Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Projects/Category reorganization/Archive1

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

This page is an archive. The contents have been moved from another page for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Discussion or voting on this page is not current. Any additions you make will probably not be read.
The current version of this page can be found at Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Projects/Category reorganization.

Beginning

I'm thinking about beginning with the ArenaNet category (which is the simplest one), then moving to the Guild Wars 2 Wiki category; once those two are done, if no one else has said anything, we could go to the main Guild Wars 2 category. Erasculio 20:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Has consensus been reached? I mean, if it has, I'm all for helping... Aqua (T|C) 20:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
It appears so; take a look at the Root talk page. Erasculio 20:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The main category would require a lot of time to re-organize and we have to make sure people do not misunderstand the changes. Perhaps we can ask Poke for botting instructions on that? - Infinite - talk 20:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I unfortunately doubt very very much that would work : ( Erasculio 20:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
It would be a basic command, though: Instruct the bot per category what change to apply. EDIT Category x's [[Cat]] TO [[NewCat]]. Or is that too simple a tought for botting? :P - Infinite - talk 20:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I think assistance from a bot would help immensely, not only for getting this done, but by preserving RC whilst doing so. Aqua (T|C) 20:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I think a bot would help, too, but right now we unfortunately only have one bot, and poke is the only one who can control it, and his computer is broken (which is why I have halted the concept art images renaming for now, until he can start making the moves). I don't think relying on his help will work now, and for now "bot = poke". Erasculio 21:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
With poke's assistance he could help us create a bot specifically for this project, couldn't he? - Infinite - talk 21:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Once his computer is working again, after he has catch up with everything else he wants to do and if he's willing to help us in doing that, then I guess yes, he could. Erasculio 21:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) For the records, what I mean with the above is that I'm not really happy with waiting for a single user before starting a project of this size, no matter who that user is. I would rather begin the simplest parts now than wait for poke. Since the ArenaNet category has mostly small changes, and the Guild Wars 2 Wiki category has some changes that are more based on judgment than just automatic (such as moving the templates around), would you people mind if we begin work on those two and leave only the main Guild Wars 2 category for a bot? Erasculio 11:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind starting work; the only issue for mass changes is the GW2 category itself. The rest we should do without a bot. We should write out where every article goes in the category tree first, though. And scratch them off as we move them. Good idea? - Infinite - talk 13:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure, we have to put something at the "Methodology" section anyway : ) I think that, for the simplest things (everything in "ArenaNet community co-ordinators" will just go to "Community coordinators", for example), we could just list the categories, but for everything else (which will probably be everything within the GW2W category) we should do what you said. Erasculio 13:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I made an example for ArenaNet, any good? :P - Infinite - talk 14:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Heh, I would actually move that to the Methodology section (with some small explanation of what it is) and keep the category tree as it was, so we have a clean way of showing people what it will all look like in the end. Erasculio 14:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to split, It's a simple copy-paste minus the articles. :D - Infinite - talk 14:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
That works! :) Let's open fire on the "missing" articles and files. - Infinite - talk 14:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
If you can tell me exactly what a bot needs to do, I can prepare something for you within a not too long time frame. poke | talk 22:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Uncategorized employees

Andrew Patrick -> Support Liaison
Angel Leigh McCoy -> Designers 
Anthony Ordon -> Quality assurance
Bob Green -> Quality assurance
Bobby Stein -> Writers
Chris Lye -> Marketing
David Campbell -> Marketing
Gaile Gray -> Support Liaison
Jeremy Soule -> Composers
Joe Belousek -> Quality assurance
Joe Longworth -> Quality assurance
John Hargrove -> Designers
Jon Peters -> Designers
Matt Forbeck -> Writers
Matthew Medina -> Designers
Mike O'Brien -> Is president of ArenaNet, where does he go? :P

They need to be categorized in sub-categories, if possible. Feel free to add in where. - Infinite - talk 14:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Andrew Patrick -> does he still work there?
Angel Leigh McCoy -> Writers
Anthony Ordon -> Q&A
Bob Green -> Q&A
Bobby Stein -> Writers
Chris Lye -> Uh...Marketing?
David Campbell -> Writers
Gaile Gray ->
Jeremy Soule -> Artists (Yes, I'm being lazy : P)
Joe Belousek -> Q&A
Joe Longworth -> Q&A (what should we name this category?)
John Hargrove -> Designers
Jon Peters -> Designers
Matt Forbeck -> Writers
Matthew Medina -> Designers
Mike O'Brien -> Studio Head
Erasculio 14:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, great minds think alike, it seems : P I would keep Angel Leigh as writer since she mentions being part of the write team, and I would change Support Liaison to Support liaison, but otherwise I agree with you. Erasculio 14:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I'll add them in. :) - Infinite - talk 14:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
That's all good to you? :) - Infinite - talk 14:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
We could probably remove the Programmers category if it will be empty... Other than that, it's fine by me : D Erasculio 14:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I think programmers count toward designers in the current documentation anyway. - Infinite - talk 14:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Some people like Josh Petrie (who is a tool programmer) are clearly not designers but these guys don't have a wiki page right now. We'll probably need to add the category back later when we create pages for them. Chriskang 15:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
If we had a full list of ArenaNet employees, we could fully update this part of the category tree. Who are we missing, currently? (Save Josh Petrie, then.) - Infinite - talk 15:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm mainly interested in artists so you can find a few names in my sandbox but there's much more than this list. Right now, we only have something like 50 articles which is about one third of the studio. Chriskang 15:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sooo

Happy face. :D - Infinite - talk 19:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha : P. Unfortunately, I don't think the other sections will be as simple (we will need some time to organize the Guild Wars 2 Wiki category), but hey, so far so good. Erasculio 19:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, this was fastest and easiest, compared to what is to come... But at least it's over with. :) Once it's all done, we need to check uncategorized stuff as well, in case we missed something, of course. - Infinite - talk 19:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Maybe move ArenaNet staff pictures to just "Staff pictures"? - Infinite - talk 19:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That's where they used to be. I have moved them so people don't get confused with the other staff. Erasculio 19:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Doh, right, that's sensible. :) Then we're officially done with the ArenaNet category. - Infinite - talk 19:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't much of a help on the ArenaNet cat. Though, are we doing GW2W or GW2 next? Aqua (T|C) 20:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Give me a few minutes to post a new discussion on a very pressing issue in GW2W cat. :) - Infinite - talk 20:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Category_talk:Templates. - Infinite - talk 21:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Guild Wars 2 Wiki

I have began making the list of articles to be moved:

Would you people like to keep Stubs as they are, with divisions between lore stubs, articles with stub sections and full stubs, or would you people like to merge everything? I'm very strongly tempted to delete the Humor category (don't see much of a point in it...), but I don't know what to do with the Beta hunt article. Erasculio 23:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep humor for now, maybe delete it later. (But combinations of April Fool's pranks including the joke skill/trait/game updates and the Beta Key hunt should be enough to warrant a category). And the three types of stubs IMO are very different. (It is the difference between a good article with an incomplete section, an incomplete article and an article that is complete with the exception of lore.) Aqua (T|C) 03:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
And help is done. Aqua (T|C) 03:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Hehe, that was fast. Anyway, if we are to completely the reorganization of the Wiki category, we'll need to hit consensus on Templates (as per above) and more precisely Userboxes. The rest can be freely reorganized, though, so I propose we continue to do do. :) - Infinite - talk 08:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sections breakdown

With Guides and Helps being correctly positioned as is now, let's see.. (Note; all that "stays" is still going to be moved into the new categories we discussed. :P)

If anything is not along the lines of the initial proposal, please point out where and why, so we can compare per section what the course of action shall be.
Also, quote: ""Articles to be modified". Quite frankly, a lot of these categories would group well in such a category."


[−] Humor (2)
 Beta key hunt
 User:The Scythe Has Fallen/Welcome
I propose to make Humor a sub-category of Users. (Users create humor, that's just how bad we all are.) - Infinite - talk 09:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


[−] Images (8)
 [−] Flag images (31)
  [+] Flag templates (14)

[−] Icons (17)
 [+] Button icons (12)
 [+] Copyright icons (4)
 [-] Profession icons (5)
  File:Elementalist-tango-icon-20.png
  File:Elementalist-tango-icon-200.png
  File:Necromancer-tango-icon-20.png
  File:Ranger-tango-icon-20.png
  File:Warrior-tango-icon-20.png
 [−] Tango icons (27)
  [+] GW1 tango icons (54)

[−] Images by license (3)
 [-] ArenaNet images (346)
  [+] Screenshots (40)
  [+] ArenaNet concept art (594)
  [+] ArenaNet icons (27)
  [+] Animations (3)
  [+] Staff pictures (0)
  [+] ArenaNet custom images (807)
  [+] ArenaNet renders (49)
 [+] GFDL images (49)
 [+] Public domain images (21)

[+] Logos (7)

[+] Not orphaned images (5)

[+] Organization images (17)

[+] Special images (4)

[+] User images (1,321)
The Flag images has the Flag templates as well. This is no longer making sense; I propose moving images into the Templates categories; Templates -> Flag templates -> Flag images.
Icons... Are a bitch. The Button and copyright is fien, but the "Profession icons" and almost every tango icon needs to go. GW1 tango items shouldn't be here in the first place; this isn't GWW.
Images by license;
Seriously? ArenaNet images? I am surprised that that doesn't tag at least 90% of this wiki by default. Totally redundant. Split the useful stuff into GW2 category (as discussed on Root) and ditch the remains of this "license" category.
GFDL and Public Domain can stay.
Logos can be left as is.
Not orphaned needs cleanup.
Organization images are actually just icons.
Special images are more icons and in general needs a cleanup.
I'm not touching User images. :)
That's it for images. - Infinite - talk 09:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


[−] Maintenance (16)
 [+] Archives (114)
 [+] Articles that are missing citations (3)
 [-] Cleanup (1)
  [+] Pages with disputed claims (1)

 [-] Candidates for deletion (55)
  [+] Candidates for speedy deletion (21)
  [+] Suspected copyright violations (0)
 [+] Candidates for speedy deletion (21)
 [+] Suspected copyright violations (0)

 [−] Hidden categories (1)
  [−] ArenaNet custom images (807)
   [+] Charr skill icons (1)
   [+] Common skill icons (1)
   [+] Common trait icons (12)
   [+] Elementalist skill icons (37)
   [+] Environmental weapon skill icons (9)

 [+] Pages to be merged (6)
 [+] Articles to be moved (15)

 [+] Not orphaned images (5)

 [+] Protected pages (4)

 [−] Requires reviewing (3)
  [+] Articles possibly not relevant to GW2 (10)
  [+] Pages with disputed content (0)
  [+] Rewrite (1)

 [+] Pages to be split (0)

 [−] Stubs (71)
  [+] Articles with stub sections (4)
  [+] Lore stubs (21)
Archives, Citations and Cleanup are fine as is.
Candidates for deletion contains the next two categories. They should stay in Deletion, not all in Maintenance.
Hidden categories is basically a double-up to any other category. I *could* see use for this to categorize pages such as the main page (which would then appear to be uncategorized). Other than that, this is sort of redundant. If it stays, it needs a massive cleanup.
Merged and moved... Can be grouped together under something like "Articles to be modified". Quite frankly, a lot of these categories would group well in such a category.
Not orphaned images.. Again? Is already moving as per above.
Protected pages do not require maintenance and thus are in the wrong category.
Requires reviewing is fine as is.
Split is fine as is.
Stubs are also fine as is.
In essence, simply refer to the quote at the start for this section. - Infinite - talk 09:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


[−] Practices and processes (8)
 [+] Suspended policy proposals (32)
Is perfect as is. - Infinite - talk 09:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


[+] Projects (3)
As per Eras:
  • Projects
    • Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Projects
    • Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Projects/Category reorganization
    • Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Projects/Dynamic Events
    • Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Projects/Media watch
    • Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Projects/User birthdays
I believe that works. - Infinite - talk 09:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


[−] Redirects (13)
 [+] Abbreviation redirects (7)
 [+] Capitalization redirects (4)
 [×] Common misspelling redirects (0)
 [+] Common name redirects (1)
 [+] Disambiguation articles (8)
 [+] General term redirects (1)
 [+] Grammatical derivation redirects (1)
 [+] Icon redirects (267)
 [+] Omitted punctuation redirects (2)
 [+] Plural redirects (3)
 [+] Short name redirects (3)
 [+] Shortcut redirects (15)
 [+] Variant spelling redirects (3)
I oppose such detailed categories for mere redirects. Eras nailed this on his initial proposal:
  • Redirects
    • Abbreviation redirects
    • Common misspelling redirects
    • Variant spelling redirects
It's flawless: Redirects are in essence either one of the top two and all the unique cases can go in the third. Solved and simple. - Infinite - talk 09:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


[−] Templates (18)
 [+] Archival templates (4)
 [+] Disambiguation templates (2)
 [+] Formatting templates (22)
 [+] Image templates (14)
 [+] License templates (9)
 [+] Main page templates (1)
 [+] Maintenance templates (14)
 [+] Navigation templates (33)
 [+] Organization templates (8)
 [+] Skill templates (3)
 [+] Template documentation (12)
 [+] Templates/Babel (9)
 [+] User templates (11)
 [+] Utility templates (4)
Refer to this discussion to go in-depth about this. - Infinite - talk 09:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


[+] Users (59)
Sigh what a mess. I vote a breakdown here into Users -> Users by category (and) Users -> Users by language (and) Users -> Humor.
The user templates should also go here, but refer to the discussion linked above. - Infinite - talk 09:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


[−] Wiki operations (4)
 [+] Orphaned talk pages (14)
 [−] Wiki essays (9)
  [+] Re Wikipedia (2)
 [+] Wiki projects (2)
 [+] Wiki proposals (5)
I don't think we covered these before. - Infinite - talk 09:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I have kinda of mentioned most of those at the Root talk page, but to (try to) make a summary:
  • Help: done with. We can delete Guide now.
  • Humor: I really don't care.
  • Maintenance: this needs a longer explanation. I would keep the current proposal (Archives, Disambiguation articles, Hidden categories, Not orphaned images, Orphaned talk pages, Protected pages; as much as Protected pages don't need maintenance, I think they are part of the wiki maintenance, hence being there as well; archives and those other things also don't require any other action). Regarding the "Articles to be modified" category... If it were a storage category, just somewhere where to put those articles, then I think yes, we could group everything under a simple "Articles to be modified" category. However, that's not the idea behind that category - it would exist so all articles that need to be changed would be together, in an easy to find place, and those subcategories are all categories that we want to keep empty. Considering how those articles are things we expect people to actively work on, I think it would be easier for them to navigate through the articles, and understand what needs to be done to each of them, if the articles were in categories which explained the action to be taken (merge, move, correct dispute, delete, and so on). Hence why I believe we should keep the individual categories, instead of merging all of them into a main "Articles to be modified".
  • Users: I really don't care about this, one either. As far as I'm concerned, it could be deleted.
  • Images (copy & paste time):
    • Rename it from "Images" to "Wiki images" (so people realize it's not game images, just wiki images)
    • Rename the "Icons" category to "Wiki icons" ("Icons" will be a subcategory in the GW2 section)
    • Rename the "Organization images" to "Organization icons" and move it to the "Wiki icons" category.
    • Delete the "Profession icons" subcategory and move its entire content to the userspace - those are the GW1 icons, I think it's misleading to present them here as icons for professions.
    • Delete the "Tango icons" subcategory since it's filled with GW1 profession icons, and do as above (move the images to userspace).
    • Delete the "Logos" category - whatever in there that doesn't belong to the "ArenaNet logos" category belongs to the "Wiki icons" category.
    • Delete the "Special images" category and move their content to the main "Wiki images" category, since that's what those images are anyway.
    • Delete the "Signatures" subcategory in the "User images" category, and move the content from the former to the latter. It's barely used anyway, and it's one less thing for users to keep in mind when uploading images.
    • Switch around the "Flag images" and "Flag templates" categories: currently, the latter is within the former. Since those flag images were uploaded for the templates, I would like to keep "Flag images" within the "Flag templates" category.
    • Move "Not orphaned images" to the "Maintenance" category (as mentioned above).
The result would be what's at the project main page. Erasculio 21:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I was looking at that and I was confused where some things are supposed to go, shall we work it into the meth (lol) section and check if we have everything covered? - Infinite - talk 14:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, for the records, the stuff at "Wiki operations", "Wiki essays", "Re Wikipedia" and "Wiki proposals" would be moved to userspace (where most of that stuff already is, anyway); they're mostly 2007 rants about subjects which are no longer relevant to the wiki. Erasculio 21:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I have moved the Projects category (since it wasn't questioned), and I have moved the old rants to the userspace (almost all of them where already there, I only removed the wikispace categories). Any further thoughts about the Maintenance category? I would like to implement it as mentioned at the top of this section, but since that one was questioned, I would like to have more opinions. Erasculio 23:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, for the redirects, how about...

? Erasculio 23:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

So, gogogo? Erasculio 22:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
You have some non-abbreviations in abbreviations. :P - Infinite - talk 22:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking of using the abbreviations category not only for literally abbreviations (like "GW2" to "Guild Wars 2"), but also to any case in which the redirect is just a shortening of the article's title ("Adelbern" to "King Adelbern", for example). Or would you people rather keep that at "variant spelling"? Erasculio 23:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Any page that is a shortened version (acronym, missing title, whatever) should be classified under "Abbreviations." IMO (PS: Sorry I haven't been helping more with this, had a major project to finish.) Aqua (T|C) 23:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. :) - Infinite - talk 23:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
After fighting a bit with the wiki slowdown bug, I have moved all the redirects to the proper categories mentioned above, dealt with the template mess around the redirects (merged all the ones we are going to keep in a single template, tagged all others for deletion) and tagged all the now empty categories for deletion.
I'm in doubt about what to do with the [[:Category:Icon redirects|icon redirects]], as I had completely forgotten about them. Should we keep them at the Redirects category (which is what I think would be better), move them to the Icons category, or do something else? Erasculio 10:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Icons

I know that you didn't start working on the GW2 branch yet but I feel like playing with icons today so here's a quick question about the Item icons cat: considering that all items will probably have an icon, wouldn't it be logical to reproduce the whole Items tree below Item icons? Maybe just a little simplified like that:

Thoughts? Chriskang 22:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

IMO, way too complex. The Item icons category has little value, navigation-wise; while we have to expect players wanting to quickly navigate between all swords when trying to find one for their characters, so we need a way for people to quickly and easily navigate the Swords category, I doubt very much we will see a significant number of players who want to navigate specifically through a list of sword icons.
Meanwhile, the more complex a category tree is, the more users will either use it badly or simply not even try to use it at all. Considering how I have the feeling even today most images are uploaded to the wrong place, if we make the category tree for uploaded icons too complex, most uploaders won't know where to place the icons.
I think a simpler system, with a very simple division between major groups of items (armors, weapons, etc), would be better. Erasculio 23:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Because the tree is focussed to be simplified, that proposal is the direct opposite of what we're striving for; as per Eras, a simple system is in order. - Infinite - talk 16:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I must agree with Erasculio and Infinite here. This is opposite in direction of the Erasculio's/Infi's simplification proposal. Aqua (T|C) 17:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Userboxes

Now that it's still manageable, should we move/delete all GW1-oriented userboxes (to an appropriate sub-category)? - Infinite - talk 14:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, all GW1 userboxes could be deleted. Then again, I have never cared about userboxes in the first place. Erasculio 18:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's an option I decided to link to the Userbox templates talkpage (hence the link). If they need moving, we can take em along into this project. :) - Infinite - talk 20:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Skills category

I propose a change. In light of GW2, which has no secondary professions, it makes no sense to chuck all Healing skills, all Signets, etc together. I propose the categories are to be specified, i.e. Ranger healing skills, Elementalist signet skills. This will keep users from comparing skills that are in essence not a viable comparison for their character. Also, I doubt a ranger would be interested in browsing through elementalist signets when looking for a ranger signet to use. We need to upgrade out thinking, for GW2 is a new game which has little ties to the first game. I do not oppose having a category with all skills of said type, but it is important that they are NOT the primary category added to individual skill articles. - Infinite - talk 16:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of the project still being at the Wiki category, but I rather have a consensus on this long before we get there. - Infinite - talk 16:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Tis fine. And yes, I agree: we should have individual categories for each <Profession> <skill type>. Aqua (T|C) 18:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Take a look at the Category talk:Skills discussion, it's about this subject. Erasculio 21:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
So dead, though... Will formulate a proposal in the morning... - Infinite - talk 22:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Bumping this. The more the game development progresses, the less it makes sense to have <skill type> as a subcategory of <profession skills>. We discovered this week that shouts were not specific to warriors, traps were not specific to rangers and stealth was not specific to thieves. So, what do we do? Keeping skill types as subcategories will create a huge tree with a bunch of leaves differing only by profession: <Guardian signet skills>, <Warrior signet skills>, <Necromancer signet skills>, <Thief signet skills>, <Elementalist signet skills>, <Necromancer signet skills>... and probably more soon. If we really want to go for simplicity with the category tree, wouldn't it be good to remove this subcategory completely? I wouldn't mind having skills categorized with just <profession skills> and <weapon skills>. If a partitioning by type is really desired, we can add a third category <type skills> but IMO it should be transverse, not a subdivision of <profession skills>. Chriskang 10:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
You are saying the opposite of what Infinite said when he began this section. Erasculio 10:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I can try to illustrate a portion of the tree, I think:
As you can see, nothing is duplicate within the skills category (though this is not the complete skill category tree yet). Italics are optional. It may need some tweaks and changes, so I'll just hear that from you guys. :) - Infinite - talk 12:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I think your concern about avoiding duplication at all costs is leading to a somewhat misleading and overly complex category tree. Erasculio 12:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Not looping categories is important. -points wikipedia- - Infinite - talk 12:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by "looping"; may be my faulty English, but I thought "looping" meant a category being repeated within itself. I don't think it's any problem to have repeated categories, as long as it's kept within a reasonable number of repetition (twice or thrice at most). Your proposed category tree has many issues: a warrior sword chain skill would be both within "Warrior main-hand weapon skills" and "Warrior chain skills" at the same "Warrior skills" main category, "Racial skills" are not a type of skill (and hence all racial skills would be repeated within the "Skills by type" category, as they would be within "Racial skills" and "Utility skills" or "Healing skills" or "Elite skills"), an Elementalist elite form skill would be both within "Elementalist elite skills" and "Elementalist form skills", which are both within "Elementalist skills", and so on. Erasculio 12:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll elaborate a bit;
Looping is not restricted to one category; it is encompassing the entire category tree. Having duplicate categories on different levels leads to looping (as you can navigate from a higher level category to the same category on a lower level, setting the tree back to the higher level and so on. This needs to be avoided at all costs: Category trees must only branch downwards, not back up and around.
I agree that the chain skills are better off in their professions' main-hand weapon skills category counterparts, I did specify it still needs tweaks and changes.
All categories within a top category should be independent on their own, but content may be assigned to multiple categories within a top category. This is what we would call "classification". A racial skill is still a type of skill, which may also be a utility/healing skill. Because racial and utility/healing are two different types, the skill is perfectly viable to be assigned with both.
The same is applicable to the form skills (there are non-elite forms). Classification again.
If we decide the main-hand/off-hand/two-handed categories are not required, the chain skills will remain as they are, otherwise they are moved into their respective profession's main-hand weapon skills category. - Infinite - talk 13:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Infinite, I agree with your definition of "looping categories" but I don't understand why you brought this up. Unless I missed something, no-one suggested anything like this? Chriskang 13:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
As per my opening post and the old discussion on the root category's talk page: "I propose a change. In light of GW2, which has no secondary professions, it makes no sense to chuck all Healing skills, all Signets, etc together. I propose the categories are to be specified, i.e. Ranger healing skills, Elementalist signet skills. This will keep users from comparing skills that are in essence not a viable comparison for their character." Back then we had no idea what the professions really were going to look like. Right now we have proper indication of what is being done for professions and we should alter category navigation (and thus the tree) to reflect that. 8 unique professions call for 8 unique categories. Also: "I do not oppose having a category with all skills of said type, but it is important that they are NOT the primary category added to individual skill articles." This is true because the professions are by no means interchangeable in skills (save the racial skills, under specific conditions). - Infinite - talk 13:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Also note that, for instance, the Elite skill category in types, is on the same level as individual profession categories. That means that we could potentially sub-categorize elite skills into the same profession elite skill categories (same level means no looping is possible). You'd get a scheme like:
Now we have a tree that allows classification on various sorting methods and still disallows looping. It's all possible, it's just what people would like to see. - Infinite - talk 13:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I understand that people browsing categories will probably want to see only the skills for their profession and that my suggestion is probably not perfect but IMO, you replace it with something that is actually worse. Your current proposal for non-racial skills counts more than 100 categories when about 30 would be enough:

Don't forget that we can use DPL to extract the skills that belong to several categories and make a reference page. Chriskang 13:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

But now my question is; how does one view all guardian signet skills in a category? There is currently no place for specification. And how is more categories by default worse? Not having specifics available when browsing is my kind of worse, to be honest. It doesn't have to be compact to be effective, it just has to be exact. - Infinite - talk 13:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I actually disagree with both of you. I don't agree with "Category trees must only branch downwards, not back up and around"; I don't really care about what level in the tree a category is in comparison with other unrelated categories, so it doesn't bother me if "Racial skills" is one step above or below "Sword skills". I actually like the idea of a subcategory being part of two main categories so people can use it to browse between categories, instead of just following the tree up and down. I also agree with Chris, in that less categories is better than a system with hundreds of categories.
But, in other hand, I don't think having so few categories would be useful. I doubt anyone would have an use in learning what are all shouts, regardless of profession, or all traps; since we won't have hexes in GW2, the probability that we will have a condition or a boon affecting all signets or all shouts is very small, so I don't think those would be useful. If anything, I would rather group them by profession and/or race. I also disagree that we should use "Skills by position"; the division of skills between weapon, healing, utility and elite is one of the most important mechanics in GW2, I think we need to give them a more intuitive category name than that (position of what? In the world, in the skill bar, at the skill traders, or what?). IMO, we should keep them at "skills by type" and change the name of the group of shout skills, signet skills and etc.
I would like to use a system very much like what we already have. The only difference is that I would add a new subcategory to "Skills", "Skills by effect" or something similar, with the following structure:
  • Skills
    • Skills by effect (or something like that)
      • Shouts
        • Guardian shouts
        • Warrior shouts
And so on. It would only gather categories which already exist. Everything else would be kept the same. Erasculio 15:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I come back at Chris' proposal after some thinking:
It keeps profession-based categories relevant to the skill bar and skill types relevant to, well, skill types. The last line "<insert blah blah>" could be what Eras proposed "Skills by effect". Together it's a 3-way category, depending on what you wish to browse for. - Infinite - talk 15:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the first half of your list, "Skills by profession", has way too many categories (I would rather do as Aspectable had suggested and keep those categories broader - "Elite skills", for example - while using DPL lists to make specific lists, so we would not have a "Guardian elite skills" category but rather a "Guardian elite skills" DPL list). That's something I'm willing to compromise with, though, if more people support it.
I'm extremely against the division in the second half of your proposal, "Skills by type". Again, I think that's one of the most important mechanics in GW2, so the category tree being such a mess isn't something I'm fond of. Racial skills and monster skills are not part of the same mechanic as the division between weapon skill, healing skill, utility skill and elite skill; likewise, environmental weapon skills are within the weapon skills category under that mechanic. I would rather keep racial skills as a different category, and do the same for monster skills. Erasculio 15:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Please explain to me how we can DPL Guardian elite skills without a category devoted to listing guardian elite skills? If there is a way to do this, then the actual category would just be a mash-up of every <profession> skill, which becomes impossible to browse?
"Racial skills and monster skills are not part of the same mechanic as the division between weapon skill, healing skill, utility skill and elite skill;" How are they not? Because those are not skills? I would like elaboration on that one.
"likewise, environmental weapon skills are within the weapon skills category under that mechanic." Environmental weapons are not linked to weapon skills at all, which is why they are in seperate categories on the same level.
As stated above, please elaborate your racial/monster skills argument, it makes little sense to me in its current state. - Infinite - talk 15:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
"Please explain to me how we can DPL Guardian elite skills without a category devoted to listing guardian elite skills?": making a DPL list to add skills which belong both in the "Guardian skills" category and the "Elite skills" category. Example (notice that there isn't a "Monk elite skills" category in GW1W; that DPL is using the "Elite skills" and the "Divine Favor skills" category). I think we don't need to divide weapon skills, elite skills and the other skills that follow that division between professions (since they are linked, and it's reasonable that someone who has found a Greatsword, for example, may be interested in finding out all Greatsword skills so he can figure out who he will give the sword to). I wouldn't like to join all signet skills together, though, since there isn't much of a point in browsing between signets. That's also a middle point between yours and Chris' opinions.
"How are they not? Because those are not skills? I would like elaboration on that one": I'm not sure how to explain it to you; I have the strong feeling I'm not being clear enough, since I'm sure you know what I'm talking about (it is something obvious). When deciding which skills to pick for a skill bar, we have to consider if a skill is a weapon skill (first five skills in the skill bar, linked to weapons, are only available in groups), a healing skill (has a specific slot in the skill bar, always heals), an utility skill (has three slots available in the skill bar, may be picked individually, comes from multiple sources) or an elite skill (last slot in the skill bar, comes from multiple sources, never comes in groups). All skills in the game falls within one of those four groups, otherwise it wouldn't be in the skill bar. Racial skills, in other hand, do not get specific slots in the skill bar; rather, they are spread among the groups I have mentioned (utility skills or healing skills or elite skills). Likewise, environmental weapon do not have specific slots in the skill bar; rather, they follow the same mechanic of weapon skills (first five skills in the skill bar, linked to some weapon, only available in groups). So I think we have to make a category containing only weapon skills, healing skills, utility skills and elite skills (since all skills in the game fall within one of those four groups) and keep things such as racial skills in a different category. IMO, racial skills should be a subcategory of the main Skills category. Erasculio 15:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
(Oh, and downed skills, I had forgotten about those. They should also be part of the same category that has weapon skills, healing skills, utility skills and elite skills.) Erasculio 15:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I see, I forgot about the double cat DPL option. So following the DPL and racial/monster arguments (and all opinions here, I think):
Would that be better then? - Infinite - talk 15:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
EDIT: (We love EC's.) I can't DPL ready the racial skills until my bestiary plans are through (see bottom of the page). - Infinite - talk 15:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Infinite, your last proposition is nearly the same as mine so I support it, of course. I would just move <burst skills> into <skills by type> (because I don't see why they would be considered different than shouts, traps, ...) and <dual skills> into <skill by weapon> (otherwise the corresponding pages would not appear in any of the category below <skill by weapon>; unless you consider that dual skills are categorized with both weapons?) Also, you need to add healing/utility/elite, probably at the top level, just like weapon skills.
@Erasculio, I understand the argument that a general <signet> category is not useful for someone who just wants to see the signets of his profession but, as I said before, there's no perfect solution and, IMO, creating 6 (or maybe more) subcategories for a single skill type is overly complex (in case I'm not clear, I mean: <Guardian signet skills>, <Warrior signet skills>, <Necromancer signet skills>, <Thief signet skills>, <Elementalist signet skills>, <Necromancer signet skills>). Also, having a different behavior for healing/utility/elite (ie. no split) and for skill types (ie. split by profession) seems inconsistent to me and I don't like that. Finally, as already said, if a "Warrior shouts" page is ever wanted, we can still generate it with DPL. Chriskang 19:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, the Burst and Dual skills are confusing me. I know what they are and how they function, but dual skills are not determined by a single weapon so they don't exactly fit in one category. I think your proposal for them works best so I say we follow that one. And yes, in the various changes I forgot to move those three. DPL should work perfectly fine with the set-up as well (I can't figure out a combo that is not covered, at the moment). - Infinite - talk 20:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Where are the utility skills? Also, per Pling's comment here, "Skills by weapon" should be replaced with "Weapon skills". Erasculio 21:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Please read the two comments above yours. And yes. - Infinite - talk 21:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
As I have stated (multiple times) before, I would rather see a subcategory with only weapon skills, healing skills, utility skills, elite skill and downed skills; the current proposition fails to make clear how those are mechanically similar to each other and different from racial skills and monster skills. I also disagree about the current placement of the environmental weapons subcategory, per the last paragraph of my comment a bit above (that has apparently not been read, since it wasn't answered and I'm basically repeating it here). Erasculio 21:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if you are going by phrased proposal or just the last visual proposal, but I'll re-visualize the current proposal as far as I understand it:
Like that. - Infinite - talk 22:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
"As I have stated (multiple times) before, I would rather see a subcategory with only weapon skills, healing skills, utility skills, elite skill and downed skills; the current proposition fails to make clear how those are mechanically similar to each other and different from racial skills and monster skills. I also disagree about the current placement of the environmental weapons subcategory, per the last paragraph of my comment a bit above (that has apparently not been read, since it wasn't answered and I'm basically repeating it here)". Infinite, are you doing that on purpose? That or I must be expressing myself in a very confusing way. Erasculio 00:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
You are. Though now that I read it about 5 times, you basically want the categories "weapon skills, healing skills, utility skills and elite skills in a seperate sub-category as well, isn't that right? - Infinite - talk 04:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Then that should be more in-line with your trail of thought. (Though for simplicity's sake, we could group all profession-specific mechanic skills under one category; "Profession-unique skills".) Again, if it's not what you mean either then you'll have to visualize what you mean instead of merely writing about it (so I can see what I keep missing). - Infinite - talk 04:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I have not made a list myself because the system I'm defending is the one currently being displayed at the project itself. I'm not going to argue about the rest of the skills category tree, but what I have been saying above is to use this part:
...From the whole seen here. I guess we could add a section to the skills related to the profession unique mechanics, if you want, but other than that I would like to keep the category above without any other subcategory (in other words, racial skills and etc would be at a different category). Erasculio 13:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we will not need main-hand/off-hand categorization, it's theoretically only up to 40 skills per weapon (which has already been reduced thanks to the reveals), so further categorizing that has little value. DPL listing them would make it lists of 3 and 2, just 3 or just 2 or none at all.
Also note that in my last proposal, the Racial skills, etc, are on the same level as the project's current proposal (and thus in a different category). Also I think skills by position is an exacter way to put it, compared to skills by type. If only because GWW -> GW2W transition shouldn't be *too* extreme. The current player base knows "a signet is a skill type, like shout and stance, etc" and I don't think it's necessary to change that term.
Downed skills are like their own little group. So I don't think it should be amongst elite skills/healing skills/utility skills/etc. It's not a stapled part of the main skill bar. (Like Racial skills and Environmental weapon skills are both also not stapled to the main skill bar (racial skills are conditional, based on race. Environmental weapons are conditional, based on what environmental weapon you're holding. In that line of thought, Downed skills are conditional, based on whether your character hit 0 health). So that would go on the same level as Racial skills and the likes.
So basically, if we group all profession-specific/-unique mechanics into one category (without further categorizing), we end up with your proposal, plus that category, minus the main-hand/off-hand subs and minus the Downed skills (which I would place in Skills as per illustrated in my last proposal). - Infinite - talk 15:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) All in all, it'd look like;


You can read the skills category levels as following:

  • The top level is Skills, this is the all-encompassing category which contains all skills.
  • The first sub-level is a conditional split in a couple of manners, either by:
    • Profession
    • Main skill bar position
    • Types of skills
    • 0 health condition; Downed skills
    • Environmental condition; Environmental weapon skills
    • Not allocated to players condition; Monster skills
    • Conditional depending on chosen race; Racial skills
  • Then the sub-sub-level is a specifics split by following the conditional split:
    • Professions
    • Skill slot
    • Actual skill type
    • Races
  • And last but not least, the sub-sub-sub-level lists all weapon categories.
Which sounds fine to me, albeit I'm not quite sure where Death Shroud skills would go, aside from Downed skills. It's also a unique profession mechanic, if all else fails, just categorize all Death Shroud skills in there, I guess. - Infinite - talk 15:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I would do a bit more of fine tunning (maybe "Skills by slot" instead of "Skills by position"? And "Profession mechanics skills" or "Profession abilities skills" instead of "Unique profession skills", since all skills of a profession are unique to it?), add a few more things (I would probably keep Effects in there as a matter of convenience, but I guess it could go in Game mechanics instead), and I'm beginning to be afraid that each skill will have too many categories (as long as we don't add more it will probably be fine), but if the above is accepted by everyone, it's good enough to me. Erasculio 15:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Good points, especially the unique argument. :P
I assumed we were moving effects into game mechanics anyway; skills can cause effects, but effects are not skills. All that technical crap. And about the amount of categories, our current skill articles open with at least 6 links or so, so I guess it's unavoidable both ways. When this is all in place, DPL is possible on all (as far as I can figure) possible skill lists. I also think we should start using DPL more often once we get the Category tree fully done. :) - Infinite - talk 15:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you please give me examples of skills that would have more than 3 categories? Unless I missed something, <Racial skills> and <Skills by profession> are mutually exclusive. Same goes for <Downed skills> and <Skills by slot> and many more. Eventually I don't think that any skill belongs to more than 3 categories. " I also think we should start using DPL". Yes, I also want to play with that. That's why I brought this up ;) Chriskang 18:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I can't. It'd be up to; <profession> skills, <slot> skills, <type> skills. So indeed, up to 3. - Infinite - talk 18:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
IMO, 3 is as far as we should go. If we stay at that, I'm happy. The attunement skills may give some trouble in the future, though. Erasculio 18:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Skills screenshots

I'd like to upload still images representing a skill in action like this or that. What file name and what category should I use? Chriskang 09:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think for now you're safe using the old categorization. This project was temporarily put on major hiatus thanks to all three contributors having very busy schedules at the moment. I'll inform you when we get to the recategorization of the upcoming GW2 category (and its images). :) - Infinite - talk 12:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean tagging images with {{ArenaNet image|screenshot}}? As for the file name, I was thinking about Skill_Name_screenshot.jpg or Skill_Name_still.jpg. Thoughts? Chriskang 13:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that would be how it is done at this time. Still over screenshot, imo. I think screenshots should be limited to original camera angles and (hidden) interface, but anyone is free in their approach. Of course, I can't tell whether the images apply to such standards at this time as I do not know the limits of the camera position, etc. :) - Infinite - talk 13:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I actually like "screenshot" more than "still". Perhaps something else, like Skill_Name_effect.jpg? Erasculio 23:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Please don't put 'screenshot' on every image name - because practically every in game image post release is going to be a screenshot or part there-of. Effect is a good suggestion. -- aspectacle User Aspectacle.png 23:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Incoming!

All main hand (and off hand) <weapon> <category> categories need to be moved to their main-hand and off-hand alternatives. (As they are now, their spelling is incorrect in conjunction with their use.) Thief is the first profession that has done them correctly. - Infinite - talk 10:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

So how do we go about this? Do we post delete tags on all of the discrepancies and then re-write every skill and trait to suit? Since we started on the thief the discrepancy has become very obvious. :S (Xu Davella 09:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC))
Yes, there should be speedy delete tags on the incorrect categories (those being the unhyphenated versions). - Infinite - talk 14:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Bestiary plans

I return to my initial stance on the bestiary; only categories (and subcategories) which are directly related to the bestiary should be there. Current plans (especially with the playable races) in the bestiary show even categories which have nothing to do with any bestiary.
I propose a split wherever this is the case, to keep the bestiary solely for documenting that information which would be relevant to a bestiary (for instance, the human backgrounds are not actually relevant to the bestiary). To do this, we need a clear seperation of category;

  • Category:Humans
  • Category:Humans (bestiary)

In the first category, we place everything that has to do with the playable human. That is character creation, mechanics, their racial skills, etc, etc, etc. The first category will *not* be part of the bestiary in any way, shape or form.
In the second category, we place everything that has to do with the bestiary human. The beleifs, the different heritages, other background, etc, etc. This second category will *only* be part of the bestiary.

By doing this, we can have a clear line in-between mechanics and universe. Back in the initial proposal I had refrained, because of loads of other points more pressing. I believe now (in advance) is a good moment to bring it up. To the eye it may not appear to be simplified, but in practise is devides two entire different things clearly, thus pumping efficiency. It also avoids my favourite issue; category looping (and duplication). - Infinite - talk 14:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

