) recommendations. I'd love to discuss this more but I need to get ready for class very soon. --[[User:DaveGarber1975|Dave Garber]] 11:58, 14 February 2006 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 11:58, 14 February 2006
I'm considering axing this category while we're pruning the tree. My reasoning is that having a category of every piece of armor in the game isn't really useful, and it causes submitters to have to remember to put their new articles in extra categories. Other categories I'm considering doing away with are lights (for the same reason as this one) and brandishes (because wands, stave, and spellcasting objects should be enough). Anyone have any objections before I get to work? Or, does anyone have any other categories that they feel are unnecessary? --Waite 11:08, 14 February 2006 (EST)
Hmmm. I spoke with Mel for a bit last night and agreed that we should get rid of both the "all gear" and "all mob" lists. I took care of the latter last night and was gonna take care of the former myself later today, actually. But I'm not sure that I agree with you on this one. I rather liked the idea of having one category for each object-type in the game (see Object Types)--or at least each of the ones that you can actually pick up and do stuff with (as opposed to Nexues and whatnot). And I also think that it might be easier for folks to remember to "put every object in its type category" rather than to "put only these objects in their type categories but not these". As for brandishes, hmmm. What if we kept Brandishes as is but just didn't file any pages underneath it? It would pop up when people searched for Brandishes, people could read all about what the heck "brandishes" are and such ("Brandishes are staves and wands, they use the brandish command, etc."), and then they could then click on its subcategories (Wands and Staves) to view individual item pages? This would also simplify what contributors would have to remember when filing things, too, I think. Hmmm. Having a good filing system is very important to me and so I've been thinking and working hard on this matter for some time now. See Format for my (present) recommendations. I'd love to discuss this more but I need to get ready for class very soon. --Dave Garber 11:58, 14 February 2006 (EST)
