Forum:Argent Crusade NPCs
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Seeing as I've now gone through the entire removed from 4.0.3a category, I decided to go on to removed from 4.0.1. coming a cross Infiltrator Minchar, Alchemist Adrianna and Alrin the Agile I moved them from Category:Argent Crusade NPCs to Category:Argent Crusade, but I wonder if they should just remain in that category despite being removed. In a lot of other categories, at least for naming purposes, removed NPCs aren't considdered "NPCs" from what I can tell. Most factions just have their associated characters, removed or otherwise in their main namespace category, such as Category:Argent Dawn but this is not the case with the Argent Crusade. On one hand, I can see the use of the NPC category for the Argent Crusade as there are many NPCs in that faction, but on the other hand it is not entirely consistent with how we handle other factions. I'll leave the three as is for now, but I'm interested in hearing what others might think of this.
--PeterWind (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- First, congratulation with being done with the 4.0.3a thing. Really a lot of good work there. I wondered the same thing as you a few days ago, and my conclusion was that we should have a Category:Argent Crusade characters instead of Category:Argent Crusade NPCs. Ideally we'd also extend the same concept toward other factions, like Category:Scarlet Crusade characters and Category:Kirin Tor characters. Xporc (talk) 10:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'm not necessarily opposed to that, but what about all the other factions like Cenarion Circle, Knights of the Ebon Blade and so on? I would prefer a character category as you suggest over an NPC category, but it'll be a lot of work if we need a character group for each faction. But that's certainly one option. PeterWind (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- Well it's just like the difference between Category:Rogues and Category:Rogue characters. Ideally, in my mind, all factions (and even races) should be split into a main category and a category about its members. Doesn't have to be done by a single person immediately though. Xporc (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- Right. I think I'll probably take a look at that again after I'm done with the "removed from patch x" categories. PeterWind (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- You can also just place the removed NPCs in a Category:Argent Crusade removed NPCs that way, if someone would like to track down the removed characters for any reason (research or otherwise), it would be much more helpful. As a side note, the category should be a child of Category:Argent Crusade removed content (even if there is only 1 sub-category, so the category itself can be a child of Category:Removed content), and a child of Category:Argent Crusade NPCs Celellach (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- That's certainly a possibility aswell. Looking at pros and cons for that option, it's a good thing that the categories would be very specific, but it would also mean that a whole lot of new categories would have to me made and sorted, if every organization should have a new group specifically for removed characters. Another question is of course, what is the intended purpose of the category. Do users check the category to find which ingame NPCs are affiliated with the faction? Already here we have the issue with characters who are obviously part of organizations but not always part of the "actual" reputation faction, seeing as we list both kind of ingame characters in the same faction category. Or do users look to those categories for broader lore interest in "Who are the members of this organization"? If it's the latter I imagine that their ingame availability is less important. PeterWind (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- While I do edit here, most of my wiki experience working was on Wikipedia. Over there categories are very important and very precise. You shouldn't bother yourself with the question of how someone you don't know might use that category for. Just know, that when its precise it means its useful. When you just stick everything under an Category:Scarlet Crusade umbrella it will never be useful to anyone. Case in point, I was editing the warrior class hall quest chain template, and noticed that it was placed in the category Category:Quest chain templates. This is a very bad category to place an item as it has 718 from all types of quest chains. This top level category should ideally be empty and only have categories. I created two new categories - Category:Legion quest chain templates for legion quest chains and Category:Warrior quest chain templates for warrior only quest chains. When a need for someone comes to look into things for whatever reason he might have (researching the quantity and type of quest chains per expansion for example), he'll have an easy time sorting through all the data. Celellach (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- That's a good point! I haven't done much "direct" work with quests, but I do remember having a look at some of the template categories from time to time, thinking that they were indeed a mess. PeterWind (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note that your experience with wikipedia's very specific categories does not necessarily carry over: wowpedia allows things like Intersection:Scarlet Crusade::Humans::Bosses, which removes the need to create most of the cross-product categories. While the quest chain templates should probably be in more than one category, creating every possible variation of Category:Removed Legion warrior quest chains is undesirable. — foxlit (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- While I do edit here, most of my wiki experience working was on Wikipedia. Over there categories are very important and very precise. You shouldn't bother yourself with the question of how someone you don't know might use that category for. Just know, that when its precise it means its useful. When you just stick everything under an Category:Scarlet Crusade umbrella it will never be useful to anyone. Case in point, I was editing the warrior class hall quest chain template, and noticed that it was placed in the category Category:Quest chain templates. This is a very bad category to place an item as it has 718 from all types of quest chains. This top level category should ideally be empty and only have categories. I created two new categories - Category:Legion quest chain templates for legion quest chains and Category:Warrior quest chain templates for warrior only quest chains. When a need for someone comes to look into things for whatever reason he might have (researching the quantity and type of quest chains per expansion for example), he'll have an easy time sorting through all the data. Celellach (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- That's certainly a possibility aswell. Looking at pros and cons for that option, it's a good thing that the categories would be very specific, but it would also mean that a whole lot of new categories would have to me made and sorted, if every organization should have a new group specifically for removed characters. Another question is of course, what is the intended purpose of the category. Do users check the category to find which ingame NPCs are affiliated with the faction? Already here we have the issue with characters who are obviously part of organizations but not always part of the "actual" reputation faction, seeing as we list both kind of ingame characters in the same faction category. Or do users look to those categories for broader lore interest in "Who are the members of this organization"? If it's the latter I imagine that their ingame availability is less important. PeterWind (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- You can also just place the removed NPCs in a Category:Argent Crusade removed NPCs that way, if someone would like to track down the removed characters for any reason (research or otherwise), it would be much more helpful. As a side note, the category should be a child of Category:Argent Crusade removed content (even if there is only 1 sub-category, so the category itself can be a child of Category:Removed content), and a child of Category:Argent Crusade NPCs Celellach (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Right. I think I'll probably take a look at that again after I'm done with the "removed from patch x" categories. PeterWind (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)