Warcraft Wiki talk:Category policy/Archive01

Vote to recall

== Policy recall vote ==

Keep

1. Keep Fandyllic 3:32 PM PST 9 Jan 2006 - (Looks good to me; see below)
2. Keep Aeleas 12:18, 18 Feb 2006 (EST) - (See note)
3. Keep Ralthor 12:21, 3 June 2006 (EDT) - (Vote to keep so we can close this vote, if something needs to be changed we can create a new vote, but I wouldn't want this recalled)
4. Keep Mikk 17:27, 3 June 2006 (EDT) - (Same. See WoWWiki:Policy/Proposal to ban redirecting categories though!)
5. Keep Kirkburn 16:33, 26 June 2006 (EDT) - (Vote so vote can vote be vote closed. Vote.)

Recall

Comments

Comments

1. Adding vote for this grandfathered policy, in case of desire to recall. --Fandyllic

   What does 'grandfathering' mean? -- Hammersmith 02:52, 10 Jan 2006 (EST)

2. There was also a significant discussion and vote at Wowpedia talk:Policies#Categories_and_articles. The consensus seemed to be that it should be added to the policy that Category pages shouldn't contain any substantive content other than a brief description of what the category is and a link to any associated articles. Should that part be grandfathered in as well, or put up to a vote again? --Aeleas 12:20, 18 Feb 2006 (EST)
   • I've gone ahead and added the content described above into the grandfathered policy. Since the upgrade, our many redirects from regular article pages to category pages containing article content aren't working the same. The content appears, but the articles in the category do not (e.g. Enchanting). Since this makes the wiki very difficult to navigate, it should be remedied quickly, by moving article content off of category pages on to its own page.--Aeleas 12:13, 17 March 2006 (EST)

---

Previous Discussion

Please leave a vote on this topic.. If we reach five votes for one side, and the other side does not also reach 5 votes within 24 hours, then the former wins the vote. To leave your vote, simple click [Edit] in the upper-right hand corner of the way you would like to vote, and type exactly the following below all the other present votes:

#--~~~~

Then simply click Save page and you are done!

• See WoWWiki:Democracy for more info on voting on topics in WoWWiki.

Old Votes

Capitalize all category titles

1. -- _ℑilver§^ℑide 16:07, 7 Dec 2005 (EST)

Capitalize only proper category titles

1. Schmidt 03:38, 14 Dec 2005 (EST) – this is how Wikipedia does it, and it makes sense to me besides
2. --Hammersmith 27 Dec 05, Aust; I don't like the overuse of capitals.

---

Comments

List of categories

The reason many of the current categories are not listed is they are small and redundant and violate guideline #4 on this policy. When I get a somewhat complete list of the categories that we do want, I will go and move articles into the appropriate categories, one by one. I will look around for such categories and mark them with a category delete candidate template, go check Category:Votes in progress for the current, well, votes in progress!

 _Silverhttp://avxworkshop.com/img/ss16.png^Side 21:24, 6 Dec 2005 (EST)

The Category:Instance is not listed but does contain plenty of good content. Should it be added to this master list? (I'm new to Wiking so hope I don't put my foot in it.) --HammersmithDec 27 '05

Exceptions, additions to the policy

I don't understand why you put Category:Alchemy under exceptions to the policy when all the other professions aren't, and why Category:Alliance and Category:Horde are there too. Under each of these two categories could be towns, cities, and outposts belonging to each.

I think an important aspect to all of this is that we need to agree upon how many dimensions each article will be categorized under. For instance:

1. Faction: Alliance, Horde, Steamwheedle Cartel, Thorium Brotherhood, Argent Dawn, Nightwatchers, Stormwind (as faction), Ironforge (as faction), ...
2. Race: Night Elf, Blood Elf, Human, Dwarf, Goblin, ...
3. Locale: Goldshire, Darkshire, Aerie Peak, Lakeshire, Booty Bay, Stormwind (as locale), Ironforge (as locale), ...

