Forum:Categories

Forums: Village pump → Categories
(This topic is archived. Please do not edit this page!)

Hmmm...Confusing! I've never dealt with categories so general, with such a specific-souding name. I'll keep it in mind.--Leo And his beloved lynx, Firestorm 20:18, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to create/expand new categories, just so long as they follow the category policy. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 20:25, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

For instance, Wyverns have Highperch and Mirkfallon Lake... I was trying to remember if they had more territories, but you if you can find at least one more, they can get a territory category. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 20:32, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sir. Will do! I love organization.--Leo And his beloved lynx, Firestorm 21:09, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Er, just one thing. I'm the type who gets very specific in organization. With something like "epic neck guest reward items" would get turned into "epic items" "neck items" and "quest rewards". So I want to know if it's okay to get super-specific.--Leo And his beloved lynx, Firestorm 21:12, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Those three should all be top-level categories, containing no pages besides subcategories. So, for instance,  [The Sun King's Talisman] should be in the category "epic neck items" and "epic quest rewards," while the pages for those categories will be in the "neck items" and "quest rewards" categories respectively, and both of them in the "epic items" category. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:27, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Well good Dark knew what you were talking about, cause I wasn't sure what you were asking. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 21:31, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

And I, in turn, am pleased to see neck items get the treatment that cloaks got. :) --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:22, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, these categories should probably be unmerged, per the coming of Template:tooltip item. I've long argued that the value of sorting items by quality and slot or quality and drop location are probably the worst combinations possible. --Sky (t · c) 02:45, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

World of Warcraft epic two-handed sword socketed Icecrown Citadel items with proper name. --g0urra[T҂C] 07:01, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

>< Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 19:58, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

I rather expect that with Cataclysm, we should dump pretty much everything (item-wise, at least) into a back room and start over, saving only stuff that has *already* been removed from the game. The (quality) (slot) categories are nearly useful for searching for upgrades, but not quite. The (quality) and the (slot) categories are entirely unsuited to searching for similar items due to volume. But then, searching isn't a strong suit of wikis, is it. :/ --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:09, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

It will be with the power of SMW. >:) --Sky (t · c) 03:44, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Well my opinion should be doing with slots only but it makes it too simple perhaps--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:01, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Slots in case of armour and weapon types in case of weapons--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:03, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Weapon types are probably too constrictive for categories (obviously not for semantic types). "WoW weapon items" and "WoW ranged weapon items" would suffice. --Sky (t · c) 03:44, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Too constrictive? Theres 9 armour slots(Head, Shoulder, Chest, Back, Wrist, Hands, Waist, Legs, Feets) and 4 accessory slot(Neck, Ring, Trinket, Relic and ammo) 2 Decorative slots (Tabard and Shirt), and there are a lot more weapon than there are pieces for each armour slot, Melle Weapon types would be 8 (Sword, Mace, Axe, Dagger, Polearm, Fist, Dagger, Staff) Ranged weapons would be 5(Trowhn, Gun, Crossbow, Bow, Wand) and then 3 other things (Shield, Held in offhand, Proffessional tools(Fishing poles, mining pics arclight spanners stuff like that)) which makes a total of 15 armour categories and 16 Weapon categories, and i think there are enough weapons too make a category too big--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:43, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

i just checked wowhead and there 19375 pieces of armour and there are 4318 weapons, about 2000 are from the chest slot, i think making various weapon types categories would be better.--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:47, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Better yet why don't we use wowhead way of categorising armours and weapons, it's simple and if something is wrong we could just go and check the list.--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:47, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

The wowhead database categories are exclusive (if in here, not in there), where wiki structure allows more flexibility. However, tooltip item proposes to do strict attribute-based categorization (for automated categories, anyway); the argument then becomes, "what categories do we want it to make". I'm presuming that we can add manual categories (eg "long cloaks") as desired.

@sky - What do you mean, "weapon types too constrictive", when you (seem to) acknowledge that SMW has the data to categorize them by (eg) mace, 2h weapon, off-hand? I'm missing something --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:03, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Eirik: First off, there are two things going on here now, one called "categories" and one called "properties". Categories are the cute and lovable things you're used to. What properties (a part of SMW) allow us to do is be very specific about the item: does it have 37 stamina, is it rare, and is it at least level 80? That's a question we can ask with SMW, and SMW will be able to tell us an answer (because with each item, we defined a property). We can do the same thing with categories, but that would require us to manipulate the template to generate the categories automatically, and that would be very nasty compared to simply declaring the template parameters to be semantic attributes (which is basically why we haven't done it with categories as of now!)!

This suggests that the categories we have now are overly specific, because some of properties of an item don't have a real relation to each other (like quality and item type, or quality and source). For example, we shouldn't categorize past "WoW weapon items", as some weapon items exit that a user may want to compare (regardless of quality). For example, we segregate one-handed swords, off-hand swords, main-hand swords (axes, daggers, etc) in our category system currently, when a user may want to search between all of them. Leave SMW to generate the semantic data for each of those. Likewise with "WoW ranged items", or w/e the cat is called atm.

Of course, we shouldn't get rid of all our categories because we suddenly have hundreds of attributes to define an item, which is why I think it's sensible to categorize by slot. Categorization by slot is very definite, and the only commonalities you'll see between items of different slots will be quality, and armor type (rare/cloth), I think. I'd argue that quality is a purely semantic property, because it doesn't hold much weight about how valuable an item might actually be to a player (though it may be a good indicator of overall value). For armor type, I don't think we should categorize in this vein either, because the heavier armor classes can wear armor types which aren't their standard item types. I think it would be good (until a solution can be devised) to keep the source of an item as a category ("World drops"), as we'd need to add information to the tooltip to define the source of an item as a property, though again, we should unmerge the rarity + world drops categories for being overly specific.

For example, "WoW head items", "WoW neck items", etc, are the most specific categories that we should use, in this particular set, now that we have SMW. Let the user define whether he wants cloth head items, or cloth and leather head items, or cloth and leather head items, all at level 75. Basically, properties are what the big databases have right now, and so we can use SMW to do the same things they do (to a certain extent, as we are somewhat limited by processing power).

Ashbear, I hope I answered your concerns with my explanation/argument to/for Eirik about things. :) --Sky (t · c) 04:32, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

I am still a bit unclear on how one would do things like get SMW to show me "all epic plate armor items requiring level 60", or even more interestingly, "all weapons from Ulduar". Is that yet to be implemented? What is the interface to SMW like, if currently incomplete? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 17:41, September 8, 2010 (UTC)