Category talk:Locations

From Discworld MUD Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Why are all the entries for cities (AM, BP, etc) locked? It seems unnecessary, especially as most of them are far from complete. -Asha

They are semi-protected because they have been targets of spam, or are likely to be targets of spam (if they are linked directly from the front page).
Note that the semi-protected status does not stop people from editing them; if you wish to edit one of these articles, then all you need do is log in. The only restriction is that non-logged-in users (ie anonymous IPs) cannot edit the pages.
--Chat 12:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Guess I should stop being lazy and log in, thanks. -Asha

Locations and Subcategories

Hihi! I'm dropping in to inquire on Location Categories and whether anyone is interested in seeing them further categorized. "Locations" meaning "places on the disc" is a little too generic to be helpful, imo - every single room or region on the disc with a page on the wiki would fall under the "Locations" Category. The current grouping of subcategories, however, is helpful from a more meta perspective and I'd like to see them preserved together, but I don't know how to reconcile that with what I'm about to propose.

I propose that we begin categorizing articles by Locations > Region > City (if applicable). A straightforward example is Temple of Small Gods - it could be categorized as such: Locations > Sto Plains > Ankh-Morpork > Temple of Small Gods (article). However, what about the article for Ankh-Morpork itself? Would it go Locations > Sto Plains > Ankh-Morpork (article) or Locations > Sto Plains > Ankh-Morpork (Category) > Ankh-Morpork (article)? My impulse is to put the article in both, or perhaps just file it in the Sto Plains and let the A-M Category link to the article in the description. I would suggest that otherwise, an article label itself in the most specific category possible only instead of adding itself to all location categories. IE Temple of Small Gods would be added to A-M only, not both Sto Plains and A-M.

A more contentious example might be something like Hot springs. It could be Categorized broadly as Uberwald -- or it could be specifically categorized as Uberwald Forest, which would in turn be categorized under Uberwald. I would suggest the second but I am clearly a crazed categoryaholic. Obviously if a terrain is present in multiple locations it should be in multiple categories.

This proposed system also raises the issue of whether the most specific location categories can house non-locations (NPCs, for example). I would vote to include them; whether directly or as a further subcategory ie Locations > Sto Plains > Ankh-Morpork > Ankh-Morpork NPCs. If we were to not allow NPCs etc in the category, we should call the categories something like "Ankh-Morpork Locations" instead of just "Ankh-Morpork" - heck, the "A-M Locations" category could even be a subcategory of a generic "A-M" category. My goal here is to advocate grouping pages together for people to be able to cross-reference easily. Phew! I apologize for the wordspill, I just wanted to see if this was of interest to anyone other than me and to beg for more brainpower in untangling some of the knots. I'm fully willing to do the dirty work of getting the ball rolling if enough people find this notion acceptable. Thoughts? Is there a practices page somewhere outlining how categories are used that I've missed? Thanks for your time, everyone :) -Kymtastic 01:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)