Category talk:Specializations

Reorganizing required[edit]

Since there IS a difference between specialization (effectively current core trait lines) and elite specialization (trait lines released starting with Heart of Thorns with a particular "subclass" which can wield an exclusive weapon), we should separate adequately here. Any ideas to further reorganize specs category tree? – Valento ^msg 20:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

We should end up translating [[:Category:Traits by profession]] to specializations (It's pretty dumb way to categorize the trait lines anyways).--Relyk ~ talk < 20:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, "trait lines" will be gone, so Water Magic as well as other lines could fit into a possible "Elementalist specializations" sub-cat. Even if it doesn't look fine, this is just how they are fleshing out terminologies: specializations are all trait lines, elite specializations are all non-core specializations PLUS specific "sub-profession", so professions (elementalist) will never be under specializations but sub-professions (tempest) will. – Valento ^msg 20:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Specializations
- Category:Core specializations
  - Category:Fire Magic
- Category:Elite specializations
  - Category:Tempest
- [[:Elementalist specializations]]
  - Category:Fire Magic
  - Category:Tempest
- [[:Guardian specializations]]
- [[:Warrior specializations]]
Category:Elementalist
- Category:Elementalist specializations

Doesn't makes sense for [[:Category:Elementalist traits]] to be under Category:Elementalist because we skip the hierarchy of a profession HAS A trait line HAS A trait. The List of elementalist traits would be under Category:Elementalist though, being split into core and elite specializations.--Relyk ~ talk < 21:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that's much better and looks good to my eyes. – Valento ^msg 21:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Since that hierarchy looks fine and well thought out, I would like to know if anyone is against it. We can create the categories now to have everything ready when HoT launches. – Valento ^msg 18:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

And done! I'll be adjusting templates to accomodate these categories, but they'll be commented until the patch that effectively changes traits is released. – Valento ^msg 12:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Dropping "traits" from the category names is a bad change because a category should (in most cases) clearly identify what it contains. "Category:Alchemy" doesn't actually say what's in the category the way that "Category:Alchemy traits" does. ("In most cases" i.e. Category:Elementalist is a collection of everything relating to the elementalist; however, most of the members are sub-categorized more specifically e.g. Category:Elementalist skills/[[:Category:Elementalist traits]].) —Dr Ishmael

19:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You know, as I started creating the categories I got that weird feeling that it was becoming squishy. @_@ I'm afraid you'll have to revert what I've done (again), as well as delete many categories so it changes back to old notation. – Valento ^msg 19:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

On a related note, I hope it's fine to have this hierarchy: Elementalist -> Tempest -> Tempest skills / Tempest traits. – Valento ^msg 19:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I just realized a better, more ambiguous example as I was editing the trait infobox: "Category:Arcane". That could be referring to either the skill type or the specialization. Going back to "Category:Arcane traits" clears that up completely. Luckily, no one's deleted the old categories yet.

On your second comment - that makes sense to me. —Dr Ishmael

19:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I stumbled upon these so I've gone and deleted the unused categories. The organization I went with is as follows:

Category:Specializations → Category:<prof> specializations → Category:<spec> traits → trait pages... or in full: