Talk: Eirik Ratcatcher

Previous discussions archived:

Achievement categories

Instead of adding a second category, just go ahead and replace type= with Love is in the Air. No sense in have the achievement in both cats right? =P Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 00:02, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that works. I was reluctant to change the existing category structure; "folks had worked so hard on it"... :) --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 00:04, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Nah, by all means.. expand it.. I did with the dungeon/raid section, the more precise the categories, the better I always say... well... first time I've said that, but yea...

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 00:06, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

This is another one of those ballooning changes, I'm thinking... Ah, well. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 00:07, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Yea the doc-ness is only needed for articles you wish not to have a category, I don't remember why it was allowed to transfer from the boilerplates... but it's not needed. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 00:24, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

I think it affects transclusion, possibly involving {{Achievement}} and {{Achievementlong}}. In any case, it didn't eat much, so I have been adding it. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 00:27, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

/smirk, you didn't spell either template correctly.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 00:28, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

At least I misspelled them uniquely! --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 00:29, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Class sets -> Class armor sets

Could you provide a reason as to why you're changing the categories from "<class> sets" to "<class> armor sets"? --g0urra[T҂C] 00:06, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Sure. 1) Specificity. There could well be sets of other items for a given class. If not now, then in the future. I know of several If we're talking armor, then we should say armor, imo.

2) it permits a rational "<class> armor set items" class structure. Armor sets are collections; armor set items are specific items. Separating armor set items out allows people to use the categories to actually find the armor sets themselves. The "armor set" categories were getting an unhelpfully large number of items "at the top". I didn't feel that putting "armor set items" inside a category named "<class> sets" was as useful.

--Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 00:16, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why there should be a "<class> armor sets" category and a hypothetic "<class> weapon sets" category, when it can be used in just one "<class> sets" category. Likewise it is perfectly fine with "<class> set items", while "<class> armor set items". It looks unnecessary to me, and most people who browse the wiki are more used to "<class> sets". --g0urra[T҂C] 00:22, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Okies, let's set the wayback machine for "before I started this whole mess". I was looking at the T9 and T10 warrior armor, and looking to add the latter as needed. What I found was a mess: "<class> set" with enough articles piled at the top to make complete categories in their own right. Items pushed into the same categories as the sets - some times, and not others. Sets, too, being irregular.

So I decided to "burn it all down and start over". I looked for a rationale for the class being named "<class> set" instead of "<class> armor set". I found no non-armor items in the categories. So, no rationale.

I found a useful boilerplate for item sets, under one of the T9 or perhaps T8 pages, that allowed for the categories to be renamed almost trivially - by changing the name in the <class> set template (for set pages), or in the set page (for component items).

If you believe that "<class> armor set" categories should not replace the current "<class> set" categories, then I encourage you to...

a) ask more widely (ie on the forums) before taking unilateral action

b) if such action is called for (one way or another) wait until I've had a chance to finish the "set reduction strategy" changes, using the <class> set categories as lists of work-to-do. ... or use AWB or something to either do the work for me, or mark such pages in some other fashion.

For my own part, a) I don't think users will care much, once everything is one way or the other, using the category links at the bottom to navigate or using the Search functionality, instead of directly entering a category name like you and I. b) Changing the lot should be nigh trivial by the time I'm done, one way or the other.

--Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 00:47, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

I find it strange though that you are trying to enforce this "<class> armor set" change when we have always used "<class> sets", and then you tell me to ask people that we should not follow this change that you are doing. You should be the one to ask that. --g0urra[T҂C] 00:51, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

In this, I am WW:BOLD. I've put a fair bit of work into this already. It's taken you a couple of months to notice the change. Therefore it can't have been drastic. Further, as I said above, I've been engineering it so that it can be reverted, if people disagree. I'll go ahead and put it forth on the forums, but I insist you not revert my changes until we have more consensus. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 00:55, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

I counter your WW:BOLD with WW:BOLD#...but don't be reckless! and WW:BOLD#Actions and edits with widespread effects. Your actions haven't been approved by anyone. --g0urra[T҂C] 01:02, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Nor were Zeal's. Now we've both been slapped down. So. Settle down. I'm writing the history of this and a description of my roadmap for the forums. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 01:08, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Zeal's actions are way back in the past, and I wasn't an active editor back then. Nevertheless it shouldn't be used as an argument for this. --g0urra[T҂C] 01:18, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

I did say, "settle down". I've already got a category arrangement argument scheduled. If you want to continue the BOLD argument, take a number and wait in line, please. Thank you. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 01:22, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Category:Stalker's Chain Battlegear set items

I thought you said that you were going to create the set categories if there were several items that would satisfy the set bonus, but now you've created this one? What's your reasoning behind this? --g0urra[T҂C] 21:15, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

There are two separate item pages (Thrallmar/Honor Hold) for one of the items here. Only reason I did it. Could go either way, specific set, or "(class) armor set items".

A question you didn't ask, was my reasoning on Tier 6 armors. That was more a matter of inertia: If there are categories for Tier 10 armors, why not Tier 6? The same argument can be made for Dungeon Set 1. I have no good answer. Likely, I have erred re Tier 6, at least as far as the "multiple items" rationale goes. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:23, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

The "<set> items" categories should be used for sets that has set items that satisfies the same set bonuses. That's the way for the tier 10 sets (unless I'm mistaken). That's not the way for tier 6, as there is only one set of items that fills out for set bonuses.

I'd also like to refer to WW:CAT, as it's a very small category, not used for subcategories, and will never be filled with more items. --g0urra[T҂C] 21:29, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Same also goes for Category:Tempest Regalia set items—an unnecessary category, just used to list the set items. --g0urra[T҂C] 21:30, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Contrarily: small categories are allowed even with a few members for consistency within the wiki structure. This is a much more interesting subject for a forum discussion than "X sets" vs "X armor sets". You don't deny that the T10/gladiator categories would be useful. We both agree that it's kind of silly to have 5-item set categories. But what level of inconsistency should we live with? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:37, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

I could live with: level 60 PvP sets; Tier 9 & 10 sets (both tiers has items that satisfies set bonus? I'm not sure); Arena sets. Do you have any other suggestions? --g0urra[T҂C] 21:49, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Are there more than one per class, 60 pvp sets? Arena/70 and Arena/80 are different set bonuses, but compatable within. Tiers 7 and 8 both have 10/25 variants, IMO deserving of categories. You've already noted the specialization branches for T10; they continue down to T4, but may not need categories lower than Glad/70.

Another problem to think about: individual item set cats can include the main set page in "top sort" fashion. Can't do that with eg "generic armor set items" or "class armor set items". So do they get excluded from the generic cats but not from the specific ones? They're already in the "class sets" and "type sets" cats. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:01, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of the PvP-Rare and PvP-Epic sets, the items share the same set bonuses, right? Arena/70 and Arena/80 should have different categories, as they aren't compatible with each other. If tier 7 and 8 share set bonuses, then sure, they could have categories on their own.

Why not do it like [[Category:<type> set items| {{PAGENAME}}]]? Or did you think of something else? --g0urra[T҂C] 22:14, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

That's a method of top sorting. Top sorting works well only when there are a small number of items to be top sorted. Category:Dungeon Set 1 armor sets was okay, but all of the Class sets categories overdid it. IE it only works if the count of <type> is small. It's what led to my rampage in the first place. Unless I missed what you meant? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:37, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you mean, can you give me an example? --g0urra[T҂C] 22:44, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Category:Death_knight_sets stands out as an egregious example of top sorting gone wild. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:50, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

That's because there's DEFAULTSORT conflicts in both {{Death knight sets}} and the article itself. There isn't supposed to be a [[Category:Death knight sets]] on the article itself—the template should take care of the categorization of the sets. --g0urra[T҂C] 23:01, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Um... the cause is not what I'm pointing at. The sheer number of top-sorted articles is, however they get that way. The code insert you provided above has the space character that causes top-sorting. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:11, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

If the "<class> set" template is correctly categorizing, and the set isn't categorized under the class, they shouldn't be top sorted... --g0urra[T҂C] 23:22, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

And Battlegear sets are another mass of inconsistencies. Re these bi-factional items, so far I've run across:

bare disambigpage, 2 item pages
no disambig page, second item missing
no disambig page, both items described on the same page
disambig page listing both items via transclusion, 2 item pages

That being out of 4 sets I've looked at so far. *sigh* Any thoughts? Given my druthers, I'd weld both items onto one page, leave the faction requirement out of the tooltip, have bifactional external link. But I've been knocked down repeatedly for welding pages. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:37, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure which sets you are talking about, could you link? --g0urra[T҂C] 21:49, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

in the "(class) sets" templates as Level 70 faction sets (Battlegear). --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:01, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

It should be: disambigpage, both items link ([<item> (Thrallmar)], [<item> (Honor Hold)]), stealth tooltip. It shouldn't be more than that. --g0urra[T҂C] 22:14, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

My opinion differs, but it's not my current area of focus, and I've long since given up that fight anyway. I'm uninterested in modifying any variant disambigpages, and I've very little interest in splitting bi- pages into mono pages.

... but I don't know what you mean by "stealth tooltip". --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:37, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

A "stealth tooltip" is one that is inside both <includeonly> and <onlyinclude>. That way there will still be a tooltip associated with the article, both when used {{loot}} and {{item}}, but it won't be visible on the article itself. --g0urra[T҂C] 22:44, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

And that on the disambig article itself? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:50, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. See here what I mean. --g0urra[T҂C] 23:01, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding bitter, the tooltip thus generated shows no sign of the faction requirement. The faction requirement was the "reason" I was given that bi-factional items of that sort should not be combined onto one page. In what significant way is providing a stealth tooltip on a disambiguation page more appropriate than having a single page in the first place? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:11, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason they can't be combined with "Requires Honor Hold/Thrallmar - Revered" in the tooltip? -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:17, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Not really, not what I can think of. It just need to have |rfactions= instead of |rfaction=. --g0urra[T҂C] 23:22, February 19, 2010 (UTC)