Difference between revisions of "Twinsuniverse talk:Recategorization"
From Twinsuniverse
m (→See also) |
J McKalling (Talk | contribs) m (→Locations by type) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
I'm not sure about this subcategory. The old "... inhabitants" isn't always correct. Since not all characters live at the location they are encountered. Maybe it needs to be very strict that only characters that actually live there are included or we might was well ommit it as a category. --[[User:Elmuerte|elmuerte]] 21:30, 6 December 2006 (CET) | I'm not sure about this subcategory. The old "... inhabitants" isn't always correct. Since not all characters live at the location they are encountered. Maybe it needs to be very strict that only characters that actually live there are included or we might was well ommit it as a category. --[[User:Elmuerte|elmuerte]] 21:30, 6 December 2006 (CET) | ||
:I think you should only list people who actually life on the correspoinding island. This will of course result in that not all characters can be found in the category ''characters by location''. --[[User:Kobold|Kobold]] 21:52, 6 December 2006 (CET) | :I think you should only list people who actually life on the correspoinding island. This will of course result in that not all characters can be found in the category ''characters by location''. --[[User:Kobold|Kobold]] 21:52, 6 December 2006 (CET) | ||
| + | I've thought about this issue for a long time, and I think I've come to a conclusion. I really like to be able to list all inhabitants, and this is certainly very possible with my new automatic categorization techniques, but wouldn't it also be awesome if we could simply list everyone in a location? Unfortunately, we'd need something more powerful to do that, like the [[mw:Extension:Semantic MediaWiki|Extension:Semantic MediaWiki]]. What do you think? -[[User:J McKalling|J McKalling]] ([[User talk:J McKalling|talk]]) 22:51, 25 November 2012 (GMT) | ||
== Locations by type == | == Locations by type == | ||
| Line 8: | Line 9: | ||
How many places will the category ''lake'' have? There are many places with are so unique that they don't fit in here. --[[User:Kobold|Kobold]] 13:46, 10 December 2006 (CET) | How many places will the category ''lake'' have? There are many places with are so unique that they don't fit in here. --[[User:Kobold|Kobold]] 13:46, 10 December 2006 (CET) | ||
:Well [[Clear Water Lake]] would be one. Actually the only one. Maybe we should scrap type-categories with only one article. Name-categories shouldn't be scrapped, unless it's way too specific. So categories for islands should be created, but smaller areas should only get an category where there are 3(?) or more articles. --[[User:Elmuerte|elmuerte]] 15:58, 10 December 2006 (CET) | :Well [[Clear Water Lake]] would be one. Actually the only one. Maybe we should scrap type-categories with only one article. Name-categories shouldn't be scrapped, unless it's way too specific. So categories for islands should be created, but smaller areas should only get an category where there are 3(?) or more articles. --[[User:Elmuerte|elmuerte]] 15:58, 10 December 2006 (CET) | ||
| + | ::Agreed. Also, I think we should keep the categories as little specific as possible, while maintaining a wide variety of options. -[[User:J McKalling|J McKalling]] ([[User talk:J McKalling|talk]]) 22:51, 25 November 2012 (GMT) | ||
== Locations categories done == | == Locations categories done == | ||
| Line 13: | Line 15: | ||
I've recategorized the locations categories. The only things that remains to be done is make sure all articles are in the correct categories. But I think that's something for the longer run because other things could also be reviewed. --[[User:Elmuerte|elmuerte]] 23:14, 16 December 2006 (CET) | I've recategorized the locations categories. The only things that remains to be done is make sure all articles are in the correct categories. But I think that's something for the longer run because other things could also be reviewed. --[[User:Elmuerte|elmuerte]] 23:14, 16 December 2006 (CET) | ||
:OK, I just took an eraser and deleted all the unused categories. [[User:Morshem|morshem]] 12:12, 17 December 2006 (CET) | :OK, I just took an eraser and deleted all the unused categories. [[User:Morshem|morshem]] 12:12, 17 December 2006 (CET) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Thanks. I'm going to review it again as well. Now that I've installed automated categorization techniques (i.e. infobox/categorizers), we should be able to keep up with a significant amount of categories increase. -[[User:J McKalling|J McKalling]] ([[User talk:J McKalling|talk]]) 22:51, 25 November 2012 (GMT) | ||
== Faction category == | == Faction category == | ||
| Line 29: | Line 33: | ||
: [[:category:forces]] needs to be refactored into something with a proper name. A [[Tank]] isn't really a character. So it should be put under an "equipment" category or something. A new category (sub)tree could be introduces for fighting style. Anyway, it's not really an enemy category since nutrals and good characters also fight. Maybe something like "Melee fighters", "Gun wielders" and "Magic users" under "Fighting style" -> "Characters by type" --[[User:Elmuerte|elmuerte]] 22:10, 19 December 2006 (CET) | : [[:category:forces]] needs to be refactored into something with a proper name. A [[Tank]] isn't really a character. So it should be put under an "equipment" category or something. A new category (sub)tree could be introduces for fighting style. Anyway, it's not really an enemy category since nutrals and good characters also fight. Maybe something like "Melee fighters", "Gun wielders" and "Magic users" under "Fighting style" -> "Characters by type" --[[User:Elmuerte|elmuerte]] 22:10, 19 December 2006 (CET) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I have decided to completely separate "character" from "enemy". Both might share a common header like "race" and "gender", but otherwise they're totally different. Characters can talk and represent only a single being in-game (i.e. aren't generic), while enemies can occur in multiple numbers at once, never talk and are always attackable. On the other hand, there are edge cases like the [[Money-Monkey]], who is an enemy storywise but also is his own character at the same time. As with [[GhazKhul le Grand]], the [[Spell Guardian]] and others. I would prefer to specify these articles as enemies nevertheless, but add some special note or something. In addition, all combat related information is exclusively known for "enemies" only, give or take some friendly characters who occasionally attack something/somebody. -[[User:J McKalling|J McKalling]] ([[User talk:J McKalling|talk]]) 22:51, 25 November 2012 (GMT) | ||
== Characters\Alignment == | == Characters\Alignment == | ||
Well this is pretty much done for the ground work. It's just that all character pages need to be updated to be in the correct (new) categories --[[User:Elmuerte|elmuerte]] 22:05, 21 December 2006 (CET) | Well this is pretty much done for the ground work. It's just that all character pages need to be updated to be in the correct (new) categories --[[User:Elmuerte|elmuerte]] 22:05, 21 December 2006 (CET) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Leave that to me, I need to import all articles into this version anyway, and update their infoboxes while doing so. The new infoboxes automatically take care of categories for us. -[[User:J McKalling|J McKalling]] ([[User talk:J McKalling|talk]]) 22:51, 25 November 2012 (GMT) | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
*[[Category talk:Yellow enemies]] | *[[Category talk:Yellow enemies]] | ||
*[[Talk:Yellow grobo clone]] | *[[Talk:Yellow grobo clone]] | ||
Latest revision as of 22:51, 25 November 2012
Contents
Characters by location
I'm not sure about this subcategory. The old "... inhabitants" isn't always correct. Since not all characters live at the location they are encountered. Maybe it needs to be very strict that only characters that actually live there are included or we might was well ommit it as a category. --elmuerte 21:30, 6 December 2006 (CET)
- I think you should only list people who actually life on the correspoinding island. This will of course result in that not all characters can be found in the category characters by location. --Kobold 21:52, 6 December 2006 (CET)
I've thought about this issue for a long time, and I think I've come to a conclusion. I really like to be able to list all inhabitants, and this is certainly very possible with my new automatic categorization techniques, but wouldn't it also be awesome if we could simply list everyone in a location? Unfortunately, we'd need something more powerful to do that, like the Extension:Semantic MediaWiki. What do you think? -J McKalling (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2012 (GMT)
Locations by type
How many places will the category lake have? There are many places with are so unique that they don't fit in here. --Kobold 13:46, 10 December 2006 (CET)
- Well Clear Water Lake would be one. Actually the only one. Maybe we should scrap type-categories with only one article. Name-categories shouldn't be scrapped, unless it's way too specific. So categories for islands should be created, but smaller areas should only get an category where there are 3(?) or more articles. --elmuerte 15:58, 10 December 2006 (CET)
- Agreed. Also, I think we should keep the categories as little specific as possible, while maintaining a wide variety of options. -J McKalling (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2012 (GMT)
Locations categories done
I've recategorized the locations categories. The only things that remains to be done is make sure all articles are in the correct categories. But I think that's something for the longer run because other things could also be reviewed. --elmuerte 23:14, 16 December 2006 (CET)
- OK, I just took an eraser and deleted all the unused categories. morshem 12:12, 17 December 2006 (CET)
- Thanks. I'm going to review it again as well. Now that I've installed automated categorization techniques (i.e. infobox/categorizers), we should be able to keep up with a significant amount of categories increase. -J McKalling (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2012 (GMT)
Faction category
I'm not sure if "Faction" is the correct term. An other term to use might be "Alignment". Basically it needs to be the term to group the position of characters. Also we need good category names to distinguish characters belonging to Dr FunFrock and those belonging to the Emperor. --elmuerte 18:58, 17 December 2006 (CET)
- In the old Twinsunica, the term "Forces" was used.--Schnitzel-Man 19:13, 17 December 2006 (CET)
- Forces should be used only for military forces imo. Terrain soldier, Clones etc. --Kobold 19:32, 17 December 2006 (CET)
- Forces is way to vague. --elmuerte 22:22, 17 December 2006 (CET)
I went for Alignment --elmuerte 22:05, 21 December 2006 (CET)
Enemies categories
How will we group enemies (Terrain soldier, Tank, Yellow grobo clone etc.)? Currently, there's a category:clones and a category:forces. There's also an empty category:Melee fighters. Should enemies grouped after magic level, race, and even weapon range?
Elaborate. --Kobold 21:04, 19 December 2006 (CET)
- category:forces needs to be refactored into something with a proper name. A Tank isn't really a character. So it should be put under an "equipment" category or something. A new category (sub)tree could be introduces for fighting style. Anyway, it's not really an enemy category since nutrals and good characters also fight. Maybe something like "Melee fighters", "Gun wielders" and "Magic users" under "Fighting style" -> "Characters by type" --elmuerte 22:10, 19 December 2006 (CET)
- I have decided to completely separate "character" from "enemy". Both might share a common header like "race" and "gender", but otherwise they're totally different. Characters can talk and represent only a single being in-game (i.e. aren't generic), while enemies can occur in multiple numbers at once, never talk and are always attackable. On the other hand, there are edge cases like the Money-Monkey, who is an enemy storywise but also is his own character at the same time. As with GhazKhul le Grand, the Spell Guardian and others. I would prefer to specify these articles as enemies nevertheless, but add some special note or something. In addition, all combat related information is exclusively known for "enemies" only, give or take some friendly characters who occasionally attack something/somebody. -J McKalling (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2012 (GMT)
Characters\Alignment
Well this is pretty much done for the ground work. It's just that all character pages need to be updated to be in the correct (new) categories --elmuerte 22:05, 21 December 2006 (CET)
- Leave that to me, I need to import all articles into this version anyway, and update their infoboxes while doing so. The new infoboxes automatically take care of categories for us. -J McKalling (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2012 (GMT)