As long as you don't split the page content making a human bestiary page and a human game mechanics page I don't care what you do with the categories. There will, however, probably only ever be one page in the Humans (bestiary) category. -- aspectacle User Aspectacle.png 15:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Just one? Beliefs (gods), heritages, all human NPCs, etc, etc. There will be plenty, so I don't exactly understand why it would be only one? - Infinite - talk 15:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I know this is not exactly your point but wouldn't it make sense to have categories below bestiary matching exactly the list of the slayer achievement? This list is probably the closest to the real game mechanics. Chriskang 16:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
With some exceptions I agree, though Nightmare Court will always be a sub-category to Sylvari (etc). Is a mechanics/bestiary split not desired? - Infinite - talk 16:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I guess we have different definitions of what is bestiary and what is lore (and what is game mechanics). I think of the bestiary as the top level physiological description or something like a D&D Monster Manual for Guild Wars. It would be simplest to link it to the slayer achievement as chriskang says (making it an extension of game mechanics) - but that seems to include things I consider to be organisations (and is every single creature tied to an achievement?). Gods, heritage and the like I see as lore or part of the guild wars universe not really part of what I understand the bestiary to be.
Do what you want with the categories, but I don't think it is as cut and dried as you're making it out to be. :) -- aspectacle User Aspectacle.png 21:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I mainly see the bestiary as a list of all the antagonist creatures that players will have to fight in game. For all these creatures: find them, kill them, check your achievements and you'll know their category (hopefully it'll work like that for every single creature in game). But it'll be much harder, if not impossible, to categorize friendly NPCs like that. I seriously doubt that each sylvari will tell his seasonal alignment in a random chat. Same goes for asura college. You might even meet friendly Sons of Svanir in Hoelbrak and, IMHO, those shouldn't be in the same category as the ones that ambush players in the Shiverpeaks. Chriskang 09:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree that killing creatures is the easiest way to classify them and I am eager to use that where ever possible. However I feel that it will be incomplete and occasionally inappropriate for a bestiary listing. If all we're doing is documenting the slayer category, we should do away with the bestiary altogether - if organisations are involved it isn't really a bestiary.
My preference is for a more complete listings using mechanics and player insight to make a full bestiary listing of all friendly and antagonistic creatures and creating another page with all friendly and antagonistic organisations. The slayer category could then link into these full listings for its own listing. I realise that it's extra work, probably work I'd have to do myself to have done like that, so in the end the straight-forward "this number goes up it is a _" of a direct game mechanic translation seems the most workable right now. (I wonder about the slayer category Indiscriminate though :)
I don't understand why you started to talk about colleges and seasons and stuff. I don't view them as part of classifying a race for a bestiary or determining an organisation for an organisation listing so you'll have to explain a bit more of your thought processes there, Chris. -- aspectacle User Aspectacle.png 10:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
"to make a full bestiary listing of all friendly and antagonistic creatures". But how will you know for friendly creatures? As I said, friendly norns might not tell if they're Sons of Svanirs or not. So how do you classify them?
"I don't understand why you started to talk about colleges and seasons and stuff". I was just referring to the current tree proposition that has subdivisions for asura, sylvari, ... See the Guild Wars 2 section of the project page. Chriskang 11:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Which is why I brought it up, the current proposal is not realistic. I don't want the seasons in the bestiary at all. Same goes for backgrounds, totems, etc. - Infinite - talk 21:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm somewhat troubled with the idea of splitting the Human category between two different, unliked branches. I think the wiki would be more organized if everything about humans were in a single category, so someone looking for information about them had a single place to go, instead of having to navigate between two categories that are very far from each other in the category tree. Imagine if we had a "Human (playable race)" article and a "Human (Tyrian race)" article, with no links to each other, and each describing half of the content of the current Human article.
The bestiary originally came up after a long discussion about what would we name groups of beings in GW2, "races" or "species". It was implemented as a way to solve that conflict with a somewhat neuter expression, but the idea behind it was to group all living entities in the GW2 world. As such, I would prefer if it really listed all living beings in the world. The issue Chriskang described about not knowing where to classify random NPCs whose affiliation is unknown isn't something hard to solve - just keep them at the category above the affilitations. If we went for a "Norn -> Bear" tree, for example, keep the Bear aligned NPCs in the Bear category and those with an alignment unknown in the Norn category. Erasculio 21:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
A split is ideal to keep player-oriented race articles grouped, and bestiary-oriented articles seperate. Like with current articles of the same name, the category too, could have an "other uses" template on the top. Easy navigation and structured, non-duping categories. I think it's ideal, personally. - Infinite - talk 22:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Erasculio, do you suggest to keep the categories below human, norn, ... as they are now? That is with asura college, norn totem, sylavri season and the like? Chriskang 23:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
@Infinite: it's unusual for categories to have that disambiguation system; I don't think a single category here on the wiki has it. It seems to me to be a bit counter intuitive to keep all category navigation at the bottom of the article and yet keep something like what you proposed (that would ultimately be very similar to navigating between categories) at the top of the article.
@Chriskang: I suggest we keep everything about a given subject within a single category named over that subject, instead of having multiple, non interchangeable categories about the same thing. Erasculio 00:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not unusual at all, it's just never been done before on GWW or GW2W. The fact that such a split is required is to keep users who want to navigate everything about the playability of their race via category collected in one place. For me, in example; I would be annoyed if I had to find something inbetween a million human NPC's. Besides, as stated above; playability of the races has nothing to do with the bestiary ergo it makes sense to split out what is not applicable. - Infinite - talk 11:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) [[User:Infinite/Sandbox/Category split example|Like so.]] - Infinite - talk 10:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Objection about how this project continues

First of all, I like that you put in that much effort to put the categories on this wiki in a logical sense. However, I highly disagree how you seem to start implementing things without actually having the whole structure thought out and without asking for non-project members to gain a final consensus. And yes, seeing how Aquadrizzt started, I do have objections:
I noticed this in particular when Category:Candidates for deletion was recategorized, into Category talk:Articles to be modified. First of all the name “Articles” is highly limited. It does not contain every page that a wiki posesses. As such using that word here is very inappropriate given that every page can be tagged for deletion, including files, templates or talk pages. Second, the act of deletion is not a modification. It is a deletion. The page will be deleted with that, so it disappears; it is not to be modified. Deletion is a pure act of maintenance, and as such should be categorized appropriately. The same applies to some other now-subcategories of the Articles to be modified category.
Another thing I want to address right now is the recent edit to the project page that added the Category:Templates tree with a tick next to each subcategory. I would like to mention that there is absolutely no consensus at all on the structure of that category tree. It was just mentioned somewhere above on this talk page as a proposed structure and discussion took place at Category talk:Templates.
Before continuing with all the planned changes, I would like to see this project first come to a final and complete structure that makes sense and works well for everybody. And then you should ask for further input on your final proposal. poke | talk 15:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The month dead discussion here suggests that there was, a general consensus among myself Infinite, Erasculio, Lucian and yourself. Thinking about it more and more, I agree about candidates for deletion not being in their, but just in maintenance. (Quite honestly, if a person can't be bothered to post their opinion on a talk page for two months when consensus has been reached among all who commented, that's their problem and they can bring up their concerns if and when they wish to, as you have done now.) Aqua (T|C) 15:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) "and without asking for non-project members to gain a final consensus": not possible. The point of the project is so those interested about it would join. I even tried to tag the talk page of some of those who had joined some of the previous category discussions and didn't become part of this discussion, but I got no reply on the first try, and it's not really a proper thing to be tagging people's talk page over and over.
I agree I would have liked to see some more discussion about the changes implemented today, but Aqua has a point in which the discussion about the GW2W category has been left, mostly unopposed and without further comments, for more than a month now.
And regarding your comment about the "Articles to be modified": frankly, I don't care about either of your points. Discussing the minutiae of semantics feels more like a waste of time than anything else. Erasculio 15:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
"{{quote|and without asking for non-project members to gain a final consensus}}: not possible.": Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Requests for comment - Tanetris 16:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
There was an RFC, not on that particular discussion, but on the overall discussion. Aqua (T|C) 16:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
“The month dead discussion here suggests that there was, a general consensus among myself Infinite, Erasculio, Lucian and yourself.” – Well, that's not true at all. Infinite proposed a structure on the category's talk page and I responded to every subsection (while Erasculio and Lucian didn't really take part at all). The last stance was that further discussion, also in response to my general suggestions on the proposed structure, should happen on this project's page. However the latest comment about the template structure on this page was a week before the discussion closed on the category talk. As such, no, there was absolutely no consensus.
“There was an RFC [...] on the overall discussion” – which is the problem. I personally don't care about how this project evolves, and I seriously don't want to spend my time discussion again and again with some particular people. I do however want to see the final proposal and be able to give some final comment then. If I disagree with something and that was discussed before, then I can pick that discussion up; if I disagree with something that wasn't discussed before, then I can start such a discussion; and if I do agree, even better. But at least I want to have the chance to look at the final thing, before hundred of pages get changed and without reading through months of discussion between a handful of people.
Of course this project is meant so that people interested in it can participate, but that doesn't mean that those actively participating in the project are the only one that get to say what is to be done.
In addition your project page makes the assumption that you would actually plan the whole tree first and keep an overview about the tree updated. However implementing parts of it, without looking at the big picture doesn't work for something as complex as the category tree.
“Discussing the minutiae of semantics feels more like a waste of time than anything else” – I don't know about you, but at least I believe that categories should completely make sense. The names a category makes even more sense than the structure behind it; if the name does not explain what it is inside, then you can't put inside what you try to. If you don't care about the names, then just give all categories a number, or just get rid of them completely. In my opinion, the semantics of a category name are what this project is actually about. poke | talk 16:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
"while Erasculio and Lucian didn't really take part at all": I have the feeling you haven't paid as much attention to that discussion as you think you have.
"I personally don't care about how this project evolves, and I seriously don't want to spend my time discussion again and again with some particular people. I do however want to see the final proposal and be able to give some final comment then.": wait, so you want to ignore the entire discussion and just state your opinion, expecting us to listen to you despite how you didn't even bother to "spend my time discussion again and again"? I'm sorry, that's not going to happen.
"I believe that categories should make completely sense": they do (now). If if you are slightly unhappy because one possible interpretation of a word in a category may be, in your opinion, a bit misleading... Well, I'm happy you don't care about this project. I'm sure that, just as you don't want to spend your time discussing with us, we are happy to not have to waste our time discussing small and pointless minutiae with you. Erasculio 16:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Right, so community consensus for a finalized proposal is a bad thing. And no-one except those involved in the process for finalizing a proposal can have a valid opinion. Thus, any objections and changes for the finalized proposal or its (premature) implementation are just "small and pointless minutiae" and screw clarity. --JonTheMon 17:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Erasculio, you *are* aware that this is not your private wiki right? I do recall it being said somewhere that this is a community effort. But I might just be pointlessly rambling. Aqua (T|C) 17:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Jon, would you be happy if you spend months discussing a big change to the wiki with many others in the community, and later, when finally a consensus has been reached and implementation has began, someone who has made a point of ignoring the entire previous discussion (due to claiming to not care for it) came and decided to stop the entire thing, without trying to learn anything about the previous effort and claiming to be unwilling to discuss the subject? Erasculio 17:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
“I have the feeling you haven't paid as much attention to that discussion as you think you have.” – You might want to look at the talk page in question again?
“so you want to ignore the entire discussion and just state your opinion, expecting us to listen to you despite how you didn't even bother to "spend my time discussion again and again"?” – If you quote me, then you should quote everything, otherwise I get the feeling that you just read what you would like to read. I clearly said that “[i]f I disagree with something and that was discussed before, then I can pick that discussion up”. The “that” before “discussion” clearly indicates that I'm not going to ignore what was said before. Instead I would read what was said about that particular point before so I get an idea about why it got like that. And if I still disagree, then “I can pick that discussion up”. That's how this works, how it always worked, simply because not everyone was around all the time. Otherwise we would never be able to evolve at all, because as Jon said, those that were not around in the initial discussion have no say at all.
“they do (now)” – I think this section clearly expresses that that is not the case.
And again, as you seem to got me very wrong on that: I don't care about the particular way this project evolves; as such you, Erasculio, can continue discussing over stupid things as much as you like. But when you want to implement something that affects more than just this project's pages, then I want to be notified that it will happen, so I can prepare myself for it and actually check what you in your small group agreed on. After all I am interested in the category tree, but I have really better things to do than to have discussions about these details when you should be able to resolve them alone already. poke | talk 17:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
"You might want to look at the talk page in question again?": you still are not paying attention, are you? Hint: There's a section at that talk page called "Response". I would suggest looking there.
"I think this section clearly expresses that that is not the case": it clearly expresses, together with the above comment, that you are not paying attention to old discussions and therefore and forcing us to repeat them over and over. You just stated your opinion, ignoring the discussion about the same subject (the Maintenance category) above. As much as you claim to have "clearly" said you would "pick that discussion up"... You haven't.
"I don't care about the particular way this project evolves", yet this project is about the category tree, and you claim you are interested in the category tree. If you think you are too good and too important to use some of your time discussing modifications to the category tree with the rest of us (since you "have really better things to do than to have discussions about these details"), and are that willing to just throw your opinion while clearly ignoring old discussions, don't expect me to listen to you. Erasculio 17:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Note, it's in the dates, the discussion was still on-going. - Infinite - talk 17:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright people, I haven't decided if this conversation came to the abrupt halt because everyone simultaneously decided to walk away, or people just went to sleep/work at the same time. Either way folks, lets try to remain civil. Poke's initial statement is alright. I do not see a problem with people letting a proposal unfold as they watch it. I myself could not be bothered with the organization of the categories, but I"ll sure as hell have an opinion on the final draft.
"Discussing the minutiae of semantics feels more like a waste of time than anything else." If this is true, then you must not think much of many of the discussions on this wiki. Once more, I agree with Poke on the matter. A modification to something implies that there is something that was modified, not something that was nullified. A category on deletion should not be placed under (or inside) a category for modifications, perhaps they should remain at the same level.
" If I disagree with something and that was discussed before, then I can pick that discussion up; if I disagree with something that wasn't discussed before, then I can start such a discussion; and if I do agree, even better." Hello, my name is wiki, nice to meet you. An objection to something can be voiced at anytime, whether the discussion is new or old. People should not be limited to having to voice opinions within a specific time frame.
This has already been stated (yes, I read the discussion), but this wiki is not a personal wiki. Just because someone did not participate in the development of an issue, does not mean that their opinions on the matter are any less important than anyone else's. Venom20 User Venom20-icon-0602-sm-black.png 04:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
These sort of projects also tend to effect the whole wiki, not a particular part. I knew there was a discussion going on here, and I know for one part that the Dynamic Event categories haven't been (entirely) decided/discussed yet. Ge4ce-Talk-Contribs 04:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
"this wiki is not a personal wiki": yes, it's a community effort. Which is why the attitude of "I will not follow an on-going discussion, nor will I bother to read it later; instead, I'll just wait and later object while ignoring everything that has happened before" is so disrespectful (as disrespectful as the attitude of "I will not do any hard work, instead I'll order others to do it"). We have plenty of people claiming they would read old discussions, all the while ignoring the previous discussions about the Maintenance category (one of which is in this very talk page, not even having been archived yet, with a mention to why the deletion categories are also kept within the "Articles to be modified" category, and instead of reading it and replying to it, we have a brand new section here ignoring the points made above). Someone who believes himself so much better than the rest of the community to the point of feeling entitled to complete ignore the time and effort the community had previously spent discussing a subject (or entitled to issue orders to the members of the community, by the way) is acting as if this were a very personal wiki, instead of the community-driven effort it is. Erasculio 11:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Disregarding the back-and-forth some more, I personally believe that Deletion (with Speedy deletion as sub to it) should go into Maintenance, whereas Suspected copyvio should go into -modified.
As a medium I would be willing to accept only Speedy deletion in Maintenance, with regular Deletion in -modified, based on the following; When a regular deletion tag is applied, discussion most commonly follows, where a form of modification may be in order to either null the tag or justify deletion. After consensus on deletion has been reached, one should swap the deletion tag for a speedy deletion tag, as to ship it off into Maintenance.
I hope this medium is acceptable to all parties. - Infinite - talk 11:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
“Which is why the attitude of "[...]" is so disrespectful” – I won't repeat myself again on that. If you are both unable to read what others say and to understand what they said (after explaining it again), then please go away, because one who is not willing to read what others have to say is not helping the community.
“instead of reading it and replying to it, we have a brand new section here ignoring the points made above” – Good example of what I just said; either you read it all, or you stop responding completely. This section is not about that particular category, not at all! It is about “how this project continues” as clearly written in the section title. That single category was just an example and the actual trigger; but I did say that in my opening post as well. poke | talk 11:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
"If you are both unable to read what others say and to understand what they said (after explaining it again), then please go away": so please, leave, considering you had to be told three times that me and Lucian had made comments to a discussion you have claimed we weren't a part of before you even bothered to stop insisting on it.
Poke, I'm going to say it again to see if by the tenth time you understand it: your comments about the Maintenance category (yes, because the comment "First of all the name “Articles” is highly limited. It does not contain every page that a wiki posesses. As such using that word here is very inappropriate given that every page can be tagged for deletion, including files, templates or talk pages. Second, the act of deletion is not a modification. It is a deletion. The page will be deleted with that, so it disappears; it is not to be modified. Deletion is a pure act of maintenance, and as such should be categorized appropriately. The same applies to some other now-subcategories of the Articles to be modified category" is about a subcategory of the Maintenance category) is ignoring the discussion about the exact same subject a few sections above. Not only you are not placing those concerns in the proper section, but you also have failed to read said section and see why the deletions categories are within the "Articles to be modified" category. If you are really unable to read what we have discussed above and are unable to understand the points behind it, per your own statement, leave this discussion.
Did you understand it? No? Here, I'll say it again for your benefit: your comments about the Maintenance category (yes, because the comment "First of all the name “Articles” is highly limited. It does not contain every page that a wiki posesses. As such using that word here is very inappropriate given that every page can be tagged for deletion, including files, templates or talk pages. Second, the act of deletion is not a modification. It is a deletion. The page will be deleted with that, so it disappears; it is not to be modified. Deletion is a pure act of maintenance, and as such should be categorized appropriately. The same applies to some other now-subcategories of the Articles to be modified category" is about a subcategory of the Maintenance category) is ignoring the discussion about the exact same subject a few sections above. Not only you are not placing those concerns in the proper section, but you also have failed to read said section and see why the deletions categories are within the "Articles to be modified" category. If you are really unable to read what we have discussed above and are unable to understand the points behind it, per your own statement, leave this discussion.
Now, did you understand that? Do you need me to repeat over and over and over again how your concerns about the category "Articles to be modified" are ignoring the discussion above and thus ignoring the time and effort we have spent with this matter, just because you "have really better things to do than to have discussions about these details"? Erasculio 13:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
*coughCommunityconsensustrumpsprojectmemberscough* --JonTheMon 13:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
"Yes, I was looking at that and I was confused where some things are supposed to go, shall we work it into the meth (lol) section and check if we have everything covered? - Infinite - talk 14:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)" Perfectly voices poke's concern (and mine, to be honest). - Infinite - talk 13:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Really, though, looking above you proposed something and it just didn't get any comments on it (aka didn't get consensus). And now it's getting looked at, and some people (including me) don't like parts of it. --JonTheMon 13:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Jon, I'm not sure you understand the issue here. Are we going to ignore "old" (one month old, in this case) discussions now? So whenever someone decides to discuss something, we are going to expect people to not even bother to read the old discussions? Do you really expect people to spend months discussing something, only to have to repeat that exact same discussion because someone wants to share his opinion about the issue without even trying to see what had been discussed previously?
Because if that's what you think, feel free to delete all archives in the wiki; what is the point in having them? Erasculio 13:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
When a project does something fucked up, consensus should be able to rectify the problem. In this particular case, "delete" and "modify" have nothing to do with each other, regardless of what one or two people a month ago thought about it. Instead of getting all up in arms, you should be working to fix the problem, not blaming people for imagined wrongdoings or jumping from one extreme argument to another without the ability to see the middle ground.
This conversation needs to be a hell of a lot more civil. Comments, especially from Erasculio, have been well into ad hominem for awhile now, and I would hate to have to ban people in the middle of a discussion. -Auron 13:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
"When a project does something fucked up, consensus should be able to rectify the problem": sigh. You are also not seeing the point here. Again, the issue isn't that there is consensus for a change and I would be against it. Not only there is currently no consensus, but also I'm not going against consensus or claiming that consensus should not be allowed to change whatever has been decided here (despite Jon's multiple snarky comments suggesting such would be my point of view).
The problem is that poke has claimed he has no interest in the discussion here, that he would like to leave us to discuss what he claims to be "stupid" things since he believes he has better things to do with his time, yet he is repeating points that have been discussed while ignoring the old discussions.
Feel free to threat to ban me for being unhappy when someone thinks his opinion is so important that there is no need to even read what other people have said. I'm not worried about some of the ideas suggested here being refuted, if that's what consensus want; but right now there is no consensus, and the effort we have made previously is being completely ignored, by someone who's basically stating such effort was just "stupid". I can think of few things that would be more against the philosophy of a wiki. Erasculio 14:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
His disinterest in the topic in general does not make his point any more or less valid. Stop trying to whitewash away his complaints with fallacies, it doesn't work; just address the issue and be done with it. Calling his character into question is neither here nor there, and doesn't add anything to the discussion. That is not how wiki discussions work, regardless of how unhappy you are. -Auron 14:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
"just address the issue and be done with it": I already mentioned why the deletion pages were suggested to be within the "Articles to be modified" subcategory months ago. What, exactly, do you expect me to do? Repeat the justification now due to poke's "disinterest" in readin the previous discussion? Or is that one more fallacy? Erasculio 14:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Maybe, Erasculio, instead of being hostile, you could actually do what Auron is suggesting? Aqua (T|C) 14:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

