Talk:List of Categories

From Drunkapedia
Revision as of 12:01, 4 October 2008 by imported>An Adventurer
Jump to: navigation, search

Suggestion for new category: Seasonal. Similar to retired, its applied to all creatures, events, items, and npcs that are only around for seasonal/holiday events. --An Adventurer 13:01, 4 October 2008 (CDT)

That's a good idea. Maybe a continuum so it would apply to all cells. Going from highest to lowest, left to right, also helps the most beneficial spells to line up for comparison. --Tlosk 16:20, 10 September 2008 (CDT)

The idea behind the 2 dimensional table seems sound, some might have a problem figuring it out so you may want to put headings for bonus and levels like so:

Spells stack vertically and override horizontally.
Bonus Spell Level V Bonus Spell Level VI Bonus Spell Level VII Bonus Spell Level VIII Bonus Spell Level Other
+15 Endurance Self V +17.5 Endurance Self VI +20 Perseverance +22.5 Endurance Incantation +25 Hunter's Hardiness
+2.5 Minor Endurance +5 Moderate Endurance +7.5 Major Endurnace +10 Epic Endurance
+15 Life Giver +20 Essence Spike +25 Essence Sluice +30 Essence Glutton +50 Blazing Heart

Also, I think the in progress tag would work for incomplete information, that or incomplete / unconfirmed, make sure to add it to the front pages under the "looking for something to do" section so it's easy to keep on top of. --Sanguis 14:28, 10 September 2008 (CDT)


Sorry first time seeing this, may need some tweaking depending on what happens in August. Also I'd like to add a category tag for pages that probably contain information that will need revising at an unknown time in the future. For example the spectral weapons page had parts describing the issues when first implemented. This would make it a lot easier to go back and correct things when they get fixed. I'm just not sure what would be a good name for the tag.

Stacking issues might be better dealt with in a centralized location with spells/items linking to that location so that any new items/spells will automatically be reflected instead of lots of entries that either need updating or are incomplete. And because it's a complex set of information it would allow a single line instead of a bunch of info. Perhaps a 2 dimension table where all spells stack vertically, but none stack horizontally. This table would be located on the skill/attribute page and in the notes for the item/spell we put a link to that page (when more than one stackable spell, link to them all). Strength of effect would go from left to right. May require some new entries for things like life protection spells and would require in game testing for validation on some of the more esoteric items, like rares and harbinger gems. For simplicity we could just include level V spells and up and just include self spells (though perhaps it would be best to include others also, I'm not sure). Here's an incomplete example that would be placed on the Health page (some, but not all, of these spells would also go on the Endurance page).


Spells stack vertically and override horizontally.
+15 Endurance Self V +17.5 Endurance Self VI +20 Perseverance +22.5 Endurance Incantation +25 Hunter's Hardiness
+2.5 Minor Endurance +5 Moderate Endurance +7.5 Major Endurnace +10 Epic Endurance
+15 Life Giver +20 Essence Spike +25 Essence Sluice +30 Essence Glutton +50 Blazing Heart

Notes

  • For spell stacking see Health.

--Tlosk 11:10, 13 August 2008 (CDT)

Alright, lets come up with some names then.
[[Category:Level VII Enchantment]]
[[Category:Enchantment Greater Than VII]]
[[Category:Cantrip]]
[[Category:Minor Cantrip]]
[[Category:Moderate Cantrip]]
[[Category:Major Cantrip]]
[[Category:Epic Cantrip]]
[[Category:Health Bonus]]

do those sound good?

Also, are we going to count all cantrips as the same? For instance, the Font of Jojii/Dark Monolith/Jester cards and so worth, which stack with regular cantrips and regular spells. Would those items be tagged with the generic cantrip, and on the item's page we would add a note about the stacking?

What about cantrips that do not fit the levels? I know there are some pre-min/mod/maj cantrips with odd bonuses like +8. and there are feeble cantrips as well. Would we just tag those as cantrips? Or should there be a Misc Cantrip category?