Each of these dimensions should be independent of the others. For instance, Night Elf should not be under Alliance (and certainly not the other way around!). Maybe Night Elf and Blood Elf should be both under Elf, but while that isn't necessary, it seems to make sense if each of the tribes of trolls and all the nations of humans are lumped under Human.

Sometimes faction and locale seem to be similar but different (many characters have Ironforge faction but reside in Stormwind; likewise with Gnomeregan).

I can't think of any more dimensions that should be used, but most definitely, there should be no more than one category in any given dimension. For instance, no character should be registered under Elwynn Forest if they're already under Goldshire. And Goldshire should most definitely be under Elwynn so if anyone is looking at Elwynn and can't find who they're looking for, they can find him under Goldshire. And something already registered under Elwynn must not also be under Eastern Kingdoms and Azeroth.

In fact, I can see how some people might feel like they need each of these dimensions of categorization, but quite honestly, I only see the need to categorize by faction only. Oh, I don't know.

Anyways, just because Goblins constitute the largest group of Steamwheedle Cartel, they should not be under nor over Steamwheedle Cartel. They must be independent of each other and not under a common root.

What are Trade Goods, if not Reagents?

I think the recipes of each profession should go under that profession's category (not even a sub-category), because after all, what else would go under professions categories besides trainers?

Non Player Characters shouldn't exist because, well think about it: all characters mentioned on this wiki are non-player characters.

Agree? Disagree? Schmidt 00:36, 7 Dec 2005 (EST)

---

I don't understand why you put Category:Alchemy under exceptions to the policy when all the other professions aren't, and why Category:Alliance and Category:Horde are there too. Under each of these two categories could be towns, cities, and outposts belonging to each.

I didn't - I don't know who did. I didn't even have an 'exceptions' section, there is no need for one.

I think an important aspect to all of this is that we need to agree upon how many dimensions each article will be categorized under. For instance:

1. Faction: Alliance, Horde, Steamwheedle Cartel, Thorium Brotherhood, Argent Dawn, Nightwatchers, Stormwind (as faction), Ironforge (as faction), ...
2. Race: Night Elf, Blood Elf, Human, Dwarf, Goblin, ...
3. Locale: Goldshire, Darkshire, Aerie Peak, Lakeshire, Booty Bay, Stormwind (as locale), Ironforge (as locale), ...

Each of these dimensions should be independent of the others. For instance, Night Elf should not be under Alliance (and certainly not the other way around!). Maybe Night Elf and Blood Elf should be both under Elf, but while that isn't necessary, it seems to make sense if each of the tribes of trolls and all the nations of humans are lumped under Human.

Sometimes faction and locale seem to be similar but different (many characters have Ironforge faction but reside in Stormwind; likewise with Gnomeregan).

I can't think of any more dimensions that should be used, but most definitely, there should be no more than one category in any given dimension. For instance, no character should be registered under Elwynn Forest if they're already under Goldshire. And Goldshire should most definitely be under Elwynn so if anyone is looking at Elwynn and can't find who they're looking for, they can find him under Goldshire. And something already registered under Elwynn must not also be under Eastern Kingdoms and Azeroth.

In fact, I can see how some people might feel like they need each of these dimensions of categorization, but quite honestly, I only see the need to categorize by faction only. Oh, I don't know.

I agree - mostly... - more on that later.

Anyways, just because Goblins constitute the largest group of Steamwheedle Cartel, they should not be under nor over Steamwheedle Cartel. They must be independent of each other and not under a common root.

That shouldn't exist - somebody added that stuff and I failed to notice ^^/

The 'Character' section is kind of misnamed, but I know nothing better to name it - it is everything to do with the player's character - races, classes (and everything that goes under classes, talents spells abilities blahblahblah *phew*), professions, etcetra. Not to do with characters in the game itself, those all go under NPC (see below)

What are Trade Goods, if not Reagents?

Everywhere I have seen them called Trade Goods, including the in-game auction house menu

I think the recipes of each profession should go under that profession's category (not even a sub-category), because after all, what else would go under professions categories besides trainers?