At this point, yes, that would be a good place to start. A handful of people have discussed their disagreement with "delete" being categorized as "modify," on the grounds that they have nothing to do with each other. Is there a magical connection that makes removing a page in its entirety have something to do with altering the article or moving it to another location? If so, reposting relevant arguments from past discussions (or merely linking to them and copying a short quote) is a good idea. -Auron 14:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, no, I lied. This section is mostly about obtaining general consensus before pushing out wide-spread "final project" changes. The example we're discussing is only that - an example. Anyone interested in that discussion should locate it and put their two-cents in the correct location instead of spreading it around (which is, in retrospect, what I'm going to do!). -Auron 15:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
(Erasculio's reply to this comment has been moved into a new section below, since it's more relevant to the issue that this issue is preventing most people interested from discussing)
Poke clearly said that viewing discussions after the fact was his intention with respect to having a "final word" on category changes. People ignoring previous discussion happens with every IP that comes to this wiki and decides PnP doesn't apply (or on GWW that policy doesn't apply) because it's wrong, but why does that mean that anyone not involved in your project should have no say whatsoever in how some of the most important elements of the wiki are organized?
I don't mean to say that you should be forced to restate your opinion in ten different places to get the point across, but ignoring the opinions of a vast majority of the wiki because you already discussed it is not the way to go.
Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, there's far too much rage here. --ஸ Kyoshi User Kyoshi sig2.png 16:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
"but why does that mean that anyone not involved in your project should have no say whatsoever": no. Anyone is free to have a say, of course. It would be very disrespectful to not listen to other people's opinions, and instead just ignore them. Even more so if those opinions have been already repeated a few times.
Which is why I'm complaining how disrespectful it is that I "should be forced to restate your opinion in ten different places to get the point across", since that's more or less what's happening here. Erasculio 18:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
So link to it on RFC or community portal when you've discussed it to the point of some semblance of consensus within your group. By which I mean, link directly to the discussion that led to the action you are about to take. Those who care about the category system but don't want to propose ideas or be updated every step of the way, such as Poke, will add their opinion as needed (ideally after reading the discussion you just had) and eventually you'll get to a solution with much more concrete support (more support in general, really), and without the mess of people blowing up about it later like this.
It's a tiny bit of work that makes everyone's wiki-lives a lot easier. --ஸ Kyoshi User Kyoshi sig2.png 18:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Era, please stop attempting to use quotes from people unless you are willing to use the entire quote. Misquoting people to suit your own agenda does nothing for you. Not everyone cares about how something develops. When you start working on a project, you shouldn't expect every wiki contributor to participate or even care about the project. As Kyoshi said, there will be a handful of people who will actually want to work on it. Once that small group has reached their own consensus, RFC it and see what the community at large thinks. Comments and discussions on how it develops mean very little to anyone only commenting. For example, Poke couldn't be bothered by how you came to the conclusion on where to place a certain category. He has voiced an opinion since the last proposal was made. You posed the question about wasting months developing something and to have others not care about it. Someone who has no intentions in the development will not give a shit about the past conversations. Past discussions have shown that people are interested in navigation tools. As has been pointed out, the category system is, in part, a navigation tool. Something of this magnitude should not be rushed. Anyone should have an opportunity to discuss the finished proposal without having to know the months of background information. May I propose that we move past the name calling and hostility and move onto the actual project at hand. If anyone is not able to handle criticism for work done, then I would suggest taking a small break from the wiki/project to clear one's head. Venom20 User Venom20-icon-0602-sm-black.png 21:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
@Kyoshi: "So link to it on RFC or community portal when you've discussed it to the point of some semblance of consensus within your group": that's kinda what was done here. The discussion about this issue was on RfC until yesterday. It was there that we reached the "semblance of consensus" for the category tree that is actually at the top of the project article and has been there since the project's page was first created, by the end of January. We have been discussing it to make some fine-tunning, but we have been basically following what is said there. The concern raised by poke has been there since before this project was created, as it was first suggested at the Category talk:Root (target of the RfC), and has been discussed both there and here (at the top of this page) again.
While I would have liked to discuss the changes a bit more before actually implementing them, I don't think Aqua was wrong in actually implementing the changes as he did yesterday; this discussion had stopped for some time without reaching a conclusion, RfC at the Category talk:Root did not bring any further comments, and as usual, if someone didn't agree with the changes, they are free to come here and ask for a revert, explaining why.
As I have said over and over, though, the problem isn't giving a different opinion (and the comments above about rushing something that is being discussed for months are so misguided that it's funny), rather it's deliberately ignoring the previous discussion on the same page about the same issue, as if that discussion had no merit at all. Erasculio 23:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Summary of reasoning for recent category change

(Edit conflict) Fine, I'll repeat it (for the third time). The Maintenance category could roughly be divided between two kinds of subcategories and articles: those which are just stored there and are not going to be changed any time soon, and those which are waiting to be the subject of some kind of action.Since the new names have been already implemented, I'm going to use them:

  • Archives, Disambiguation articles, Hidden categories, Not orphaned images, Orphaned talk pages and Protected pages: all are just stored in the Maintenance category. None of those require any action: we are not really going to edit archives, disambiguation articles are left alone, hidden categories are not really necessary but unless they're removed they're not going to be edited either, not orphaned images are there so they are not deleted and don't require edits per se, orphaned talk pages are those which have been chosen to be kept despite being orphaned and so don't demand any particular edit.
  • Articles possibly not relevant to GW2, Articles to be merged, Articles to be moved, Articles to be rewritten, Articles to be split, Articles with disputed content, Articles with missing citations ,Candidates for deletion and Stubs: those are waiting action. All those categories ideally would be kept empty, since articles there are actually waiting for something to be done to them so they are not in those categories anymore. Articles possibly not relevant to GW2 are waiting information so we know if they are relevant to GW2 or not (and then removed from that category or deleted); Articles to be merged are waiting to be merged; Articles to be moved are waiting to be moved; Articles to be rewritten are waiting to be rewritten; Articles to be split are waiting to be split; Articles with disputed content are waiting to have the dispute solved so they are removed from that category; Articles with missing citations are waiting for those citations to be added; Stubs are waiting for more content so they are not stubs anymore; and finally, Candidates for deletion are waiting to be deleted.

That operational division is useful as it divides the category into a "work to be done" subcategory and a "stuff just kept here, no need for further revision" subcategory. Since articles to be deleted are within the former (they are "work to be done"), just like the articles to be modified, hence my original suggestion to keep them in the same subcategory. Is "Articles to be modified" not appropriate? I guess now I could go into a semester-long discussion relying on dictionary definitions and quotes from famous pieces of literature illustrating how the act of deleting something is modifying that something. Since I'm not in the mood for that kind of discussion, I would simply suggest renaming the category from "Articles to be modified" to "Pages pending action". Stubs should be in there, too. (Lol at the edit conflict with Auron above; the currently issues with the wiki made me write all that before seeing his comment. Since he's still going to move those comments and I have already written all of it, I'll leave it here for now.) Erasculio 15:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Made it a new section since it's more relevant to the issue that the other issue is preventing discussion on. --ஸ Kyoshi User Kyoshi sig2.png 16:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I was kinda waiting for Auron to move all relevant comments to a proper section (which would likely be one of the sections above). IMO, moving only my comment down here while still keeping the other points up there (the opinions questioning the reasoning above), with a different section way up there about this, is a bit confusing. Auron said he was going to do it, on the previous section; I don't know if he gave up due to the wiki having issues or if he's just taking his time, though. Since it would require moving a lot of comments, including many of those I was replying to, I would not move them myself (someone would likely scream that I would be trying to censor different opinions, or something similar). Erasculio 18:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Guess I misunderstood the situation then, sorry. --ஸ Kyoshi User Kyoshi sig2.png 18:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

(Hopefully) Post-war

In the heated argument above (which I have read completely) we observe a trend of hostility which easily classifies as the worst of this year so far. Let us breathe in deep and exhale slowly, calming the mind and releasing the tension.

In short, there was an action by Aquadrizzt, which was executed on consensus. This action was questioned and remarked on by poke. I don't really care about the old consensus: A wiki works by finding consensus and finding a new consesus when the previous is questioned. That is the case here.

For easing the mind of how much consensus was actually reached, we shall ignore the old consensus here and now and sit together, seeking a new consensus on topics desired as a community. We will then proceed to prototype this new consensus until a working solution is found. Until then, this entire project (opted by myself) is put on hiatus due to hostile behaviour.

If you'd all please elaborate as to what is incorrect at this time regarding the last actions by Aqua, we can work towards a properly functioning system without hostility. Repeat any points made above if necessary. - 84.31.15.202 23:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"Repeat any points made above if necessary": :-| Erasculio 23:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Shouts

So uh, I split the shouts category and renamed it [[:Category: Warrior shout skills]] and added [[:Category: Guardian shout skills]]. I thought I better get consensus before I make the actual changes because the discussion (which I only skimmed over) got a bit serial. I'd just go ahead and do it otherwise. --Xu Davella 04:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The plans for the skill categories are very basic; Profession category, Skill slot category, Type category and where applicable; profession specific mechanic category (such as attunements). As far as I know, everything fell very silent and all. - Infinite - talk 04:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to take that silence as a yes and proceed to make the changes before my computer crashes. It turns out my crappy little netbook doesn't like a lot of windows open at one time --Xu Davella 04:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Utility skills

I would like to alter the utility skills category to be composed of separate profession utility skill listings. I think that an entire category listing all he utility skills would (a) be entirely too large and (b) be useless in terms of locating skills due to the fact that there are no cross profession skill needs.