--An Adventurer 17:32, 28 June 2008 (CDT)

Yeah, that'd be good, I especially like the greater than VII tag. --Tlosk 21:06, 27 June 2008 (CDT)

Thoughts for some new categories...

spell tags for equipment. There could be a category tag for items with cantrips, and that could be broken into minor/mod/major/epic. A health bonus category would probably be useful. And while we may not want want to do every single spell for a category, we could create a category for anything with a level 7 creature/life buff. Could also create a "enchantment greater than 7" tag. --An Adventurer 18:38, 27 June 2008 (CDT)

edit:
another thought would be to have new pages/tables to list this sort of information. I find tables more useful than simple category listings, but they are harder to maintain.

Tough call, I could see it going either way. I'd probably lean toward Point of Interest, since it's at the bottom length probably isn't an issue. --Tlosk 17:08, 20 May 2008 (CDT)

I was thinking about starting to add in points of interest. I was thinking, would anyone object to changing the category tag to "category:POI"? Do you think most people know that POI=point of interest? --An Adventurer 11:35, 20 May 2008 (CDT)

I came across a lot more articles that would fall into the category you suggested of "Internet Lore Article" so I added it.--Tlosk 10:41, 9 April 2008 (CDT)


I think merging them all into a "Retired" category is a good idea, and just having it be in the general list instead of tied to one of the other categories like it is now.--Tlosk 04:51, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

When I was creating the entry for Gertarh I added the Retired category. I later looked and saw that we have a Retired Item category. Now, Gertarh wouldn't fit into that category. Do you think we should merge all retireds into one, or have a Retired Item, Retired Quest, Retired Dungeon, Retired Creature, and Retired NPC? --An Adventurer 22:40, 17 March 2008 (CDT)

That'd be fine too--An Adventurer 09:12, 12 March 2008 (CDT)

That's a good point, I moved Turbine out form under lore and just made it a standalone. There's only a couple articles that were internet only so I guess I'd be hesitant to make a category for them, perhaps just label them Lore, and reserve Text for in game items?--Tlosk 07:55, 12 March 2008 (CDT)

I don't think the Turbine Category should be under lore, it really has nothing to do with the story of the game. Also, I think we may want to have a different category tag for the zone/turbine articles (lore articles only found on the web). right now they are tagged with "text" but I think that tag should only be for in-game texts. Maybe "Internet Lore Article" --An Adventurer 22:27, 11 March 2008 (CDT)

I added a "Turbine" category under lore to includes news, history, and game information that has to do with Turbine or AC in general.--Tlosk 18:53, 11 March 2008 (CDT)

I was going through the Uncategorized pages and while most stuff readily had a category I came across a number of items that were interesting but didn't really belong in any category so I made a new category "Trivia." Otherwise the only way to find these pages would be to know exactly what you're already looking for. --Tlosk 18:25, 11 March 2008 (CDT)

All of this looks fantastic so far, I think perhaps putting killtask as a subcategory under quest as it really is a derivative of quest s, other than that everything else looks good, I also think it's fantastic to get a general consensus on the plural and singular topic as that is a common issue. If we can keep things organized into the hierarchy of categories here, I think it should keep things quite well organized.--Sanguis 14:26, 10 March 2008 (CDT)


Yeah, that sounds fine. edit: there, all taken care of. --An Adventurer 11:49, 10 March 2008 (CDT)


--Tlosk 04:53, 10 March 2008 (CDT) as a group I'd guess about 90% or more of the items are solid food items rather than liquid items so how about just folding drinks into "Food"?

just realized we have two categories that are basically the same thing: Food & Drink and Food. I think we should rename Food to Food & Drink and have it as a category under both consumable items and cooking.

--An Adventurer 18:20, 9 March 2008 (CDT)

--Tlosk 04:28, 7 March 2008 (CST)I like it, the lore is such a large corpus that a good tagging system will be very helpful in navigating it.

Idea for some lore categories:

  • Isparian Character
    • Aluvian Character
    • Gharu'ndim Character
    • Milantos Character
    • Roulean Character
    • Sho Character
    • Silveran Character
    • Soia-Vey Character
    • Viamontian Character
  • Empyrean Character
    • Dericost Character
    • Falatacot Character
    • Haebrous Character
    • Yalaini Character
  • Tumerok Character
  • Lugain Character
  • Shadow Character
  • Virindi Character
  • Burun Character

plus any other creatures/races we want to add. These would be used to tag both NPC and creature pages. For creatures, we would only tag the page if it is a unique/boss creature that is important to the story some how, such as the renegade tumerok and lugain leaders. I would suggest though that eventually we tag every NPC with this, as long as they are not a generic NPC like "Leather Crafter", "Blacksmith", etc.

We could also possibly create other character categories for groups: Raven Hand, Tanada, Royal Guard, Rossu Morta, etc.

Thoughts?

--An Adventurer 16:55, 6 March 2008 (CST)


--Tlosk 19:41, 3 March 2008 (CST)
You're right, I had thought for sure I saw them as mu-miyah, but they're all undead like you said. I like the boss category too.

I just went out to check, and Mu-Miyah are not a specific creature type. They are Creature Type: Undead. At least the Nomad and Imperial Mu-Miyah that were outside Candeth are Undead. I think it would make the most since to list them under both undead and Mu-Miyah (like Falatacot will be listed) since their creature type is important for the Undead Slayer property.

I suppose that raises an issue with the undead Ruschk. They are ruschk creatures but Creature Type: Undead. I suggest that they are listed only under Ruschk on the main creature page, but are tagged as both undead and ruschk for categories.

--An Adventurer 19:02, 3 March 2008 (CST)

I have added the Boss Creature Category. So far Aerbax is the only member, but there are tons of creatures that will fit. I figure any unique named creature that is part of a quest will go in the category. So, Banished, Fallen, Dires Champs, and "rare spawn" (D Lord, etc) would not be tagged as a boss creature, but the Drudge Robber Baron to Aerbax all would.

--An Adventurer 18:30, 3 March 2008 (CST)

--Tlosk 09:57, 3 March 2008 (CST)Sounds good. I've got stat panels on most creatures now, I just need to finish putting them in and I'll add the tertiary classing for those. And yeah, the Rifts are Virindi. As are some other weird ones like the Ulgrims. I'd probably also consider Queens as matrons, but that have moved up to a particular position. And mu-miyah are their own class (arabic for Mummy). If you read the lore for the viamontians, the term knight doesn't mean what we normally take it to mean, the guy in the armor, but was used more in the sense of an elite attacker. I'd also lean against subclassing normal or default, rather just the explicit factions/varieties.

Yeah, I thought about that for banished and fallens after. I don't think we should list them as a creature type on the main monster page, at least, not thrown into the main list. But yeah its fine as a category.

Some changes: crafting - Each one should have a recipe category - Cooking Recipe, Fletching Recipe, Alchemy Recipe, maybe Lockpick Recipe.

New category under Item? Quest Item/Quest Trophy, not sure which. This would be for items that are only used as part of a quest - things like the uncharged focusing stone, chorizite ore, etc. This would not be a category for quest rewards (although some quest rewards might rarely fall into the category, such as the new quid seed ingots).

Sub categories for certain creatures? They would be:

  • Burun
    • Ruuk
    • Kukuur
    • Guruk
  • Human
    • Bandit
    • Raven Hand
    • Shroud Cabal (if this turns out to be a major faction)
    • Tanada/Nanjou Shou-jen
    • Tusker Worshipper
    • Zharalim
  • Olthoi
    • Grub
    • Regular
    • Flier (or is it flyer?)
    • Matron/Queen
    • Sentinel/Keeper
  • Undead
    • Dericost - might not want to include since its not always clear if undead are Dericost, some other Empyrean, or even Isparian
    • Falatacot
    • Mu-Miyah
  • Virindi
    • Regular Virindi
    • Chaos Virindi
    • Rift (I believe rifts are actually creature type: virindi)
  • Viamontian
    • Knight
    • Mage


On the same thought as Banished and Fallen creatures as a category, what about baby creatures?


--An Adventurer 22:07, 2 March 2008 (CST)

--Tlosk 14:44, 2 March 2008 (CST)
I agree with the foot/head/hand armor and putting all clothing under one category.

For banished and fallen they would be double listed (their actual creature type) and also as a Fallen or Banished. Mainly because people will be more interested in a list of banished than having to search for them. For example, Fallen Marionette.

Good list. A few comments:

Banished and Fallen are not creature types. They should be included in their actual creature type.

I Added shield and Shoes to Armor. A suggestion for armor: Rename Helms Head Armor, Gauntlets Hand Armor, and Shoes Foot Armor, to go along with the Upper and Lower Body Armor. Also, I realized there are actually very few "clothing" quest pieces, and most of them are full body clothing anyway. We may want to just get rid of Full body/Shirt/Pants and make them all Clothing. So armor would look like:

Armor:

  • Hand Armor
  • Head Armor
  • Foot Armor
  • Lower Body Armor
  • Upper Body Armor
  • Robe
  • Shield
  • Clothing

--An Adventurer 11:59, 2 March 2008 (CST)


--Tlosk 10:55, 2 March 2008 (CST)
I mocked up a complete Category listing on the article page. I decided to merge Clothing into the Armor category since there's some overlap with things like robes and masks.

--Tlosk 12:06, 29 February 2008 (CST)
I should add that by default I don't mean that every category has to be that way, just that when it could easily go either way, should it be singular or plural. I'm sure there will be lots of exceptions to whatever we decide.

--Tlosk 12:01, 29 February 2008 (CST)
Good ideas on the hierarchy. The subcategories aren't made explicitly, rather they are an emergent property, which isn't obvious unless you look for it. That's to say, something becomes a subcategory when the category page has a category tag of its own embedded. Where it can get confusing is where we also have entries that mirror the category name which also have the category tag. You can see how I dealt with the double listing issue on Category:Monster Types.

An example of creating a subcategory with relevant embedded tag after each:

So now the category Drudge is a subcategory of Monster Types

here's an idea for the basic category/sub category list:

  • patch
  • Character Template
  • Page Template
  • Quest
  • Killtask
  • Creature
    • Armoredillo
    • Banderling
    • Burun
      • Ruuk
      • Guruk
      • Kukuur
    • ...
  • Weapon
    • Dagger
    • Bow
    • Caster
    • ...
  • Armor
    • Head Armor (remove/replace helms category)
    • Shield
    • Upper Body Armor
    • ...
  • NPC
    • Shopkeeper
    • Quest NPC
    • Crafter
  • Jewelry
    • Ring
    • Bracelet
    • Necklace
  • Clothing
    • Shirt
    • Pants
    • Full Body
    • Masks and Guises (Mask/Guise?)
  • Crafting
    • Cooking
    • Alchemy
    • Fletching
    • Item Tinkering
    • ...
  • Location
    • Dungeon
    • Town
    • Point of Interest
    • ...
  • Lore
    • Text


One thing I'm not sure where to place would be the "Item" category. Nearly everything would be a subcategory of item. Although that might not be a horrible thing.

--An Adventurer 09:55, 29 February 2008 (CST)


I don't really care either way. On a single page, the singular would look better I think, for example a shield says category:Shield. But on the category page, the plural would look better, since it is a list of shields, not a list of shield. But... plural could be confusing for things with odd plurals like sclavi, thrungum (I believe that is the plural of thrungus used in a text).

I guess I would say go with singular.

Also, how do we make subcategories? I had never used a wiki before this one, so a lot of this is still new to me.

--An Adventurer 09:40, 29 February 2008 (CST)

--Tlosk 06:20, 29 February 2008 (CST)
This is probably one of those arbitrary decisions which means there's probably not a completely compelling reason to do it either way but it would probably be a good idea to come to a consensus on whether the default for a category should be singular or plural. There's probably going to be some that will always sound better one way over the other, like "Patch" vs "Patches" and "Town" vs "Towns" but to avoid overlapping categories as much as possible it might be helpful to have a default. So that unless there's a reason to do otherwise, when making a new category (or cleaning up old ones where both variants exist) to have a default. My own vote would probably be to go singular. I won't change any existing categories until we reach a consensus and then we can add a line to the Help page on categories for new posters. Or maybe it's just too arbitrary to even have a default.

--Tlosk 05:59, 29 February 2008 (CST)
This list is primarily intended as a resource for identifying categories that have overlap and might be merged, categories that already exist if you're thinking of making a new one, and areas that might need work.

Retrieved from "https://www.drunkenfell.com/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Categories&oldid=367694"