Wikia

WoWWiki

Talk:World of Warcraft theory

101,384pages on
this wiki

Back to Category

Proposed Classification Edit

As per the discussion page on Talk:Theorycraft, this category and its subcategories have been created. No pages have been added or moved to the categories and will not until there is some agreement or no objection has been made. I have included in this topic the proposal and reasons for the recommended changes.

Primary Recommendation

  • Warcraft Theory - Main Category for articles relating to Theorycrafting. It is named Warcraft Theory because this is more general and easily understood, rather than game specific jargon. In the header, we can establish a direct relationship between Warcraft Theory and Theorycraft and provide a direct link.
    • Game Concepts - These articles vary from simple to complex and discuss topics related to nearly any aspect of gameplay including mechanics and formula. An example is "Resource Management".
    • Game Mechanics - This is separated from Formulas because general mechanics concepts will not change, though the formula that applies may indeed change. This allows the formula to be adjusted without requiring an edit to the mechanic itself. In cases where mechanics reference formulae, the specific formula can simply be included in the article as a "subpage".
    • Formulae - 1) See Game Mechanics. 2) Formulae is the more accepted proper plural. Formulas has only just recently been accepted as proper. A redirect for Formulas should suffice to make sure that both are accounted for.

Secondary Recommendation These are further recommended subcategories with some clarification.

    • Rotation Analysis - Articles discussing the concepts and mechanics of making an effective rotation. This is sometimes necessary because different classes features or party roles may affect whether a build is effective.
    • Talent Build Analysis - Articles discussing the concepts and mechanics of making an effective talent build. This category is meant for general talent considerations, and not for analysis of specific talents. Example builds may also reference documents located here if they wish to substantiate or expound upon them.
    • Game Play Techniques - Articles discussing general and specific techniques that improve any aspect of play. These are meant to be specific and often will not have enough information or application do dedicate an entire guide to. However, the information will often be relevant to multiple guides and theories. One such example might be "Latency Compensation".

FuzzicalLogic (talk) 10:20, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but you really didn't justify all the subcategories and they were mostly redundant to Category:Formulas and game mechanics, so I deleted them. You should remember that WoWWiki is a wiki for all of the Warcraft universe even though most of it is for WoW.
I renamed Category:Warcraft Theory to Category:World of Warcraft theory for two reasons: 1) The name was not following naming policy and 2) It isn't about "Warcraft" theory, in general, but specifically World of Warcraft theory.
You can re-create something like Category:World of Warcraft game concepts, but it is sort of a vague category.
You didn't really give a compelling explanation for why formulas and game mechanics should be separate categories. If you do, you should follow the naming policy when you recreate the categories.
As for formulas vs. formulae... in general WoWWiki accepts both American and UK English versions of naming, but since Blizzard is an American company and WoWWiki is run by an American company and was founded by an American, we generally stick to the American spellings. Formulae is not more correct than forumulas, so there is little justification to change it.
Despite all that, your contributions are welcome and it looks like you have a lot to offer. --Gengar orange 22x22Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 8 Apr 2011 3:58 PM Pacific

Fandyllic,

Thank you so much for a well thought out response and the link to the naming policy. I was not able to find that document, so having the link really helps. In regard to my proposition, I genuinely feel that there are some bigger issues that need to be addressed regarding some of the navigation and categorization of some of the articles here. Rather than attack a big monster that I'm not sure how to deal with, I am going after a small group of articles that I feel could really benefit from a restructure. I am sure that there are others who will disagree, which is why I took the steps that I did without (hopefully) being too bearing or pushy.

I'd like to respond to a couple of your comments to create food for thought and get some more feedback.

1) ... World of Warcraft game concepts ... is a vague category. I disagree with you. It is definitely broad and general, but not vague. The category should contain articles that discuss concepts outside of game mechanics. Without some level of understanding of these game concepts, the mechanics and the formulae would not be in place. Specific applications of these concepts are how the mechanics and formulae are derived. Perhaps some example articles would serve to illustrate or even provide a better solution? What do you think?

2) ... didn't really give a compelling explanation for why formulas and game mechanics should be separated ... I wish I knew a better way to explain it, but I am lacking. So, I'll try from another angle. Conceptually, the two are separate. Intellectually, I understand why many would place the two together, but that has led to a lot of misconceptions and misuse of the terms. Emotionally, I believe we can do better and little issues like this is the first place, I feel, to start.

This is the logical train of thought for what it is we currently have:

  • Concepts are general, but consistent observations and hypotheses. They rarely vary from patch to patch. Concepts are general and don't require knowledge of the mechanics to understand, but mechanic help to illustrate. Concepts are a scientific entity.
    • Mechanics are applications of the concepts. They change frequently only at major patches. Mechanics are more specific than concepts. Though they may seem intertwined with formulas, the relationship is on a case by case basis and neither one requires the other. Mechanics are an engineering entity.
    • Formulas are specific integrations of either mechanics or concepts. They change often, even during minor patches. If they change, they often do not affect the concept they are attached to or the mechanic. A formula may be used by multiple concepts or mechanics as they are applied differently. And many advanced formulas derive from base formulas rather than the concepts they are attached. Formulas are a mathematic entity.

Furthermore, I think that there are many currently existing articles which could benefit from the separation. Several mechanics or concepts could reference a formula or mechanic without having to include everything that it accompanies. It could also ease edits allowing those who understand the concepts to build upon them, while those who are great at finding the numbers could easily publish without editing the mechanic itself.

I'm not sure that this illustrates my viewpoint in a better manner. Hopefully it stimulates some more interesting conversation and a more proper solution.

FuzzicalLogic (talk) 20:17, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki