Category talk:Items

From Discworld MUD Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Good and bad categories

Skin was recently added to Category:Crafts which is basically a good idea except the category currently consists of pages describing crafting commands and professions. Should we have Category:Crafting materials? Will we then need a separate Category:Crafting tools? I don't know how many pages related to these are currently around but seems the potential is quite big.
Rhonwen 14:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

How about Category:Crafting supplies, encompassing both? It would seem a bit odd to me for quilting needle and quilting block to be in separate categories, for example. --Ilde 19:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

How should Category:Furniture and Container work? Single pages vs. (table-including) category pages vs. both... Taking lessons from the weapons? Same decision should apply to Scabbard which I think belongs under Category:Containers if one should exist.
Rhonwen 14:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

There's some talk about that over at Talk:Main_Page#Articles_that_are_categories.
...Eugh, Scabbard. Actually, I think maybe deleting the category and just making it a regular page would be the way to go. I notice that the two articles in it are for npcs who make scabbards, and thinking on it I see no particular reason we need separate pages for different scabbards as the information you'd want about them is pretty basic and would probably work better in a table where you can compare different items. I'm going to go do that.
On that note I'd be against a Category:Containers... I don't think we need a separate page for every different bottle and whatnot. Containers are definitely something where the items all pretty much work the same way and just have different stats, and it's useful to be able to compare those stats. I like the table, and don't really see anything that individual pages would have that isn't already on there (redundancy! D: ). I feel like weapons are different somehow--maybe it's that there are already so many of those pages; maybe it's that weapons have slightly more information about them and have a few more cases where there's something particularly notable about them (Sarilak, Senssu fan).
--Ilde 19:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning up the top parent categories

Is it useful or desireable to have weapons categorized as items, considering they're already categorized as weapons and as whatever type of weapon (both of which are, themselves, categorized as items)? It seems a little... redundant and cluttered, when the majority of "items" are weapons; makes it hard to browse for anything else. Maybe we could just keep the ones that have non-weapon uses?

--Ilde 10:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Mmm. I think items should only be for those without other categories that are themselves in items. Like all in Category:Weapons are in Category:Items so they shouldn't be there. To group items that have other uses, I think they should be in other categories (the category being in items) say like artifacts, for those that Fabrication Classification Identification recognizes as such. The endgame of that concept would probably be to ultimately have no items directly in items (because they can all be grouped with similar items) except maybe those waiting to be categorized or those that the person doesn't know where to put so someone can find them and assign them.
As for the items in both categories weapons and their weapon type, I'm not sure they need to be in weapons too... Searching the wiki is easier to locate a weapon you don't know the type. The list in the category doesn't show all items if there's too many (need to click to see the next 200, etc.) and the tables in the weapon type is surely more helpful to find weapons you like. If we really need to I guess there could be a template to take all items in a category and display the items with characteristics from the infobox automatically. Actually that might be easier to manage than the tables fixed by hand if we can figure out to do it.
So to sum up my position, I think if ALL the items of a category fit in another category we might as well just put the category in the other one, not all the items. Clicking a couple times to go up the hierarchy isn't a huge burden, and even if it becomes so, the categories might be put in many or all parent categories if needed. --Frazyl 17:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Here we have a good idea agreed to by couple of people who I see are still actively making edits to the wiki. Nobody has objected in the months past and there's little chance anyone will because no information will be "lost" whether searching or navigating the category links. Seems to me all that is needed to go on with the first part - removing the spammy weapons from items and weapons while making sure they're in appropriate sub-categories - is a little hubris and readiness for a lot of tedious small edits. I'm qualified!
It's worth noting that there's an alternative or supplementary approach already taken in Category:Weapons where all the sub-categories are described in the main category text. This allows grouping them by context or order of importance. Perhaps it would not have been needed if this clean-up had been applied earlier and the subcategory/page list below it was more useful. But it's also possible to have both.
Rhonwen 10:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
After an ingame suggestion by Ptiptoes, from G onwards I'm also converting the Kefka's links to use the Template:Itemdb syntax to be easier to maintain in case the item database moves. I looked up how to convert the template to name the link "Kefka's Item Database" by default but pages like Container seem to rely on current functionality.
Rhonwen 12:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
It is done! With weapons out of the way, we can keep cleaning this up and see how viable Frazyl's dream of no items listed directly here is. ;)
Rhonwen 14:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Cheers! Thanks. I hope it works out as a good thing! --Frazyl 07:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)