No, that defeats the point - the professions are categorized under Character (for something that you as the player choose for your character like race or class or talents) whereas the items are well, Items! However, I do see the merit in removing the individual professions as categories in and of themselves, and instead merely have the articles files in the category - make sense? I think I'll go do that now... Done

Non Player Characters shouldn't exist because, well think about it: all characters mentioned on this wiki are non-player characters.

Ahhhh wrong here by far (for a specific reason, not in general rofl) - the Character pages (see above) are about your character, the player's character and the choices he gets to make. Races, classes, professions, tallents, ETC. However, we still needed a category for NPCs (as in vendors) and monsters (as in ogres and whatnot) - but here a problem arises. What about when a mob and a NPC are one? or it is neither a mob nor a NPC but merely a lore character that may not even show up in the game but deserve notice here? You know what, after thinking on this for five seconds I find myself in the wrong. NPC category split into true NPCs and Monsters. Done

Agree? Disagree? Schmidt 00:36, 7 Dec 2005 (EST)

See all above (-:

 _ℑilver§^ℑide 08:13, 7 Dec 2005 (EST)

---

Dude. Where I had put First Aid is under Recipes, which should also include recipes that can be trained immediately upon arriving at the trainer without buying a book, so, "Non-book-trained recipes".

I wasn't at all accusing you of putting Steamwheedle Cartel under or over Goblins; just saying that it shouldn't happen.

Ok, pardon me about the Trade Goods/Reagents thing. I just figured that anything that is a "trade good" is something that winds up in something else; hence, a reagent. It "reacts" with what else is in the "reactor" to create the item. But if they're separate in the AH, by all means!

And as for plans/recipes/whatever going under their respective professional categories, well, wouldn't it be pleasant to go to Category:Blacksmithing and find that sword that you think is awesome and find that you can make it some time in the future? That might help you "make that choice" for a profession. You do say that it has everything to do with the choices to be made in creating and developing your character, after all. And just to make sure you realize, the article on the item and the article on the plan can be the very same thing:

1. How good the item is,
2. How to get the plan for it.

And as for putting professions, races, and factions together, well they don't need to be in one root — you can simply make a template such as I have for metals and herbs. Do those have a category associated with them? No. And don't make it so! It's better if that template isn't, and it'd be better if they stay that way.

I can't think of anything else I need to respond to here at this moment. Schmidt 18:28, 7 Dec 2005 (EST)

Smithing

I don't think there should be an umbrella category for non-armorsmithing smiths, unless there's actually a skill that is an umbrella for the others (and I don't think there is). After all, there's only 3 underneath this umbrella and if you're looking through the categories, you have to click one more thing that doesn't even have anything under it. Does this make sense or are all my words jumbled up? Schmidt 18:31, 11 Dec 2005 (EST)

Wha...? Sorry I'll take that 'Jumbeleled up' token, thanks! --  _ℑilver§^ℑide 22:20, 11 Dec 2005 (EST)

Capitalization

Me, I approve of not capitalizing other than in the way of common writing, but user:BaldMonkey doesn't agree. If the number of people who do agree outweigh the (potentially) few who disagree, we should go ahead and do it, but how many people do agree and how many people disagree?

The reasons for agreeing and disagreeing may affect others' choices, too. My reason for agreeing is that it's less using the shift key when I'm typing. Also, if I'm linking to blacksmithing plans, I might just say category:blacksmithing plans rather than category:blacksmithing Plans. BaldMonkey disagrees because it should look more like a title. Schmidt 00:58, 7 Dec 2005 (EST)

• CJ writes: If a word links to a page, then i think each word should have a capital letter : thus BlackSmithingPlans, instead of blacksmithingplans because it denotes a single specific object or location. if in a text you are however writing about how there are blacksmithing plans which are more rare than others, then it should be written normally. The smith plans are perhaps a bad example. take Ironforge for example. Titles and "places" are shown with Capital letters. However Auction_House has a number of items listed which are not places or names, and can thus its perfectly reasonable to be display these with small letters.
• Dracomage: I agree on the capitalization if it is going to be used for Linking between pages.
• Kiwanotree: Proper names should be capitalised, be they Gnomeregan, Pattern: Runic Headband or Abysmal Crest.
•  _ℑilver§^ℑide: I disagree - names of links are not to be AllOneWordLikeThis, nor should they be allonewordlikethiseither - that is the format for a wiki like CamelWIki or something. MediaWiki (the best and most powerful software, which this wiki runs on an old version of {1.3 vs newest 1.5.3}) uses pipe and bracket syntax... like [[WoWWiki:Character codes]] links to WoWWiki:Character codes (notice the space not an underscore, and the capatalization) however [[WoWWiki:Character Codes]] links to WoWWiki:Character Codes, which is a different page and does not exist! Just a clarification.

A tree template

Is this agreed upon, in general? Barring the capitalization dispute, does anyone mind if I make a template with this list of items categories edited as a tree? I had originally thought of having such a tree for all the categories, but items is really the only significant tree-needing category, as far as I can tell.

I'd create Template:Itemscat, in a similar format as Template:Equipment or Template:Herbs. If it looks okay, I'm planning to make it so it links to every category one more level down. This particular template should appear on Category:Items and each of its subs, and perhaps to the second level, but maybe not farther than that. Something like it could appear on each of the other main categories too. Schmidt 18:45, 11 Dec 2005 (EST)

• The Category:Items tree is missing three important classes: Category:World of Warcraft finger items, Category:Trinkets, Category:World of Warcraft armor item sets. While there isn't much content on the Wiki for rings or trinkes, I expect they conceptually belong in the tree for future expansion. (Being new to the Cat Team, I am putting my suggestion change here rather than on the article itself, until I get my head around consequences a little more.)
• Also, where would Category:Instance fit in? How about geography, locations and flight paths? Do we need another 2nd level branch to the tree called Locations? --Hammersmith Dec 27 05

Instructions on how to apply and use categories

I'm new to Wiking, so when I started to get active I came across the categorisation policy page. The Wiki said "people should follow this policy".

However, the policy page as it stands today only tells people how to add new categories to the master list. It does not tell you how to categorise a page you edit or compose. (I had to deduce it by editing a few existing pages).

So, I propose we add a new section to the article with a title something like this one, with content saying:

If you compose or edit a page, please add a category or two to the bottom. You do this by entering [[Category:News]] for example. If it falls under two categories you just repeat the [ ] technique each time. Please use an existing category. You can find a preferrred list of categories on this page, or you can use a category you have seen on similar pages to yours.

--Hammersmith 00:57, 29 Dec 2005 (EST)

I have pledged not to type anything on this page, but I couldn't help this:

Quote: "You can find a preferrred list of categories on this page, or you can use a category you have seen on similar pages to yours."

Ummm shouldn't that be "You can choose a category from the list on this page."? --  _ℑilver§^ℑide 11:51, 31 Dec 2005 (EST)

Yeah, if our list of categories list was complete. But it seems to be missing quite a few important categories (which I've commented on earlier on this page (ie. instances, trinkets). So, until it's actually finished, we will still need an instruction for people on how to use what categories do exist. -- Hammersmith 16:31, 31 Dec 2005 (EST)

On pluralizing "World of Warcraft API(s)"

If it were me, I'd just give it up to be perfectly honest. There's just waaaaaay too many pages :-) And, as a matter of fact, World of Warcraft does not have several Application Programming Interfaces. It has a single one. So I don't even think making it a plural is correct. If anything, it should have been prefixed with a "The", except that's against policy ;-) --Mikk 06:32, 26 May 2006 (EDT)

Hah, that's what I get for opening my mouth too soon. Now I'm trying to promote a total restructuring of the development-related pages, including changed and new categories. Talk is up on Talk:World of Warcraft API. Input from you guys would be invaluable :-) --Mikk 13:54, 28 May 2006 (EDT)