Category talk:Class sets

This category is a duplicate of the Class Sets category. Please stop removing the merge and deletion tags from it. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles are in process of being moved to this category from the other. Please read WW:CAT and stop tagging this for deletion. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 04:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Then I recommend a few things. First, copy the content from Class Sets directly over to this page. Second, convert all of the set pages over here. The way it is now, we have a very professional looking page with the wrong name and a very sloppy looking page with the right name, with the result that the correctly-named page appears to be a poorly thought-out duplicate. The fact that the page has been at Class Sets for so long also contributes to the impression that this page shouldn't be here. A note on the page about what's happening would probably also be a good idea, as judging by the page history I'm not the only one to mark this for deletion. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 05:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If you'd actually read Category:Class Sets -- "Articles related to Class sets should not be in this category. The correct category is the Class sets category. Please change the category code of such articles to [[Category:Class sets]]". As for all content copied over, it is. All that needs to be done is have all the articles moved, Which by hand is a long process with as many pages that exists for every single class. Feel free to help if you want it to work. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 05:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It says that now, but it didn't when I first marked this for deletion. And I wasn't saying to move over every single page at once; just making articles for all the top level <class> set categories would've been enough. Having only three classes on the page, again, made it look like it wasn't supposed to be here. Just something to keep in mind next time a major category change is proposed, I guess. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 05:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Look in the history, that line was added May 12, 2008, whereas you marked this cat for deletion June 14, 2008. So yes, it was there... Just so you know. And I didn't make the pages cause I knew I wasn't going to be able to dedicate the time to move the articles. Rather no category made, than nothing in it and having others mark it for deletion.. being empty and all. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 06:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Class armor sets

I have (BOLDly) set in motion moving this category to Category:Class armor sets. Along the way, I am differentiating between the set and the item. While there is a place for categories listing all the items that belong to sets, having them in the category for the sets themselves makes for a set that either completely obscures the set names, or one that has an unconscionable number of items pushed to the top of the sort order.

I have pushed Warrior armor sets in that fashion already, although the items themselves need more cleaning... --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:05, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

So what's the difference between an "armor set" and a "set", and "armor set item" and a "set item"? There's really no difference, and there's no class exclusive item sets that doesn't involve armor. (apart from for example The Twin Blades of Azzinoth, but that's just 1 set for 2 classes!) --g0urra[T҂C] 19:43, January 16, 2010 (UTC)