Venom20 User Venom20-icon-0602-sm-black.png 18:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

With the tree discussed above in the #Skills category section this wont be needed. Guardian utility skills will be categorized as both <Guardian skills> and <Utility skills>. Therefore, if you want a list of all guardian utility skills, you just have to create a DPL page with a selection on both criteria. Chriskang 19:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
when you say "you just have to create a DPL page with a selection" do you mean specifically that any person interested in viewing only Guardian utility skills would need to create their own page for the sole purpose of it? Or do you mean that eventually there will be a communal page displaying this information in category form? Perhaps I'm missing the information because I'm having difficulty imagining it. This suggesting is just an extension to the current class based categories.
Also, the current general utility skills have 2 categories on the article <Profession skills> and <Utility skills>, when they really only need one. While I will admit that perhaps it's because I do not fully understand that capabilities of DPL, why can we not currently implement a system based on DPL if it is to be used in the future? Venom20 User Venom20-icon-0602-sm-black.png 19:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
If we feel like it's needed then yes, there'll be a "List of guardian utility skills" page on the main namespace. The reasoning behind the tree suggested above by Infi, Era and me is to try to have the simplest possible list of categories. Then, when something more complicated is needed -like "Elementalist signet skills" or "Guardian utility skills"- we'll use a DPL-generated page. Your suggestion works too but makes the whole category tree much more complicated and that's precisely what we were trying to avoid. As to why it's not implemented yet, I think that we're waiting for the {{skill infobox}} template to be in place because it'll change completely the DPL query (also I'm not sure if we have a definite agreement for the format of the "List of ..." pages). Chriskang 17:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd say sandbox them with the GWW versions as base and alter from there. The DPL lists won't be that long so you can just put all lists for a single profession on a single page and whatnot. - Infinite - talk 09:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User categories

Specifically referring to Category:Users and the userboxes which place pages in the categories within Category:Users. Personally, a vast majority of them are pointless and hold little value. Favoring a certain profession, race, or in-game deity is, imo, not something to bother creating categories for. On the other hand, I do think that the guild categories have some merit, [[:Users whose user pages are best viewed in Mozilla Firefox|among]] [[:Category:GW2W Helper Program members|others]]. But something like Category:Users who graduated from Duke or Category:User Who Listens To RPG Radio are unnecessary. I suggest reworking that via pruning. I have two suggestions - the first would be my ideal, the second gives some leeway for leaving some more game/wiki-related userboxes:

My ideal
  • Users (no pages)
    • User page templates
    • User sandboxes
    • Users by browser preference (this one could be removed and sub-category moved up due to lack of size, but I say keep for future use)
      • Users whose user pages are best viewed in Mozilla Firefox
    • Users by guild
      • <various guild categories>
    • Users by wiki traits
      • Users who also contribute to GWW (replaces "Users who are on GWW" and "Users who contribute to both GWW and GW2W")
      • Users who contribute to both GWW and GW2W
    • Users/Language
      • <enter current sub-categories here>
Leeway

<same as above>

    • Users by faith
      • <one category per god/spirit of the wild/other>
    • Users by profession
      • <one category per profession>
    • Users by race
      • <one category per race>

Thoughts? And for clarity, I'm not suggesting removing the userboxes - just the categories attached to them. -- Konig/talk 20:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a fine idea. There's too many user categories these days so some merging and moving should make the users tree more compact. - Infinite - talk 02:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

GW2 Category Tree

Hey has this been finalized yet? I wouldn't mind getting to work on it since we haven't had any new info lately. --Xu Davella 02:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately it hasn't started yet and is the final tree to sort out. Feel free to work out the base structure and we can tweak it from there. Spoiler alert: It's huge. :\ - Infinite - talk 11:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
OK I'll have a go at it. --Xu Davella 02:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

profession> <type> skills

It appears that we are no longer using profession specific categories for the skills like signets and traps (example: Necromancer signet skills has been replaced with the generic Signet skills category); whereas, other skill types like shouts and chains have been preserved (example: Ranger chain skills has been used in favour of Chain skills category). I was wondering why firstly, this was not followed in its current form, and secondly, why the split in consistency? Anyone know? Venom20 User Venom20-icon-0602-sm-black.png 21:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea why it is still partially split, but all categories regarding skills should take DPL into account; Category:<profession> skills + Category:<type> skills combined with DPL lists all typed skills for a profession. I do believe previous consensus ended up using a 3-to-4-way system: Profession, type, slot (weapon/environmental weapon/healing/utility/elite), — if applicable — attunement. Any skill can be assigned such categories and we can have DPL sort out the combinations. Of course, consensus can be contested like always, if anyone would feel the need to do so. - Infinite - talk 02:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


Guild Wars 2 Category reorganization: Take One. :)

Gameplay
Lore
Media

I haven't fully organized the skills, traits and professions section of the gameplay category tree, so if anyone wants to take a shot at that feel free to tear it apart. I've done a simple tree for those but it could definitely use expansion. I was going to do the whole thing but I kept looking at our current Category tree and that just did my head in.

I've also got a ton of observations that I thought we could knock out while we get that awesome consensus-ball rolling.

Gameplay section
  • Bestiary: I didn't change much here, I just added in what I could remember, which were only the pets. I also removed the dividing categories for playable races and ranger pets, as they looked more flavourful but didn't really do much in function.
  • Items & Equipment: I think that items should be defined as anything that you can pick up off the ground and store in a character's inventory, while equipment should define as things that a character can wear on their body, or wield in their hand. I kept the two categories separate for that reason only.
  • Game mechanics: All the tools and guides that players use to interact with their character have been put in here. I've separated skills and traits from the game mechanics as they are big enough categories on their own. I personally like having a glossary category, but its hard to draw the line between glossary and game mechanic, and you don't want two categories that are near-similar, or one category ends up being obsolete. I've moved the effects section over here as well.
  • User interface: I'm having problems with this one. Some of the information that's in the mechanics section can also be listed here, so I don't know what to do.
  • PvP and PvE under game mechanics: While these are two very broad concepts, a lot of the information in the gameplay categories overall, fit into both sections. So I placed them under here, along with some sub-cats that are exclusive to either section. Although, I'd be surprised if the achievements were PvE only.
Lore section

I'm trying to separate all the information that doesn't really influence gameplay, but is still found within the game. Lore is a pretty significant part of the game, imo.

Media section
  • Icons: Should we split, for example, the "Weapon icons" category into each weapon type? I don't mind either way, but if it improves sorting then I'm all for it
  • Renders vs. Screenshots: Which one should we use to sub-categorize into armor/weapon/consumable etc.? (I don't want to sidetrack this discussion, but the question is: are we going to rely on ANet giving us all the armor/weapon/consumable renders, or should we just screenshot everything and sub-cat it all that way?)
  • Unimplimented & Historical content: I put this in the concept art section because it's technically concepts that were either retracted or didn't make the final cut. (technically, this whole wiki should be under Concept media, :P)

Of course, this information is not final. If something's missing or I've done the categories wrong, feel free to change it. Or I can change it. :) --Xu Davella 09:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll bulletpoint my comments, to keep it organized:
  1. The sub-categorization of the five main races is currently unnecessary, except for the charr's, due to the size. And in the future, when the game comes out, we should organize that via affiliation (assuming they remain, which they most likely will), in which case the other four's options will be incorrect - save "Bandits"
  2. Under Undead you have ghosts, and you have spirits - they are one in the same as things currently stand, as mechanically the only difference shown has been in GW1 between the regular NPC and the summoned spirits.
  3. Under Locations - Dungeons may be unnecessary, as all can be found within an explorable area and as such can be placed into their respective explorable location underneath their respective region; likewise "Orr region" can lose the "region." Also likewise, "Shiverpeaks" should be "Shiverpeak Mountains."
  4. From what we've seen, I question if there will be "bosses" like seen in GW1, that is, something called a "boss" in a seperated-from-others-mechanically - thus far, we've seen champion and veteran NPCs, so I think those two may be replacing the "boss" and "boss-like" functionalities of enemies in GW2. As such, I'd assume that the event "bosses" are one of those two - most likely champion (considering Slay the Shatterer event where the Shatterer is surrounded by Veteran Branded Lieutenant and is called a champion).
  5. For the Lore category - why no sub-categories to the six? Not much changes proposed here, why bother listing it?
That's all for now. Konig/talk 09:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Probably should have noted here (instead of RC) that I took your suggestions and made the changes, König. Um, does anyone have anything else to add? I'm fairly busy over this week so I may not be able to reply to comments, but the discussion is still open. :) --Xu Davella 11:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Update. I've added in some more categories for the media section, based on the current image formatting guidelines that we have. Also some minor tweaks to the gameplay section. I think the NPC category tree should be expanded to somehow categorize npcs by personal story. I'm also not really liking the way the categories sit for the armor section, which I can imagine will be larger than the categories will allow. --Xu Davella 14:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
With regard to armor (sign your comment, Xu! ;)), I'm a little confused: I haven't seen the implementation of racial categorization. The current armor template especially already has a autocat system embedded by <armor class> <equip slot>. Just a note. Redshift 12:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

GW2W category tree

All of the boxes have been ticked, but I've just skimmed over the template categories and they're still unorganized. I've made a start but don't have time to do it all tonight. When I get on next I'll go through this tree and...I guess... re-check everything. :( --Xu Davella 13:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Which templates are still not ideally categorized after my little fixing process? - Infinite - talk 15:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Step 3

Adjustments required or carry through? - Infinite - talk 16:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of carrying through, we might as well openly discuss what I dropped. Most notably, I dropped all the original Guild Wars professions, most of the separate countries in the territory cat (and substituted with new ones) and note that I made some other changes as well.
That said, I don't know what to do for the remaining inconsistencies, so I'd like input on this as soon as possible. - Infinite - talk 21:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I will be changing the Users category tree today, being bold where input was lacking. - Infinite - talk 11:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Actually, I won't be changing anything till I get back tomorrow. This is also plenty of time to object to the planned change, as it has been pending since forever. Don't forget; every category not in the planned tree will be tagged for deletion and links will be fixed accordingly. We want to keep it concise, to the point and wiki-esque, not chaotic, childish and forum-like. - Infinite - talk 04:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Tried to comment earlier but my phone was all up in my face not letting me press certain buttons like the three below the editing window... Anyways, I see no need to split the trait cats - or at least wiki traits from general traits. Simply having "Users by trait" would suffice imo. Likewise, whenever a cat has four or fewer (four and five seems like good cut off numbers for this) sub-cats, the subs can be removed and entire put to the parent cat if the sub. On a similar note - I'd have the race and profession cats be either "favor" or "favor or are" rather than just "are" - doesn't matter to me but some folks, like Kio, like the difference between favoring and being - likewise, one cannot play a minor race so....Konig/talk 16:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Effectively you're saying to bump up the 'Gameplay' categories one stage and merge the 'Wiki traits' with 'General traits,' is that correct? Would it not be better to just bump up the 'Helpers' and 'Both wikis contributor' categories by one stage (in essence just replacing 'Wiki traits' altogether) and renaming 'General traits' to "Users by (out-of-game/general) traits?" Also, I already changed all race and professions to "Users who are(...)" earlier, but I would propose "Users who play(...)" as a better alternative (which just then popped up into my head). Examples would be "Users who play asura" and "Users who play necromancer," which would be very distinctive and clear. Some of those categories have a multitude of userboxes which already (can) state the difference between "being" and "favoring" as the user prefers. In terms of simplicity; categories > userbox templates (although I'd rather axe those, too. Though as long as they don't come with an automated unique category, I am fine with leaving those as is). - Infinite - talk 16:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


This page is an archive. The contents have been moved from another page for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Discussion or voting on this page is not current. Any additions you make will probably not be read.
The current version of this page can be found at Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Projects/Category reorganization.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.guildwars2.com/index.php?title=Guild_Wars_2_Wiki_talk:Projects/Category_reorganization/Archive1&oldid=1614305"