Category talk:NPCs by campaign

This is one of the issues where I have always taken exception with how Tetris does things here in the wiki. Without consultation, without contemplation on something so far reaching and having a great impact on literally hundreds of articles here, he has decided to figure out a new way of sorting NPCs in the entire wiki without consulting with anyone.

I am opposed to this design because it we need to think about it for a moment and contemplate what is "needed" and what is not. To increase the level of complexity in the wiki for no reason is of no value to anyone.

I do not believe that the tree should start with "NPCs by Campaign or profession or species" instead the tree should just start with NPCs by campaign. Because frankly, if you have an NPC and you want to read about him, you will punch in his name and get his article. If you want to browse NPCs by profession or species, then first choosing which chapter you want to browse makes a LOT of sense. There aren't gonna be that many NPCs found in both (and those can be categorized as both).

There is a fundamental difference between Skills and everything else when it comes to how chapters will afffect categorization. skills will be available across campaigns, Ascalon City will not, neither will Molenin. So, the scheme we figured out for skills cannot apply for Quests, Locations or NPCs. I am not even sure it applies to Bestiary.

Let's think about this. Pause and consider what we will do exactly. My proposition is that for things that are most likely not going to be available across campaigns we needed to simply divide the main category (i.e. Category:Quests, Category:NPCs, Category:Locations) by chapter. i.e.:

Category:NPCs
 * Category:Prophecies NPCS
 * Category:Prophecies NPCs by Profession
 * Category:Prophecies Warrior NPCs
 * Category:Prophecies NPCS by Species
 * Category:Prophecies Dredge NPCs
 * Cateogry:Factions NPCs

This saves us one level of complexity of trying to mix and match NPCs by profession, race AND chapter. