DDO wiki talk:Category policy

Forums: Index > Village pump > Category policy

Overview

I got tired of chasing 8-12 conversations around on multiple NS and losing focus. I have consolidated them all here, feel free to re-arrange them chronologically or move other conversations pertaining to anything to do with a new Category policy that we seem to be building. Thanks, ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message)
ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message)

It might be just me, but I feel taking Category policy to the mix does not help. I have been trying to work with the structure as shaping policy itself is quite taxing thing to do and a different job. With plain category structure you can reshape it quite easily, but changing policy is a long progress. I do see the need for both, but I am dubious that making them both in one big jungle is successful.

That said, the reshaping of structure that was tried a couple years ago was made by (less than) handful people over several months. It resulted partially to the one you see now. I think its shortcoming was that the left hand did not know what the right one was doing, reviewing ideas was minimal and everything was policed to be tied 'directly' to the root (Root > DDO library > Items > Items by enchantment > Weapon prefixes). Of course, weapon prefixes are not items thus the structure fails for there for the first time. Other methods resulted to predictable results.

I hope we would try to work better this time. Trying to address structure of (at least) 1800 categories in one place is quite impossible. One part of the puzzle is keeping the categories relevant to their name (policy), another is the relations between categories.

My suggestion is that we break the work in parts and tag the conversations with category: reshaping structure (or similar). With breaking to parts I mean that one tagged category conversation is about its (possible) parent category and in maximum depth of two of its child categories. I would be really surprised to find relations and distinct differences between other subcategories and those subcategories again having child categories that have distinct differences between other subcategories that the members can be members of. Deepest I can think out of my hat is Items > Equipment's > Weapons. Then there could be illustration per conversation how the category looks in depth and width e.g. C:Equipment.

I also suggest that we keep the category policy in a separate discussion (DDO_wiki_talk:Category_policy). There one could address such things as not to stammer a prefix or a suffix in categories, instead of need to address it in every category structure separately. BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 08:29, March 22, 2013 (EDT)

Discussion moved from CT:Server

Are we doubling up on Categories? Wiki already has Category:Servers already in place has been in use for some time

Bladedge (Contributions • Message) 12:40, December 24, 2012 (EST)

No doubling up, honing the crude temporal one. Using the basic forms over complex ones as per NP. The category already indicates it is a collection of multiple articles.

BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 16:02, December 25, 2012 (EST)

I'm not entirely sure what BlackSmith (Contribs • Message • Email) is trying to accomplish, but I am monitoring his project and will clean it up when he is done.

ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 13:03, December 24, 2012 (EST)

For the OT part: I am trying and succeeding in Wikiying the articles, cleaning them up, updating with info, putting them in to right categories, and so on. Thanks for looking after grammar mistakes.

BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 16:02, December 25, 2012 (EST)

When in doubt look it up,

Wikipedia:Categorization on Wikipedia

General conventions

• Standard article naming conventions apply; in particular, do not capitalize regular nouns except when they come at the beginning of the title.
• Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article. Examples: "Law", "Civilization", "George W. Bush".
• Names of set categories should be plural. Examples: "Writers", "Villages in Poland".

In this case Villages in Poland = Servers in DDO, there is more then one village in DDO so it is plural

City status in the United Kingdom

    Cities in England
    Cities in the United Kingdom
    City
    Local government in the United Kingdom
    Types of subdivision in the United Kingdom

World War II infantry weapons

    World War II infantry weapons
    Lists of weapons
    Military lists of World War II

Wowwiki: Categories:

    Servers
    US servers
    PvP servers
    Central Time Zone servers
    Server:Burning Legion US

eq2.wikia. Categories:

    Servers
    Roleplay Servers
    Current servers 
    Antonia Bayle (Server)

Bladedge (Contributions • Message) 17:44, December 25, 2012 (EST)

Discussion moved from UT:BlackSmith#Category:Server

related talk :Help_talk:Category

• Category:Servers
  • Category:American servers
  • Category:European server

you changed these to;

• Category:Server (why singular?)
  • Category:American (what?)
  • Category:European

these are completely against our naming policy or what we have done in the past on this wiki. im gonna have to revert your edits. please explain your intention on this and rethink what you are doing. and please note this is not the same wiki when only me, you and Borror0 were editing in 2007. we now have like 8 admins, try and make consensus on the matter before making such big changes.

yoko5000 (Contributions • Message) 03:01, December 25, 2012 (EST)

I see no section in naming policy that says "Prefer using plurar over singular" nor reasoning for it. Instead I do read reasoning to use short, natural and describing article names. Because it is more natural for person to seek information about specific topic, not topics, singular is more fitting in many ways. Same applies to category naming, except there is specially request for shorter category names without any extra description or prefixes that usually come already from upper category(s), like in this case. Or otherwise it never ends and they become "Category: Online server located physically in America operated by Turbine that don't have a name from honorable house" that has upper category "Category: Online server located physically in America operated by Turbine" and so on. A trend that is not healthy, one aspect that I have been thinking to address in the Help_talk:Category. While I do see there are category names in both forms (older ones in singular, new ones plural), having category names in singular points out the articles attributes.

In category naming's, I can see both groundings for plural and singular. Plural indicates better of collection of something specific, while singular points out the characteristics of the article plus it keeps them shorter and minimizes the use of 's. To me, I rather see and use singular as the prefix Category already points out it is a collection of things.

For OT, yes I have noticed it is not the same wiki and it was hardly a big change that would have needed 8 persons vote. Besides, you forgot Elliot. The one that made the wiki possible in first place. For reverting my work, I am surprised that a admin goes so forcefully to blank work of others.

BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 14:12, December 25, 2012 (EST)

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you BlackSmith (Contribs • Message • Email); whereas these items are in a category, which is by definition plural, it is more natural to describe it in the plural form. To expand on Yoko's (Contribs • Message • Email) point, we currently have 18 System Operators (List of System operators), not to forget about our 302 DDOwiki VIPs (List DDOwiki VIPs) & 138 Super Users (List Super Users); with a total of 58 active editors out of 34,258 total users. As far as "Mr. Cable" goes, I do not believe that anyone who's aware of his contributions has forgotten him. When he threw his temper tantrum and rage-quit, as is my understanding of what happened when the DDOwiki went down for almost a year when I first started editing, well the wiki went down for almost a year and a lot of good people were lost in the interim. I am thankful that Xevo (Contribs • Message • Email) took it upon himself to resurrect this wiki, and I have made every effort possible to make the wiki as user and editor friendly as I can. Some of the templates I have created to make the user interface more pleasant were extremely complicated to write, took me days (or weeks) to debug (and some are still on-going because they are so massive). There have been some that have required me to petition for extensions to be installed to make them possible to write. I'm just finishing up my first pass at an intro PHP class in school, and intend to take an advanced course on the subject when it becomes available with the intent of writing an extension or two to add to the wiki for even more functionality. Your changes were not massive changes, and are easily reverted by Yoko or I, and will very likely be reverted as such. It just makes no sense to say "There are 9 server in the server category." It makes even less sense to say Category:American or Category:European. Ummm. American or European what? WAY too vague. I see you have made some other talk page posts, which I have still to read through. I look forward to your input and hope that you do not feel discouraged from contributing in the future because of a negative reception of an idea or concept of yours. I like your idea about the adding the current version of DDO to the "This page was last updated..." text on the bottom, and think I can implement it in the Mediawiki namespace directly, but I will need to play with it a little bit.

ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 19:55, December 25, 2012 (EST)

Both of those categories are child's of Category:server. How can that be vague? If a page is member of both categories, it is a server that is live and a server that is located in america. Same idea is found in Category:item subcategories. Category itself should represent one aspect and one aspect alone. No "C:Items that can be used as weapon and armour called shields".

There is text in the bottom of the page that states when it was last edited, but there is no categorization for e.g. per year when the last edit was done. That way you could cross-reference pages that belong to item category and that are from year X to check them through and update them if needed. OR game mechanics. Or anything.

For the number of editors, I see couple new user groups, but I fail to see how that is significant. Each contributor is equally valuable. Yoko5000 here was collecting huge amounts of data and working with others to do ground level editing that left us time to think the structure and how to implement them.

For the PHP part... Don't go there :-D Its most horrible language you can learn on a long run. Breaks its own rules and gives lots of headache the bigger the site comes, but I guess you have to start somewhere. For learning to be a developer I suggest you check out this one.

BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 08:33, December 26, 2012 (EST)

both of categories are under Category:servers, yes. but following your logic whtas gonna happen with Category:Crafting stubs?, Category:Feat icons, Category: Artificer bonus feats, and so on and on? I just dont see how its gonna work properly. are you sure you know what you are talking about?

yoko5000 (Contributions • Message) 08:55, December 26, 2012 (EST)

What kind of collection is Category:Crafting stubs?? It looks like to be collection of two categories, not a good thing. If an article is a stub, any article, then it belongs to category:Stub. If its a crafting mechanism, then it belongs to category:Crafting. Combining categories might sound a good idea but it is trap.

Category:Feat icons don't seem to have any problems. Its a collection of icons that represent feats. It is a picture and thus should be member of c:image also, but mediaWiki should do that categorizing already. Category: Artificer bonus feats is a bit tricky one. It could be broken in to:

• Category:Feat
  • Category:Bonus
    • Category: Artificer

C:feat's as child category called bonus and bonus has child Category:artificer. That artificer bonus feat would then belong to all three categories. This has couple problems. Artificer category might have lots of members (enhancements, spells, items, features and so on) if done badly. They are not directly linked to artificer, but trough some other feature. Also there is concept of "bonus feat", plain "bonus" is widely used for numerous things so that is a TARP again.

No matter what, the category three should not look like

• Category: Artificer
  • Category:Bonus feat
    • Category:Feat

Artificer is not source of ALL bonus feats, neither is all feats bonus feats. This is so wrong it should be noticed mile away.

Right would be:

• Category:Feat
  • Category:Bonus feat
    • Category: Artificer bonus feat

Even though the suffix grows, it is hard to avoid as the structure comes from real concepts. A article can contain information abut a feat, about a feat that has attribute that makes it a bonus to some classes and about a feat that is available as a bonus feat to a certain group. You collect articles into a categories according to what information they hold and one aspect per category.

Also the category pages are not to be used as information pages. In this case, Artificer bonus feats being member of Category: Artificer bonus feats indicates that there would be a feat that would have been named as Artificer bonus feats that could be selected as a Artificer bonus feat. As this is not the case, the page is confusing the using by suggesting incorrect information.

Yes, I am sure what I am talking about. I have been planing a wiki's Category:structure that inholds (at the moment) 9k articles, where all redirects are from nicknames and is lightning fast to load and navigate trough information. Specially compared to this and compendium. I have been "on the field" for last 16 years. Also as a small detail I was one of the three dudes that was planing the structure in first place.

BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 13:11, January 21, 2013 (EST)

Uh, yea, Elliott, and Dragonstar (Contribs • Message • Email) too. now I remember all the jazz we had back then... Anyways though, past is past, history is history. Let's not talk about that...

Well my whole point was, as I asked you to on Help_talk:Category, explain your idea before implementing it when its significant deal. I think Shade did some cleanup and made it clearer on the server category page a little while ago too, such as adding Category:Bygone European servers, Category:Bygone American servers... now you "blanked the work" of his and NCL listing on the Servers page is completely broken. that is what I care about.

yoko5000 (Contributions • Message) 02:12, December 26, 2012 (EST)

Well you brought it up.

Yeah, I am going to explain but its hard to draw a picture when you only got text. That's what happened with the category structure, thats why we had the structure picture. I am not blanking his work, I am completing it. For the NCL part, why there is a list of things on a page that introduces and explains the members of the category? That phenomena is rampant in this wiki now, a really non-wiki thing. Atomisation, breaking things into small pieces is one of the principles of wikiying. If I want to learn what a skill is, there should not be presentation of all skills and/or listing what all items gives bonuses to skills in the same page. It is a snowball effect that ends into god pages. RElevant things in same page. Keeps the wiki light and easy to navigate.

BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 08:33, December 26, 2012 (EST)

The response that I get from most people is that they don't want light pages where they have to follow this link to that link to some other link to get all of the information they want about a subject. They want ALL of the information about a subject on one page so they don't have to click and wait four times whatever to load and get all of it. I'm getting noise that navigation is undesirable and if they want to know what Skills are, they don't want to have to also go back and forth to read Balance, Bluff, Concentration, Diplomacy, Disable Device, Haggle, Heal, Hide, Intimidate, Jump, Listen, Move Silently, Open Lock, Perform, Repair, Search, Spot, Swim, Tumble, and Use Magic Device in order to have a full understanding of what Skills are.

The reasoning is why navigate to and back from 20 different pages for ONE subject (that being skills). I can't say I blame them. The same thing applies to the category structure (Which I will admit, I just made a TOTAL mess of Category:Items that I still need to figure out, build a tree for and clean up), they don't want to have to navigate three or four sub category levels deep to find a piece of information. There needs to be balance in the Category names... C:Artificer level 3 auto-granted feats is to specific of a category name and I think would only have one member, this is unproductive. Navigating through a tree structure such as C:Feats → C:Artificer → C:Auto-granted → C:Level 3 is too long and drawn out and will deter people from the wiki... They just want to get their information and get out. C:Feats → C:Artificer feats and one the associated page it can be typed out or transclude the feats page for Artificers and break it down as a god page...

God pages on topics are GOOD things, not evil things like you think... They are good if they are properly built. By that I mean you are correct, all of the pieces should probably have their own page, but all of those piece pages should be transcluded together on the general concept pages. Using my Skills example above, All of the sub-pages for skills are good, as you would have it; however, on the main Skills page itself, all of those sub-pages should be transcluded to off all of the information in one place that is relevant to skills. People should never "have to" navigate to the individual pages, but those pages should be available if someone wanted to do a search for Search and only cared about search.

Okay, so now that I have rambled on for a good 5-10 minutes. I'm just going to shut up and go back to my school work and projects that I am working on...

ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 14:40, January 21, 2013 (EST)

You are right in open point and that's "all of the information they want about a _subject_", but your approach is too wide, thus resulting to god pages. If you really think god pages are good, then can you tell me why no-one uses them? To have a understanding what skills are, person should read both skill and skills pages plus Skill_usefulness. This kind of page skipping is what people do not like. General description about what different skills are but Skill_usefulness page is just not they way to go. It is not throughout, article name is horrible and only the correctly named page skill (according to NC) really answers what a skill is.

If you are navigating longer than three clicks away from where you started, the quality of the site is not that good. Basic's of usability basics. If you want to have a god page for per topic, then please explain me how you plan to categorize things as there is nothing to categorize. All are in couple god pages. Sounds like a trip to 1990's. Either you deliberately ignored my points above or your example is just really bad. Are all every level 3 feats (what ever they are) really autogenerated? You are aware that categories can be members of multiple categories? Thats why the old category structure in here can give yo ua really bad picture as it does not show the width of the structure, only depth.

You do understand that you are suggesting now having all weapon infomation on one page, all quest information at one page and so on. If there is no need to navigate to pages that focus more in to a single subject, that means only the god pages contain any relevant info. That is fine if you have something simple and plain like a webpage that has contact info. But wikis and places that contain serious, complex information need the information to be kept in relevant boundaries. Page about NPC should tell basic information about what a monster is and how they differ from PC. Even a list of NPC's should not tell all the info about them. That information gathering pages you have made are fine if you are not looking anything specific, but there is no page that shows me list of NPC's that are good. People are not looking for huge excel sheets. They are looking for information. Now the wiki is more and more providing data. There is a difference in there and I know it. Usually I would volunteer for things like these as I got experience and I like building structures, databases, systems, but won't start even sketching one if the general attitude is that it is not appreciated and not implemented. The present power users of the wiki are of course free to do what ever you want but I can tell you that big pages with lots of data is not what people are looking.

Simply based the way you like god pages, I guess your professor is going to tell you to prune down your bachelors thesis subject, when you get there.

BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 17:32, January 21, 2013 (EST)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'm not saying that it shouldn't be spread out and broken down with the great amount of detail. I'm saying that there needs to be offered both options. Your pointing out that we currently have three pages relating to skill (Skill, Skills, and Skill_usefulness). Two of those are near identical as far as what information they are offering with slightly different formatting/layout and the third one is improperly named in my opinion... Skills and Skill_usefulness are nearly identical pages and should be merged together. Skill isn't as much about the different skills as it is about what a skill point is and it should be renamed Skill Points or something of the sort, and then {{:Skill Points}} transcluded into the main Skills page. It would reduce the confusion and hunting/searching required as-well-as any conflicting/outdated information. I'll admit, I'm not great at examples, it's a weakness of mine, but considering I'm only half-minded into these responses while I chase my 15 month old daughter around it's going to have to do.

My response to your comment at the end of your response, "Simply based the way you like god pages, I guess your professor is going to tell you to prune down your bachelors thesis subject, when you get there." is this: (S)he will want me to turn in one final report with one thesis and not six papers with six theses about one topic.

If you would like to type up a proposal to what you think that Category:Items should look like and post it on Category_talk:Items (not actually changing anything yet until everyone gets a chance to look it over), I would very much appreciate that and take all of your ideas on that branch of our Cat tree structure into consideration. I would also like to hear from Yoko5000 (Contribs • Message • Email) and some of the other administrators and get their ideas as well...

Thank you for your time. (I'll be copy pasting this last section to Category_talk:Items as well as a discussion starter for the purpose since your talk page isn't the appropriate forum for it).

ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 18:25, January 21, 2013 (EST)

Discussion moved from HT:Category#Structure

There seems to be no plan on how pages have been structured. Category pages have information that should be in the actual page. As a the naming convention for the pages are quite !wiki like so are the category names also quite wild. If there is no bigger wiki wide transaction plans, I would like to make a structure policy and start enforcing them on the categories.

BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 17:25, November 26, 2012 (EST)

We have DDO wiki:Naming policy#Category Naming and User:Yoko5000/Category_structure(however this is old).

What have you in your mind for example?

yoko5000 (Contributions • Message) 03:48, November 27, 2012 (EST)

I'm guessing part of what BlackSmith (Contribs • Message • Email) is talking about are pages like Category:The Red Fens epic items and Category:Cannith Challenge epic items. It might make more sense for the information there to be on it's own content pages instead of on the category pages. In my mind, the main reason the category pages should not also be used as content pages is that category pages don't show up in search results on the wiki. Its true that the categories I mentioned above are easy to navigate to using the main TOC, but a new user has to discover that through trial and error. I also think that it may serve to confuse new users who don't understand the cat system we have here (I know it used to confuse me). If pages in the category need to be listed on the content page, people can just use the <ncl> command. This is what I have been trying to do on the monster race pages anyway (Beholder race for example).

As far as BlackSmith's comments about structuring go, I too have noticed some chaos in the structuring. I have read the Category structure listed on your user page Yoko, and that list is well organized. However, it doesn't really reflect what actually is going on at lower levels of the structure. In looking just through Category:Monsters I have found a plethora of unused and incorrectly named (and incorrectly categorized) categories (many of which I have already deleted or moved). For example, there are categories for monster races that don't exist in-game. That's just what I have found in Category:Monsters, so I can't really speak to other areas of the cat structure.

Anyway, just my 2c.

Susalona (Contributions • Message) 13:04, November 27, 2012 (EST)

Discussion moved from UT:Technical 13#Incorrect Category Structure

Thats not how wiki categories are suppose to be set up and it completely missed the point of the category tree structure. The ones you deleted were the correct way to set up the categories. The appropriate and correct way is Category: Items > Category:Damage effect items > Category:Untyped > Category:Tidal?. Its like a continent > a nation > states > city > zip code.

Bladedge (Contributions • Message) 13:17, February 25, 2013 (EST)

I'm using the subpagename the same as what I started setting up weeks ago when I started the project, and it is taking this long to have an "issue"? *sigh* oi vey... Okay, let's discuss it. How do you propose we deal with our dis-ambiguous effect names? What ever you do to one, you should do to all to keep it uniform. Doing things a certain way with an exception for things that just won't work causes confusion and should be avoided.

ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 14:36, February 25, 2013 (EST)

I tried to find the page with the discussion but couldn't before I posted. I know its some where and had brief disscuion in chat but I didnt picture it looking like what is being done. Figured you be sorting each sub-category into thier parent category. What I see is the same information being expressed on the same lines which is not how Ive seen it done on other wikis
This is what is being displayed when I look at the page Celestia,_Brightest_Star_of_Day first page I saw on the recent change with the Category: changes Root > DDO library > Items > Damage effect items > Damage effect items/Alignment > Damage effect items/Alignment/Supreme Good
Is this how its going to be presented after all is done what be the point of the catagoy tree? might as remove every thing between Items and Supreme Good
Or is going to display like (how I picture base on what I read from the other wikis:
Root > DDO library > Items > Damage effect items > Alignment > Supreme Good
Root > DDO library > Items > Damage effect items > Alignment > Supreme Evil
Damage effect items/Aligment should be seeing "Aligment", not "Damage effect items/" it is already in the Category: Damage effects items that part does not need to mention a second time
Damage effect items/Alignment/Supreme Good should be seeing "Supreme Good", not "Damage effect items/Alignment" those two should be its own category and should have been already been displayed.

Bladedge (Contributions • Message) 15:26, February 25, 2013 (EST)

I understand that, and I don't like the way it looks much at the moment either. That being said, we need to start somewhere, and "(effect) items" isn't going to work due to some of the effects having multiple meanings. I don't mind playing with the formatting and moving things around some more, I am not set that this is how it has to be. I just wanted to get the structure to be independent and then we can play with wording a little to make it more pleasing to the eye. The purpose of Categorizing is nothing more than grouping things up, regardless of what we name the groups... I don't want to end up with them all being simple and then having one that won't work and have to do something non-uniform like "Wisdom items (damage effect)" and then the counterpart "Wisdom items (ability modifier)"... Just looks dumb. So, we need an alternative. Something that can be uniform for ALL effects...

ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 15:50, February 25, 2013 (EST)

When you fist mention fixing up item categories this is what went in my mind was you were going to fix up the categories in the templates to remove the category bleeding, you did . You were going to go into each temple rewrite/clean and add categories to them, u did. It made reverse look up more easier and no bleeding. While you were cleaning up the templates figured you would move the new/old categories into their proper branches like I mention above post, that was when the "What the...!?" did I miss understood what Tech was talking about all those weeks back??? I would of said something.

These are pages Iam referencing for categories:

• http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Category
• Category:Swords on Wikipedia
• Commons:Categories on MediaWiki commons
• Category:Weapons on MediaWiki commons
• http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Root > DDO library > Items > Weapons* > Item enchantments > Damage effects > Alignment damage > Supreme Good damage**
Supreme Good is an Alignment damage that is an Damage effect which is an Item enchantment found on Weapons which is an item. *Probably could lose the Weapons part if it moves to shield effect it mess with the whole tree branching. Probably don't need the word damage unless it is needed ex Wisdom damage

Root > DDO library > Items > Weapons > Item enchantments > Damage effects > Ability damage > Wisdom damage*
Wisdom damage is an Ability damage that is an Damage effect which is an Item enchantment found on Weapons which is an item. No parenthesis just "Wisdom damage"

Root > DDO library > Items > Item enchantments > Defensive effects > Hit Point modifier > Toughness
Toughness is an Hit Point modifier that is an Defensive effect which is an Item enchantments found on items.

Bladedge (Contributions • Message) 18:27, February 25, 2013 (EST)

Just my thoughts, when I think of damage modifications (effects), what comes to mind is NOT something that is an "item property" /(enchantments). Right now the edge cases where damage modifications do not exist as item properties include things like artificer spells (lightning damage add / deadly weapons W increase ), enhancements / feats (orc enhanced damage for instance ), and event consumables (icy burst kit, etc). Although there are only a couple I can think of, in the future there may be more consumables, ddo purchasable products, etc that would modify damage done (not only by weapons, but spells). I think the category structure should have a branch outside of the item branch for damage modification definitions, and the existing structure under items should be seperated out/grouped by items that have the modifier. It looks like the current branch "item by enchantment" is starting that structure which completely makes sense ( to me at least).

To reiterate : I dont think of the leafs in the item branch as a reference point for the damage mod per se, but as a destination point for items that contain that property. And in that regard, your reference of wisdom damage items, or supreme good damage items is exactly where it should be.

Joenuts (Contributions • Message) 19:51, February 25, 2013 (EST)

So, I rooted around a bit and found the start of this discussion. As far as the "Wisdom damage" suggestion goes, I'm not for that method because "Holy damage", "Pure Good damage", "Sovereign Acid Arrow damage", "Venomed Ammunition 1d6 damage", ... basically it looks horrible on a lot of other effects, and I stick to whatever we do to one we need to do to all. So, I thought about it some more AND my ideas are:

• Call "Wisdom" damage items, "Bewildering" instead. Since this is the proper DnD name for the effect anyways and Turbine-DDO should hopefully change it at some point (I'm even considering sending Feather an email about it).
• Change to root category for Category:Wisdom items to Category:Wise items.
  • This would require other name changes as well (which I don't mind doing)
    • Category:Strength items to Category:Ogre Power items
    • Category:Dexterity items to Category:Nimble items?
    • Category:Constitution items to Category:Health items?
    • Category:Intelligence items to Category:Clever items
    • Category:Charisma items to Category:Charismatic items?

ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 14:44, February 26, 2013 (EST)

I do like where you went for Ogre Power, Nimble ext. But I dont see the need for the word "items" to be tag on to every single Enchantments its over using what the tree structure is to handle before one reaches Ogre Power it like adding the word automobile after every make and modal of a car Category: Ferrari automobile > Category: Spider automobile. How about we create the trees and branches before placing them into templates?

Bladedge (Contributions • Message) 17:59, March 7, 2013 (EST)

I understand what you are saying Blade, the question is: Without the "items" descriptor, can the title of the category be easily understood and not ambiguous? Using your example... If you came across something that was in "C:Spider", what would be your first instinct as to what the page was about? I'm assuming, like the rest of us that your first inclination would be that it is about an arachnid of some sort. However, with it was in "C:Spider automobile" the category name can stand on its own and it is very clear as to what it is about. I do want to work on reducing some of the sub-cats-titles I've created to get things where they belong, but I need to make sure that everything is in the right place before I do so. Otherwise with my ADHD I'll forget what I was working on without the structure built out on every tier and things will get misplaced and it will all be broken.

ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 10:11, March 8, 2013 (EST)

What the category is about should be told in the category's page, what is(/are) the category's parent(s) also describes what it is. Also keep in mind this wiki is about DDO, not about cars. So when someone goes to C:spiders he is waiting to see list of spiders in the game.

This issue has the same problem with many others, it is too deep. If the category structure is Root > DDO library > Items > Weapons > Item enchantments > Damage effects > Ability damage > Wisdom damage, then can you say that e.g. ability damage is a item type? Not every category is a subcategory from the root.

I like the idea of having C:<effect that gives the incremental> and slapping that under category of C:<Effects that increase ability stats> as it is indeed a list of (items mostly) that give that effect. BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 13:16, March 22, 2013 (EDT)

Continue discussion from HT:Category#Structure

We have the policy but no one is following nor has anyone enforced them since 2010 or so it seems at least. Let's take a recent example that breaks most of the policies that there are, Category:Doublestrike items. The two examples Susalona (Contribs • Message • Email) brought up fill the same symptoms. A category that has TOC is already a definitive sign of failed wiki page. A category page that has uses NCL also is just double failure.

Name of the category is combination of two categories, items and doublestrike. It tries to be category that collects every source of doublestrike that a character can get. This might not be true but it is a educated guess as there is no Category:Doublestrikers, and it has subcategories per bonus given. But, even if I am wrong and it truly is collection of only items that give doublestrike, then such a Category: should be grounded by the fact that the main categories are too big or confusing. This is not true in this case, or in the DDO wiki in general.

The category is member of Category:items, yet there is no item called doublestrike. Also, it is hardly a subcategory of items. Equipment's should be subcategory of items as consumables, ingredients, and other major types of items. Category:Doublestrike is not a item type nor it is a major player thus it should not be a subcategory for items.

Its subcategories carry really bad names. Using / in wiki is really touchy thing, like adding a new namespace. It usually breaks something, usually templates and links. They also break the double meaning of categories as they have the item part. The subcategories should be "Doublestrike x%" and those should be child categories of the doublestrike.

Lastly but not least, the category page holds information, even double information. Only thing it should mention is what purpose the category has and have a decent links. Now, it lists twice the same information. Once through NCL, thus generating unnecessarily page load and secondly through native MediaWiki.

For the Category:Monsters if one familiarizes himself what is a creature type, subtype and a race, the category structure would be lot clearer. Also there is no need for repeating the word "type" in every category as it has creeped into the category names now. E.g. Category:Beholders should be subcategory of Monster manual but article Beholder should be member of Category:Creature type. One collects all different creature types, another collects all certain type of creatures. First category handles about game mechanics, second one of content.

The wiki is full of these kind of examples the more deeper you go in structure. While, the closer to the root you are, the more along the lines it is per the ideas of the original structure that is some what preserved from the old pages but the "ends" are quite horrible. They don't serve the user nor the editor.

These kind of points and more are the issues I would like to address and fix. If the core/structure isn't working, it does not matter how good the cake looks it still tastes bad.

BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 12:07, March 14, 2013 (EDT)

I understand what everyone is saying, and there are a LOT of changes going on right now to the ends of the category structure. Let's start with the Category:Doublestrike items example being used here... If you read the page history for the category, the creation edit summary reads: "(Category:Items for now... tree it out better later)"

What this means is that I was in the process of building many new templates and revamping the way that they auto-categorize things; because of this, I had dozens of new "redlinked" categories showing up in the Special:WantedCategories listing. In an attempt to kill as many of these redlinks as possible, I dumped them into the root of what they qualify as. My intent is to one by one go through and likely move them from Category:Items to something like Category:Items by effect. The category tree for Category:Doublestrike items will end up looking something like:

• Category:Root
  • Category:Items
    • Category:Items by effect
      • Category:Doublestrike items
        • Category:Doublestrike 3%
        • Category:Doublestrike 6%

If Turbine-DDO decides to extend this following that pattern, I would expect the next one to be Category:Doublestrike 9%.
The reason I have most of it going to these odd places and things that "look" broken and chaotic, and to some extent are, is for the few disambiguous effects that exist. I hope that I can make ALL of the effects use EXACTLY the same naming convention to make it as EASY to find things as possible. My example to explain all this, which there seems to be a fairly agreed upon consenus although I have not yet applied it, is for Category:Wisdom items. There is a damage effect named Wisdom and there are items that offer an ability bonus named Wisdom. The damage effect, is Turbine-DDO's screw-up for not naming it "bewildering" as it should be per PnP; nonetheless, we needed to deal with it. What I came up with, and seems agreed upon is that all six ability effects will be renamed using their alternative "item title" names instead of their "item description" name. By this I mean that Category:Strength items becomes Category:Ogre Power items (or maybe even Category:Ogre Power), Category:Wisdom items becomes Category:Wise items (or maybe even Category:Wise) and so on.
There are other instances where disambiguous names have caused an issue, and the currently chaotic structure is helping me find those and sort them out. I would be happy to work with anyone interested to build a category structure that works for everyone, but lately it has seemed that no-one (including me) has had a lot of time.
Personally, I am dealing with multiple real life issues. Custody of my daughter, death of a loved pet, full time student tackling four classes per semester, ... On top of all that, I have three MAJOR projects on this wiki I am tackling right now and multiple lesser projects (some of which are required to be done to make progress on the major ones). Building a fair Category structure; My Template:Named Item project; and building our guidelines, policies, and anti-copyright infringement liability protection.
I'm done rambling for a bit, I'll try to remember to add more later once my though process slows down... This is starting to get overwhelming and I just want to take a little break and play some DDO. Tomorrow I'll respond to Monster categories and quest/loot categories (which I think can be somewhat combined to clean them up... I'll explain tomorrow). I'll also offer what I think should go on a category page (and what should not).

ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 12:59, March 14, 2013 (EDT)

BlackSmith, I'd like to address each of your concerns and work towards a solution that (hopefully) everyone agrees best suites the wiki.

If you're referring to the DDO_wiki:Naming_policy#Category_Naming as the Category Policy, I feel that doesnt give any clear direction as it pertains to the structure of category tree should be built. If you're referring to something else, please provide link so it can be reviewed and commented on ( or updated ).

I agree that injecting a table of contents in a category page is duplication of information ( and should be avoided ), BUT unfortunately there is a valid reason why it is done. Historically, the category pages have been used as a central location to list ( details about ) all the objects inside the category. Pages that wish to list out all elements in the category have transcluded the category page ( instead of doing a NCL list).

I believe the reason for that structure design was implemented was two fold. 1) Category population was not as consistent as manually maintaining a list on the category page itself. 2) More detail can be obtained if the list is manually maintained ( i.e. properties associated with item rather than just page name ).

( Example : The Chronoscope transcludes Category:The Chronoscope loot via quest template as well as transcludes manually Category:The Chronoscope reward items. This injects the TOC (detailed list of items) on to the page very nicely. If the TOC is removed, the item detail will be lost on the pages that try to inect the list. )

I think before blanking out TOC on category pages, a decision needs to be made as to how much detail is needed for pages that transclude category lists. If more detail is warranted, than we need to figure out how to get the detail there, and how to make sure the detail stays up to date. If less detail is warranted, then the pages can transition to using the ncl tag to list objects in the category, and then after that transition, the TOC can be blanked.

Concerning the Category:Doublestrike items, it is named that way because it is structured to contain items with the Doublestrike property. Other objects that increase doublestrike ( pots / feats / enhancements / boosts / spells ) should not be placed in that category.

I believe "Doublestrike items" implies "Items with the Doublestrike property". I *THINK* that you are opposed to "Doublestrike items" being placed directly in the Items category, which I am in complete agreement with. Please keep in mind that the category restructure is taking place in stages. For what I'm doing, I'm focusing on getting all the items properly categorized in a base category ( to create the leaves so to speak ), and THEN once all leaves have been created the brances will be created and leaves will be moved to create the proper structure.

I think that items that have Doublestrike should be in base category Doublestrike X% items ( very important that items be part of the category name ) to distinguish between Doublestrike X% spells ( like haste ) and Doublestrike X% enhancements ( like Fighter Weapon Alacrity or Wind Stance ).

( If the slash is bad form, it can be changed to a space rather easily, a decision should be made in the early stages of this what the format is going to be though. )

BlackSmith, I'm confused as to some aspects of the proposed removal of the Doublestrike items category. Are you suggesting that all items / spells / feats that increase doublestrike should exist solely under a "doublestrike" branch? Without a way of being able to drill down from items branch to see only doublestrike items? Or are you proposing that the doublestrike branch inside items would contain things other than items (like haste and wind stance)?

It may be worth pointing out that just because a Doublestrike items category exists doesnt restrict a completely new branch from root named something along the lines of effects which would contain doublestrike, which could then contain doublestrike items + doublestrike spells + doublestrike enhancements .. so forth. ( BlackSmith, I think you may be of the opinion that the doublestrike items branch is going to be the only category related to doublestrike, when that's not the plan at all, it's just that my main focus right now is the items branch, and making sure all leaves in the item branch are populated correctly, and then building the rest of the tree from the ground up ).

-Joe

Joenuts (Contributions • Message) 14:34, March 14, 2013 (EDT)

You can't have combination categories in category structure. Its like trying to run before you crawl. If you understand this, why are you doing it still? NP: "Category names should be as short and to the point as possible. Trim any and all unnecessary prefixes such as "named" or "unique" or "special"."

I understand you are trying to make one big category that all leads to root but you are doing it, eh, wrong. Not all categories lead to root. Not every part of the human body is directly connected to you left toe. You can't have Category:Items by effect as a child for Category:Items because it is not a major defining attribute. If you break a CD box in to sections, it has a cover, the CD itself and a lid. Polycarbonate plastic is not a section and neither is yellow.

Again, you cant have combination category as a parent. Not at least with that naming. If Category:Doublestrike items is the parent, then the child's need to "C:Doublestrike x% items". Because Category:Doublestrike x% indicates by its name that it inholds every article that grants the Category:Doublestrike x% ability. And yes, there needs to be a category includes all members that generate the effect of Category:Doublestrike x%, not just items. You need to have the most basic category before you start combining them. Otherwise you end up having mens-toilet-for-fathers, mens-toilet-for-older-than-18, mens-toilet-to-long-men, mens-toilet-that-like-blue but no simple instructions to a mens-toilet because the basic form is missing. Even then these combination categories can't be children to the parent category because, again, they are not sections/parts of that category. I said this before but try to make it clearer this time. Category:Alignment lists all Alignment's. Game mechanics can't be sorted to alignment's, but instead to combat, abilities and so on.

Please stop trying to save the world from redlink's by creating pages that need to be either created anyway (zero Kb pages without any real info) or by redirects. It makes figuring out the state of the wiki lot harder because you need to go manually trough every hyperlink.

If you uphold Category:ability items, do you have a parent that lists all sources for ability i.o. Category:ability? Because to my knowledge that would include one article that would not be a item. Even then you can't make Category:ability items a child category to Category:ability, because a item is not ability component. Bonus type how it is given and amount of that bonus in the other hand, are. So Category:ability could have child's Category:ability +X and Category:(type) ability.

What can possibly be included in category page except link to the article and possibly couple more hyperlinks? Articles are for displaying information, categories are for listing. Historically is not a valid reason. There is no section in NP, policies or any help file that says "because it was done wrong in past, it needs to be done so in future". If you see such dinosaurs (category) pages, it is Your job as a (experienced) editor to move the info to better suited location. Fitting article, that is to say.

Both Chronoscope examples are good examples how not to do it. Neither of the pages have links to the source where they come. Neither of the pages have explanations who gives the loot. I don't say that they are not neatly done, go NCL!, but they are in wrong page and are "traps" for the reader. If the reader ends up to either of those pages, he can't go anywhere else except to those items or those items effect pages. Not to their source, yet the article name indicates where they come, but there is no hyperlinks. So it forces the reader to search for the source by hand. If that content would be moved to article that has the identical name without the category: part and more navigational hyperlinks to related articles, it would be a good wiki article. Now they are just horrible. But why have a separate page for a list of abilities that is 9 times out of 10 already listed in the quest page already in the first place? Category page was the last page it should be. This was one of the issues that was going to be fixed in the DDO wiki 2.0.

Yes, "Category:WhatEver" items should include articles that are items and have the property WhatEver, BUT it is a combination category (WhatEver + items) and there needs to be a "pure"/single feature category for the reasons I laid out in the previous post.

You got it right. category doublestrike can't be a subcategory to category items, because all items don't share the doublestrike property. Doublestrike is a weapon special ability and weapon special abilities can be divided to those that have effect on critical hits and those that do not, some might even belong to both. And so on, but I think you got the idea.

Sure, there can be combination/specialization categories like Doublestrike X% items, but you need first the general ones. First have toilets for men, then when those are ready you can start having toilets for men with beards and men drinking beer and what not.

If you keep/make combination categories, not focusing in categories having one single aspect, you end up in to a situation where Timeblade is member of Category:Doublestrike items 3%, Category:Doublestrike items 3% made of adamantium, Category:Doublestrike items 3% that can be upgraded, Category:Doublestrike items 3% with slowburst, Category:Doublestrike items 3% that are martial weapons, Category:C:Doublestrike items 3% do-you-see-the-problem and so on? All these categories can be justified, all these are "needed" if combination categories are the driving force instead of atomic structure. (These things are basics of data structures/bases. Storing information is otherwise impossible as the storage size grows in power of dimension of possible combinations instead of multiplier of attributes). Some times combination categories are justified, I just can't come up with any examples in this time. One could say that Rogue enhancements is a combo cat, but its really not. All enhancements have a source and rogue class is one of those.

Are you really sure its a good idea to create a category that has one member? Because that's what most Category:Doublestrike children categories would have. Oen category for the one spell, one category for the one inheritage source, one category for potion, all having one member. Or would the Category:Doublestrike simply do the trick and readers could most likely notice and remember the three articles that are not items.

If you build your house starting from the roof, the time when you notice the fireplace is in wrong place, it is a hell of a job fix the roof. Imagine the job if the foundations can't correspond the walls. Oh, and remember not to connect the water lines to the electricity lines. Both are connected through the walls, but they are not directly together, just like not all categories lead to root. So go ahead and build from branches to the root, but it is going to be lot of time throw to waste.

Instead you could start simple and tell what would be the members for root or its child categories to root, if any. The drawing I have been making has items, game mechanics and maybe glossary. Here is what I scetched up for the weapon category. Folders indicate categories, white arrows indicate hyperlinking, while black ones indicate being member of the category.

BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 19:22, March 14, 2013 (EDT)

Joe, what you don't address in your post is the main issue that I have a problem with, which is the inclusion of content on category pages in the first place. From my point of view this just should not be happening at all and I am frankly curious why people started doing it. I made some of these points in my first post on this page, but no one has addressed them so I am bringing it up again.

The main reason content should not be put on category pages is because category pages do not show up in search results. My guess (since this is what I did when first began using the wiki and continued to do long after) is that casual users of the wiki use either the search function or the mediawiki links at the top of every page (Item, Crafting, Collectables, etc) to find what they are looking for. If people cannot find the content withing a reasonable amount of time using those two things, they assume it doesn't exist or they give up! Say a casual user comes to the wiki and wants to see a what epic items he can get from the House Cannith Challenges because his guildies have told him there is some good gear in there for his monk. He could go to the Items page, then navigate to the Named epic items page, then from there navigate to Category:Cannith Challenge epic items, which was the page he wanted in the first place. However, if he didn't know to look there, he might choose the search function instead instead of wasting time poking around. He types "Cannith Challenge" into the search bar, and yet the page he needs does not show up because it is on a cat page. Instead, the only moderately relevant pages that show up in the search results are Cannith Challenge ingredients and Challenges, neither of which link to the page he needs. Frustrated, that person gives up looking and won't be so quick to come back to the wiki the next time he has a question.

I would say I'm fairly intimately familiar with navigating the wiki at this point, and yet I still prefer to use the search function to find a lot of content because the way things are organized is not always compatible with my thought process and because things are not always named or categorized in a logical or at least consistent way. I accept that total consistency is impossible in a crowd sourced medium like a wiki, but that is what makes the search function so important in finding the right content, even when the title of the article isn't what a user thinks it would be.

Finally, in your example above Joe, you show that the Category:The Chronoscope loot page needs a TOC to make some of the functionality work when that page is used as a template on The Chronoscope page. My question is, why is that list on the cat page at all? If there were a page called The Chronoscope loot that contained the list, manually compiled or otherwise (and was therefore used as the template on The Chronoscope), there would be no problem. It seems to me that every single cat page that has content on it needs to have that content moved to a content page with the same name. We could even put a link on the cat page to the content page to aid in navigation. Tech, I know you can't do this all yourself, but I could absolutely help with removing content from cat pages. I would have started it before now, but people don't seem to think its necessary, which I don't understand.

Susalona (Contributions • Message) 16:17, March 14, 2013 (EDT)

I can only assume that originally, content was manually placed in category pages to create a central place that can then be included in other pages in an attempt to have a detailed list and to use the category page as a single point of reference to reduce duplication.

( An item list can be included/transcluded on multiple pages and maintained from a single location if done correctly. )

Having static information on the category page is not a design that I would personally implement. Automatic information on the other hand I think is useful. The category pages ( and I speak for Item based category pages here ) dont list elements of sub category pages from what I can tell, and as items get placed with more accuracy in to deeper branches, I DO think it's nice to have a list show up on the parent category page listing all elements in the category.

Addressing your concern about searches, and content placed on category pages not being included in searches. I can certainly see why that behaviour is desirable. For instance, I dont know that someone searching for antique greataxe would want results include force burst items, metalline items, adamantine items, righteous items, red augment slot items, and colorless augment slot items. Do you disagree with me here? Do you see value in returning results such as this on that search?

On the other hand, maybe other aspects of the item's categories SHOULD be displayed in search results. For example, a result pool that included 'Maleficent Cabal reward items' or 'Phiarlan Carnival loot' may be desirable on a search for the antique greataxe.

I dont know enough about search mechanics to give a valid proposal. I think whatever solution is implemented it should be consistent and easy to understand and follow.

IF content included via ncl tags is added to the search pool, then I would suggest that category page content include the ncl listing of elements inside the category, and for pages that warrant addition to the search pool ( like quest reward items ) I think creating a page in main namespace and adding the ncl category list to the page would be the way to go. (I doubt that will work though) ??

-Joe

Joenuts (Contributions • Message) 17:25, March 14, 2013 (EDT)

In doing some research, it looks like adding ncl category listings does not add the injected content to search pool, so creating a page simply to add page listings to the search pool would not work.

In looking at your example of the content on Category:Cannith_Challenge_epic_items, I definitely am of the opinion that it's in the wrong place. The content isnt even exlusive to items (it contains details about ingredients / lists challenges / lists levels ).

I think the page is pretty well put together, Category is not where it belongs though, what I would do is move the content that lives there to a page something like Cannith Challenges. Then, someone searching for Cannith, or Challenges or Cannith Challenges would hopefully have that page come up on the list somewhere.

-Joe

Joenuts (Contributions • Message) 17:48, March 14, 2013 (EDT)

I don't think you understood my post. I'm not asking for cat pages to be added to search results. I don't want them to be added to search results for the same reasons you mention. I want the content on cat pages removed and put on separate content pages so that it can be found on searches. I'm not asking for a solution, I am proposing a solution.

I also don't understand what you mean by it being convenient to have all the members of carious subcats listed in the root cat. If, for some reason, it was desirable to list all those members on one page, you could do it quite easily on a content page using NiceCategoryList and that is where it should be done (See Monsters by type and race for an example, although that page isn't perfect right now since the monster category structure has not been finalized). I think that is what you are talking about in your last paragraph and if so, I agree with you there.

Yes, I understand that you always want to be transcluding a list from the same page for consistency and to avoid duplication. That is why the content pages would follow the same naming scheme as the categories (or another consistent naming scheme) you are pulling the content from. So, content from Category:The Red Fens epic items is moved to The Red Fens epic items, Category:Cannith Challenge epic items to Cannith Challenge epic items, Category:Desecrated Temple of Vol loot to Desecrated Temple of Vol loot and so on. That way people know to transclude from the page that is <Name of Quest> loot or <Name of Adventure Pack> items and there is no duplication or confusion.

Of course, Category:Cannith Challenge epic items is in violation of that anyway, since the name of the pack is Vaults of the Artificers (and that is the name the non-epic loot pages from that pack use, see Vaults of the Artificers loot), but that's a whole 'nother problem.

Susalona (Contributions • Message) 17:58, March 14, 2013 (EDT)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I spent a good two and half hours formating and writing my post and it got drowned, so I think I'll just say that don't use the f****** cat pages because the info does not belong there. They are cat pages, tools. If you really want to have a separate page for loto form some special place then go ahead, but it would be more relevant to have that list on the page that rewards those items because no-one will ever read those loot pages as they stumble to the loot list somewhere else. Also, the pages are like traps when the reader is stuck, no links to anything related.

BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 19:29, March 14, 2013 (EDT)

BlackSmith, I have to ask that you remain civil with people who have been civil to you in this discussion. Resorting to name-calling and profanity is a breach of Wikiquette. Just because there are posts after yours doesn't mean that people can't go back and read your post, I did.

The point of having the loot lists somewhere is that they are being used on other pages (often multiple pages) as templates so that only the template page has to be updated when changes are made. For example, Category:Caught in the Web loot is transcluded on 3 other pages. No, those pages are not likely to be seen by casual users, but that is not the reason they exist.

Susalona (Contributions • Message) 20:37, March 14, 2013 (EDT)

OMG!!! I'm trying to follow everyone from my little BlackBerry screen and my eyes are about to bug out. Everyone needs to relax a little because you don't want to make me stop and pull this wiki over or someones going over my knee! . In all seriousness now though, I encourage Susalona (Contribs • Message • Email), Joenuts (Contribs • Message • Email), and BlackSmith (Contribs • Message • Email) to drop it for the night and sleep on it. I can explain a lot of the confusion tomorrow.

ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 21:31, March 14, 2013 (EDT)

GOOD DAY everyone! I'm awake, and fairly well rested... I'll be working on answering everyones questions and trying to start to put together an outline for what I think the structure should look like and what I feel belongs where and whatnot. Please, be patient and stay tuned! I also plan to be mostly available on our IRC chat channel most of the next seven or so hours if anyone cares to discuss it live.

  ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 08:37, March 15, 2013 (EDT)

How would you respond after writing 2,5h for a response that disappears? Seems it had not disappeared after all even tough the wiki did say 'Oops your edit is lost'. So sorry about that frustrated short post. I don't know it got saved but I can tell you I had a flying mouse for a while.

As snip from the IRC log and posts in general about the structure, I am tired reading these "I have made this and this category structure and when I (maybe) publish it, YOU need to follow it up, no matter how wring it is" posts. Where is the discussion and working together a mutual end? Why so many think it is a good idea to make a structure at your own and then the community needs to convince you to alter it instead of letting the community work with it and then having automatically the wholes community's approval to the issue? I gave a example about the weapon category part in my post (that was not lost in bit heaven after all, thank god). So could someone take loot at it, present their owns or shall we all just work in our dark corners and the one with most administrative power gets chosen?

For the "Root, Trunk, Branches, Leaves"-part, I am lost what is a article. Is leaf a article? Is category a branch? Is this another attempt to have same kind of category structure that we almost how now where every category is subcategory for some other category? Because that does not simply work if the categories are made by combination multiple relations. The current structure tries to do that (for the new part) and we see how badly it serves.

I address this Help talk:Category#Content issue briefly in here as if forced and put to act, it will change the behavior of category page. If category is a branch and "Branches should have nothing but an NCL style list of the things the go there." then that results for pages having identical content in multiple places. This creates conflict with naming policy as article needs to cower the topic it carries and without extensive naming juggling having two pages cowering exactly the same thing is hard. The most critical part is her the over extensive use of transcluded information. If the pages content is changed to reflect its topic better or added to categories or actually edited in anyway, the transcluded pages carry the same edits to the affect the page. This might carry over categories that were not supposed to or other content that does belong to the topic of the page where the information was transcluded.

You take the Category:Caught in the Web loot as a example for transcluded information and you say the page is not for casual user. The wiki should be NC: "general audience over specialists". If skipping that part, what is the purpose of Named_raid_loot in first place? If someone wants to see specific quests rewards, there is no such page. User is forced to check reward and loot pages. If user is looking for specific attribute or ability, he would not use that page. If he is looking the items stats or its origins, he would look the item. If someone is simply looking page of all named loot, then in that case the category page is exactly what he is looking for.

I would also point out that you are using a example page that is "not likely to be seen by casual users" to ground the use of pages that are used by casual users.

BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 15:35, March 17, 2013 (EDT)

Why the header was changed and moved? Now the discussion is about category structure of category structure (what ever that is) as it was before the structure of overall categories in the page in the wiki that is focuses on categories i.o. Help:Category. If the point was to tag it to Village pump, simply slapping it with {{Forumheader|Village pump}} would have done the trick. I would move this discussion back where it was or to Talk:Categories as [[Talk:Special:Categories]] does not work.
BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 15:33, March 17, 2013 (EDT)

I was going to move it away from where it was myself. The page name was wrong. Yoko beat me to it, so you'll have to ask him why he chose this pagename. Although I have a higher edit count and blah blah, he has seniority and I respect that, so even I wouldn't move it from here without discussing it with him first. I don't have a problem removing the redundant section header if it makes you feel better (it's an insignificant change that makes no difference to the point of the discussion.)

ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 16:04, March 17, 2013 (EDT)

Most fitting per topic would indeed be [[Talk:Special:Categories]] but that wont work. Second best would per topic handling Talk:Categories, but I opened the issue at Help talk:Category#Structure as it relates directly to the Help:Category. Or actually, now when I think it third time, it does not. Talk about reforming the help page based on policy, belongs there. My bad. I made the same mistake 8 years ago in other wiki. The damn [[Talk:Special:Categories]] issue tripped me again.

Respect for seniors is nice but that does not mean they could be wrong and need to be corrected The_Emperor's_New_Clothes on Wikipedia. OT: Besides I don't regard number of edits to be much of a indicator of anything. Writing one article by adding one letter at time cranks edits easily sky high in no time and it can't be regarded as cheating as each edit does improve the article. I am not saying that it is a good thing, just pointing out that number of edits does not mean much. Its the work that has been done that means to me.

BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 16:43, March 17, 2013 (EDT)

Category is its own namespace and isn't a special page. What you "may" be looking for is DDO_wiki_talk:Categories, but I am not moving anything in regards to this topic without talking to Yoko5000 first, and I will revert it if anyone else tries to. Yoko put it there and as far as I am concerned he is top dog for seniority and contributions/edits...

ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 16:51, March 17, 2013 (EDT)

this is getting ridiculous folks, this seniority/edit count thing is complete BS. so is [[help talk: Category#Structure]] vs [[talk:Category structure]]. all we need to do is stop biting each other and get back to the point. you know whats the point in this case? in human society, point in case always comes back to

• WHOs goona
• do WHAT
• till WHEN

agree? in this case, we need verifiable chopping block, or blueprint, dont know exact word to it but we need someone volunteers to provide draft on our category policy and category structure (Joenut is working on the latter?). till then stop talking on this you suck he sucks argument, alright? BlackSmith needs to stop talking trash and provide his version of it too.

yoko5000 (Contributions • Message) 02:32, March 18, 2013 (EDT)

I know that category it is own namespace, been on these wikis for a while. I also know that the Item: namespace broke use of the file and image namespaces.

No, I am not looking to talk about only the structure of articles that are solely about the wiki, thus for what the DDO_wiki_talk:Categories would be fitting. Special:Categories shows all alive categories that are visible for users and that what I am trying to talk about but as [[Talk:Special:Categories]] is not accessible,

I am talking trash? W-T-F? Where? I have taken specially time to pull facts on the table and not resorting to mock _anyone_. I have provided one draft and waiting comments for it. For User:Joenuts/Proposed_Item_Category_Structure, this is first time I see that even and it has issues.

BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 09:08, March 18, 2013 (EDT)

Special_talk:Categories seems to work just fine for me... All talk pages are in the format of <NAMESPACE>_talk:<PAGENAME> to get to the talk space for <NAMESPACE>:<PAGENAME>

How did Item: break File:? Image doesn't exist, it is a pseudo namespace.

ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 17:51, March 18, 2013 (EDT)

IRC Discussion

08:09:12	ShoeMaker	Okay, I'm mostly here, and I have about 40 minutes to discuss categories before I have to go to work, then I should be back within a couple hours.
08:57:40		--- joenuts is back
08:57:41	joenuts		just now getting in to the office. timing less than ideal
08:58:34	ShoeMaker	Yes, I'm just heading out to log in and start work. But, once I am settled, I'm sure I'll be available again.
09:42:26	joenuts		going to draft what I think would work best for item category tree, get some fundamental design rules written down, and put it up for criticism
09:44:37	ShoeMaker	Yeah... I think of the cat structure as a tree, which has 4 parts...
09:45:19	ShoeMaker	Root, Trunk, Branches, Leaves... Root & Trunk should have nothing on the cat pages except for further categorization connecting them.
09:45:38	ShoeMaker	Branches should have nothing but an NCL style list of the things the go there.
09:45:58	joenuts		i think we're in agreement there
09:46:06	ShoeMaker	Leaves should have a detailed list of the populators of the cat.
09:46:24	joenuts		i'm putting verbage together for when the term 'items' is warranted in the category title. just something straight forward
09:46:55	ShoeMaker	The only other thing that I would consider acceptable for root, trunk, and branch pages is transclusion of what the page is about...
09:47:24	joenuts		i think susalona's comments about content in category pages is off topic from BlackSmith's comments about category name definitions
09:47:53	ShoeMaker	So, on Coublestrike items, I could see adding {{Doublestrike}} as long as {{Doublestrike}} had the correct inclusion limiters to only include the content and not the extras.
09:47:56	joenuts		I'm mainly putting together a structure list with some basic rules about naming / category location in the structure
09:48:11	ShoeMaker	That is what I think of the structure in a nutshell.
11:45:00		*** Susalona joined #DDOwiki **************************************
11:45:33	joenuts	Good morning, Susalona
11:45:43	Susalona	Hi guys
11:46:53	joenuts		I mentioned to Shoe earlier this morning that I believe your comments concerning content in categorization page was slightly off topic to the category naming / classification discussion BlackSmith brought up.
11:47:25	joenuts		As far as actually (not) having content on category pages, I believe everyone seems to be in agreement that content should NOT exist there.
11:48:02	joenuts		Shoemaker : Root, Trunk, Branches, Leaves... Root & Trunk should have nothing on the cat pages except for further categorization connecting them
11:48:11		--- ShoeMaker is away (Auto away)
11:48:14	joenuts		Shoemaker : Branches should have nothing but an NCL style list of the things the go there.
11:48:30	joenuts		Shoemaker : Leaves should have a detailed list of the populators of the cat.
11:48:45	Susalona	That seems to make sense to me
11:49:08	joenuts		At some point he mentioned that if details WERE desired on the category page, that the category page should transclude the actual content page
11:49:17	joenuts		which I think is the exact point you made in your post
11:50:31	joenuts		I'm working on getting a concrete structure for the item category documented, guidelines, etc so that we actually have something visible to work towars
11:50:37	Susalona	Although I don't believe it was off topic, since BlackSmith was the first to bring it up....even if it was all the way back in November
11:51:06	joenuts		( that might help in peeling out content off the category pages, etc etc )
11:51:10	Susalona	I do like visual aids
11:51:43	joenuts		yeah, shame on me, I didnt really read any posts prior to what was current
11:52:12	Susalona	It's not a big deal, I just wanted to make sure it was adressed
11:52:40	joenuts		as far as i'm concerned, its a no brainer.
11:53:09	joenuts		The category pages BlackSmith was originally talking about contained only ncl listings of cat elements, which I dont really consider "content"
11:53:47	joenuts		the pages you pointed out are so full of information that the cat page is definitely not the place for it
11:54:46	Susalona	Yeah I think you could make that argument forthe NCL stuff, although BlackSmith still seems to think that is unhealthy for the cat structure and stuff like the semantic mediawiki.
11:55:02	Susalona	I don't know enought about that to say if he's right or not
11:55:38	joenuts		indeed. hopefully what I put together will be something everyone can agree on is valuable / useful
11:55:44	Susalona	He might just be saying that isn't the way things are "done" on a wiki
11:56:45	Susalona	Well I think that having an agreed upon structure can only improve things
11:58:46	Susalona	After thinking about it some more, I'm under the impression that people may have starting putting stuff on the cat pages to use then as kind of a quick and dirty substitute for building an actual TOC
11:59:35	Susalona	Stuff like Category:Quests make it seem kinda obvious. There are no navigation links on that page other thank the cat pages
12:07:29	joenuts		Yeah, BlackSmith made the point that the category pages are lacking in links, which is another ball of wax completely, not ready to even think about that one
12:20:48	ShoeMaker	Well, I step away for a few minutes and WALL of chat... just aminute.
12:20:48		--- ShoeMaker is back
12:21:04	Susalona	LOL
12:22:32	joenuts		Let me ask what you think about this, Shoe.
12:22:42	ShoeMaker	Okay, so Joe shared the nutshell in my head..
12:22:44	ShoeMaker	Ask.
12:23:19	joenuts		I >>believe<< that BlackSmith is (one of ) conerns is about item / group overlay / overlapping
12:24:00	joenuts		**IF** we have an item trunk that is designed so that an item can exist in ONLY ONE leaf node of that trunk so we have a definitive location for every item (or item type) in the game
12:24:25	joenuts		and then we have "something else" that is used for grouping items with similar properties outside of the item trunk
12:24:46	joenuts		I dont see why that something else should be anything other than more categories, because of how convenient they work
12:25:06	joenuts		So i'm thinking base trunk "items" and another base trunk "item groupings"
12:25:31	joenuts		where an item may exist in only one leaf of items, but can exist in multiple leaves of item groups .. items by durability, items by material, items by effect, etc.
12:26:11	joenuts		I'm kind of mapping out the structure, but I think that may satisfy BlackSmiths concerns, and also give options for end users to be able to drill down to find what they want
12:26:44	ShoeMaker	I'm going to need a visual aid... I can't picture what you just said.
12:27:18	joenuts		yeah. working on it, but i'm at work so time I can dedicate to it will be spread across next few hours
12:27:35	ShoeMaker	Yeah, I'm at work too.. I take lunch in about 30 minutes.
12:55:31	ShoeMaker	Okay, close enough to lunch..
13:37:19	ShoeMaker	Soo... Now that I am here, no one is talking? lol

How should one use this IRC log in discussions? Sweet that you have talked about the issues, but really, how this log helps the discussion? Its over multiple topics and hard to follow. How can it not be OT to talk about content when topic is structure? I don't care who is thinking and what, per Wikiquette: "Argue facts, not personalities". If the pope itself is off topic, it does not make it any more right. How can it be healthy to have the exactly same information in multiple pages? How can there be multiple articles that cover exactly the same topic and why are they not simply redirected to the most fitting one? This is a question that is off topic from Help talk:Category#Structure and should be in Help talk:Category#Content but I am not taking it there. Someone just reverts me and I have wasted another hour of my life on trying to be correct and helpful.
BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 15:33, March 17, 2013 (EDT)

The reason I posted the chat that three of us had on the topic on our IRC chat channel, was because it was discussion pertaining to what was talked about here. I would be happy to trim out the "few" lines that aren't specifically about the topic, but I didn't feel they broke anything. The consensus in that discussion is, as you have said is your opinion, that content doesn't really belong on Category: pages. The content belongs on its own page, and there has been a lot of content moved since that discussion OFF of Category: pages and into the article namespace. Isn't that part of what you wanted as well?

Categories are often referred to as "trees" for a reason. Everything is tied to the root. In our case, the root is the game itself. So everything in the game should be tied to root somehow. There should be NOTHING on the root page other than a note saying that it is the root and explaining its purpose.

Then you have trunks. The trunks are main points of the game, and this is where mechanics, quests, gear, monsters, and player characters start to separate and declare they are there own things. Considering the disarray of many of our categories, I see the idea of working on one trunk at a time as a good idea. At this time, there seems to be a little more bouncing around than I would like to see trying to get things fixed, but things are still getting done, so I have been biting my tongue until I see a degradation in progress. Each trunk should have sections of its associated page transcluded on it. For example, the quest trunk should (and currently does) have {{Quests}} on it. That and the [[Category:Root]] should be the ONLY two things on that page itself. That connects it to the root, and transcludes the <onlyinclude> sections of Quests which describe what quests are. This content is purely visual and it is dynamic so that when the proper page of Quests is edited and updated in the future, what is seen on the Category: page will be updated as well.

Once the trunks are properly defined, each one of those gets broken into branches, and each branch may have multiple tiers of sub-branches. Branches and sub-branches should contain transcluded reference from its corresponding article in the main namespace briefly describing "what" it is and a NCL list breaking down and listing the leaves in each of the branches sub-branches.

At the end of every branch, there are leaves. "Leaf" pages should have an unordered list of the members of the group that is defined by the leaf. This list should be somewhat detailed. In the case of item pages for example, the list should have a linked name, followed by the item type (type of weapon, armor, jewelry, etc), followed by the stats of the item. This offers visitors an overview of what is in the category without having to visit all the members of it individually. Transcluding a brief overview from its corresponding article in the main namespace is also encouraged.

ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 16:29, March 17, 2013 (EDT)

I'm really not interested in getting into a semantics argument, but I would like to quote your post above BlackSmith where you say "Category pages have information that should be in the actual page." My posts were in response to that, and were therefore not off topic, as I explained in the IRC chat. It is also often easier to talk in real time chat than by making posts, and ShoeMaker was just keeping everyone in the loop by posting the log here.

Furthermore, discussions are a very organic thing so I think it is not unreasonable for talk pages to have a little latitude as long as wikiquette is being followed and there are no grievious breaches of policy. I feel like all this talk of off topic and on topic and whether the posts are in the correct place is unproductive and distracting from the actual discussion. That is all I have to say on that subject and I intend to only post on this page (or related talk pages) in the future to discuss the cat structure, not semantics.

Susalona (Contributions • Message) 16:50, March 17, 2013 (EDT)

I have a idea how the structure work can be chopped down to pieces. Just gimme a sec.

If discussions don't stay on topic, they can't be followed and information scatters plus nothing never gets done.

BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 16:46, March 18, 2013 (EDT)

I'm semi-available on IRC right now if anyone wants to discuss it there (I like the fluid real-time discussion). I'll be poking in and checking every 15-30 minutes, but I'm watching a movie and cooking supper so you'll have to be patient waiting on me there.

ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 17:12, March 17, 2013 (EDT)

Discussion moved from HT:Category#Content

A category page should not include anything else except brief explanation what is the common aspect that all its members share, hyperlinks to that aspect and other relevant articles and possibly tag(s) for its parent category if the category is aspect that divides the parent category to subgroups. 

Other content violates naming policy as the content should be in its own article page and as pages are categorized according to their content, a category page with remarkable content is really hard to categorize without creating structural problems.

BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 15:50, March 17, 2013 (EDT)

BlackSmith, please continue this discussion on the other page, no need to break up the discussion. Also, I would like to point out that the page that this talk page is attached to was a copy and paste that someone put on this wiki from wikipedia and it was never properly gone through to make it more relevant to DDO wiki and some of the terms and concepts described within are wrong and do not belong here. Some of the stuff is based on extensions we do not have, and we have other extensions that aren't mentioned that change our usage some. Once the discussion on the other page (with hopefully some more IRC chats as I feel they move the discussion faster) is completed, I will dedicate some time to cleaning up this page and making it accurate for our needs. Please be patient and open minded as I think that you will be a GREAT asset to helping us make this "guideline" the best it can be by offering your somewhat different perspective on the subject. I know it gets frustrating and at times it is easy to feel unappreciated (I've been there many times myself), just keep reminding yourself that once a lot of this mess from people throwing stuff together "on a wiki that wasn't suppose to last this long" nevermind flourish the way it has, things will get better, the stress will go down, and it will be much more enjoyable (not that it isn't enjoyable some now or we wouldn't be here, right?).

ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 16:39, March 17, 2013 (EDT)

This moving behavior starts to be ridiculous. Someone tell me in what page I can see the policy what should be in a c@tegory page and thus I could participate on that pages talk page what should be the content of c@tegory pages. Now it seems everything is just sucked to this one general c@tegory talk without heading the topics nor issues. I resort not to write c a tegory as I feel there is a trigger that simply moves everything to this one page.

BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 17:37, March 20, 2013 (EDT)

I got tired of chasing down the dozen different discussions about forming this new category policy. This section is directly from Help talk:Category#Content which you started... It is about the content that does (not) go in/on category pages. Your post just above this one is quite immature and ridiculous. If you don't want to contribute to the discussion anymore, then don't. Either way, this policy/guideline will be written and enforced. There will be no more moving except to this page if I find more discussion about things that "may" have relevance in a policy about what and how (and maybe who) works on categories. If you don't want to contribute to the process of creating something useful, I don't want to hear any complaining later. Quite frankly, I personally have had to bite my tongue many times to try and compromise with what you think things should be and what I think they should be. I have been somewhat disappointed in the lack of effort I feel that you are not putting forth to finding a reasonable middle ground. I understand you may get frustrated with the process, as I know I have many times. I would be very happy to continue to try and reach a reasonable compromise with you and all of the other editors that have been offering their input. I feel that your opinion is diverse and representative of a minority that is not usually well represented in these discussions. I would hate to lose this input from you, but I am at the point where if you can't keep it civil and keep your frustrations to yourself that I am going to have to ask you to refrain from commenting at all. This commentary isn't helping the process. I'm hoping you understand my position, and if you do have any questions about this, or if you just want to rant at me, please feel free to send me an email (my email address can be found on my user page). Thank you. ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 20:23, March 20, 2013 (EDT)

If you feel that there is no difference with category structure (what are the category members and what sub category a category possibly is) and content of a category page (the stuff that is found behind the edit button on a category page) or if they are so relevant to each other that they should be included to the discussion of category structure, then your move was legit. To me, there is a clear difference. BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 10:58, March 21, 2013 (EDT)

Discussion moved from UT:Joenuts.Propose Item Category Structure#Absoprtion Conflation

This would be a great time to end the conflation of Spell Absorption items and Energy Absorption items. The two literally have nothing in common other than using the word "absorption". Spell absorption items nullify spells in exchange for charges, energy absorption items reduce the amount of a particular type of damage by a percent.
You have "Absorption items/Negative Energy Absorption (charges) items" + "Absorption items/Negative Energy Absorption (percent) items", these really need to be something like "Spell Absorption items/Negative Energy Absorption items" + "Energy Absorption items/Negative Energy Absoption items".

Cdr (Contributions • Message) 13:18, March 19, 2013 (EDT)

Noted. The problem here is a product of the game using the same name for two different things. For shame, turbine. I evaluate the facts as follows :

"Negative Energy Absorption items" may contain items with two different, distinguishable properties, so the category can (and should) be refined further. The property title in the game is the same for both ( which is the criteria used for other category splits ), so using that field does not apply here.

We can inject a parent category to distinguish Spell vs Energy *BUT* it will have to be a pseudo category, meaning, the parent (pseudo) category will have to exist in the category name to distinguish it from category of same name. ( Category:Spell Absorption items with child Category:Negative Energy Absorption items will conflict with Category:Energy Absorption items with child Category:Negative Energy Absorption items ). Because of that, the parent category distinction will have to be included in the category name ( Category:Spell Absorption/Negative Energy Absorption items and Category:Energy Absorption/Negative Energy Absorption items ).

I think I leaned towards Negative Energy Absorption (percent) items and Negative Energy Absorption (charges) items because it was less changes on the structure ( not injecting pseudo category, which would effect the other 8 categories versus just making an exception and renaming the one ambiguous category ).

In any case, I think that adding the parent ( even if it would be a pseudo ) category is elegant, and it does add some descriptive value. I'll make a note in my proposed category structure to visit the issue when it's ready to present.

Thanks for your input. -Joe

Joenuts (Contributions • Message) 16:02, March 19, 2013 (EDT)

Is "absorption items" a psuedo-category? I obviously don't understand this categorization minutae.

Cdr (Contributions • Message) 19:18, March 19, 2013 (EDT)

I was just referring to your use of the slash as a separator for categories in your example. ( slash has special meaning in mediawiki and is used to create sub pages, which is not really the same as categories http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Subpages ). In simplest form, in your example, category Spell Absorption will have child Negative Energy Absorption items. Category Energy Absorption will have child Negative Energy Absorption items. (in that proposal) There would be only one "Negative Energy Absorption items" category, so (neg energy) spell absorption AND (neg energy) energy absorption items would get thrown into that category which would be a child of both the Spell Absorption and Energy Absorption parents, which I think would not be ideal. So the category name that exists as a child under either parent would need to be made unique somehow.

Joenuts (Contributions • Message) 23:24, March 19, 2013 (EDT)

I would personally suggest then something like "Negative Energy Absoption (Spell) items" and "Negative Energy Absorption (Elemental) items" under "Spell Absorption items" and "Elemental Absorption items" respectively.

Cdr (Contributions • Message) 09:54, March 20, 2013 (EDT)

I think I'm the one that started the whole process of combining them (iirc I asked Joe to do it) and I started the Percentage and Charges thing... The name of the template is Template:Absorption, so the only thing they need to have in common is that they absorb something. Negative Energy is not Elemental, it is Energy. Elemental is defined as Fire, Acid, Cold, and Electric (for some reason Turbine does not include Sonic as Elemental, although I would argue it is and we can consider it as such for these purposes). Energy is a much broader descriptor and allows for Force, Negative and Positive, alignments (good, chaotic, holy, evil). As far as "Negative Energy Absoption (Spell) items" goes, there are weapons (like Dreamspitter) that do negative energy that is absorbed by "charge" type protection. So, classifying it as only "Spell" is inaccurate. I contemplated all of these things and the true differences is one set absorbs a percentage of the respective damage, and the other set absorbs all of the damage "per attack". Just my 2cp...

ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 10:39, March 20, 2013 (EDT)

Fine, call it "effect" instead of "spell" and "damage" instead of "elemental" then, or something. Point remains that they are completely different. "Spell" (or whatever you want to call it) will absorb any kind of "spell" of a particular type - not just damage. "Negative energy absorbtion (spell)" will absorb level draining spells like Energy Drain and other things.

Cdr (Contributions • Message) 13:29, March 20, 2013 (EDT)

Proposed "Categorization Policy" for item tree

Community, I've put together a policy document for categories related to items.

It can be found here : Item Category Structure Policy

A mapping of how the old categories will exist in the new structure can be found here : Category Mapping

An expanded list of proposed categories can be found here : User:Joenuts/Proposed Item Category Structure

The proposed policy documents some basic design and naming rules to be followed for category structure.

Rules 1-4 are generic rules that will apply to all item categories, rules 5-7 describe the structure for the "Items" subtree, and rules 8+ describe the structure for the "Item groups" subtree.

Please let me know any thoughts / concerns you may have. If there is an aspect of the proposed rules or structure that you do not agree with, or feel could be done better, please offer an alternative so that it may be discussed.

Ultimately, this policy is not 100% done, BUT, I feel there is enough of a foundation to start migrating confidently to it, should that be the decided.

-Joe

Joenuts (Contributions • Message) 16:15, April 3, 2013 (EDT)

mostly agree with your policy draft. for 13-2, i'd prefer;

• c:Axeblock items
  • c:Lesser Axeblock items
  • c:Regular Axeblock items
  • c:Greater Axblock items

but thats one minor thing.

to provide my view on some of your question;

• i dont think c:Quivers and c:Containers should be merged
• dont think c:Shards should exsist in the first place, c:Dragonshards is needed however
• c:Crafted items by crafting device → c:Crafted items by location, c:Crafted items by zone → i dont think this is needed
• c:Dragon Scales, c:Soul Gems → sure.
• etc, etc...

but yea, as Blacksmith stated somewhere above, combination categories are such a headache and almost impossible to be maintained manually in the structure. we must evaluate whatever extension for automated listing and have less manually created categories in the end...

still havent looked at your Category Mapping closely, gunna have to take some time to look at it. thank you for your hard work btw :)

yoko5000 (Contributions • Message) 21:35, April 4, 2013 (EDT)

Restore nested category structure.

Okay, so I've put some thought into this, and the complaint with the nested structure that we were using was that it looked horrible to see "Cat_A > Cat_A/Cat_B > Cat_A/Cat_B/Cat_C" and so on. I agree with this. However, using that type of structure and substructure is more efficient for the actual purposes of categorization. So, for my compromise, what if we used that more efficient structure, but it isn't displayed for users to have to look at? A simple little chunk of code in MediaWiki:Common.js that looks like:

if($('div#catlinks').find('a').length !== 0){
  $('div#catlinks').find('a').each(function(){
    if($(this).html().lastIndexOf('/') !== -1){
      $(this).html($(this).html().substr($(this).html().lastIndexOf('/')+1));
    }
  });
}

would do the trick as to hide the redundancy. I know that Joenuts (Contribs • Message • Email) and others have put a lot of time into rebuilding the category tree without the cat/subcat structure, but I just don't think that it is working very well. It is harder to find and figure out what belongs where in my opinion. If the majority are all right with this change, I have no problem going through and updating all of the categorization myself and implementing this. What do you think? ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 14:49, March 15, 2014 (EDT)

To be honest, I was not even aware that anyone considered it horrible to see the " Cat A > Cat B > Cat C > Cat D " structure at the bottom of the item pages.

As far as I can tell, it only shows when a user is logged in. I personally prefer seeing the tree, because then I can click on any parent category I wish.

The only thing I dont like about it, is that there is a redundant " Root > Hidden categories " at the beginning of each line.

Joenuts (Contributions • Message) 13:48, March 16, 2014 (EDT)

Agreed, I would prefer the tree structure with parent categories shown. "Tauro" (Contributions • Message) 03:25, March 17, 2014 (EDT)

• I think I'm being misunderstood as perhaps my example wasn't clear enough. Let's try with this more defined break down:

Joenuts (Contribs • Message • Email), it's not:

• Cat A > Cat B > Cat C > Cat D

that people were complaining about, it was:

• Cat A > Cat A/Cat B > Cat A/Cat B/Cat C > Cat A/Cat B/Cat C/Cat D

Or more specifically:

• Items > Ability modifying items > Wisdom items > Exceptional Wisdom items > +2 Exceptional Wisdom items

Which my proposal would allow the actual tree to look like:

• Items > Items/Ability modifying > Items/Ability modifying/Wisdom > Items/Ability modifying/Wisdom/Exceptional > Items/Ability modifying/Wisdom/Exceptional/+2

Which would display to the user (using the JavaScript code above, which could be made a default optional gadget that could be turned off) as:

• Items > Ability modifying > Wisdom > Exceptional > +2

Hopefully this example is better prepared and you can see what I mean (it removes the redundancy, including modifying words such as "items"). ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 11:13, March 17, 2014 (EDT)

• In building this example, I'm seeing I'll need to think this out in a little more depth and adjust the code. While this works for the result shown as the nested tree structure in the bottom half of the category box, the top half (the wmf core version) shows only "Category: Items/Ability modifying/Wisdom/Exceptional/+2" which using the existing code I have will just show "+2". I could exclude all "#mw-normal-catlinks" from the script, which will show the full path, but that isn't very clear... We could hide the list in this id and use just the tree listing... I'm thinking that is the best option (we really don't need to have it listed twice). Let me research this, I may have to get Xevo (Contribs • Message • Email) to make some adjustments to the system itself, but it is entirely doable. ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 13:44, March 17, 2014 (EDT)

• Ahhh, yes. Category injection using Sub Pages. Very ugly indeed.

My position is more along the lines of this.

Keep the "DDO Library > Items" category static, and rigid. As parallel to in game as possible ( using action house categories as starting / reference point )

The "DDO Library > Item Groups" category is more free form, items can live in multiple categories, categories can have multiple parents, etc.

I see no problem with

DDO Library > Item Groups > Items by effect > Exceptional Wisdom items > Exceptional Wisdom +2 items

DDO Library > Item Groups > Items by effect group > Ability bonus items > Exceptional Wisdom items > Exceptional Wisdom +2 items

I'm not a fan of using slashes in pages, as mediawiki has a special purpose ( see Mediawiki Subpages ) for that.

(off-topic below)

I also believe that the "Item groups" category should not be a direct child of "Items", because in and of itself, it's not a category of "Items".

If the parent becomes something like "Items domain" or "Items related" something like that, which has children "Item groups" and "Items" that would make more sense to me.

Joenuts (Contributions • Message) 15:47, March 17, 2014 (EDT)

• I have not read the above discussion. However, either roll back the changes in Template:Stat or create all the new categories and update all links to point to the new category structure. Fix your own mess. Thanks. --Cru121 (Contributions • Message) 07:48, April 14, 2014 (EDT)

• After several days of pondering, I am officially undecided on this matter. Aldyron (Contributions • Message) 15:45, April 27, 2014 (EDT)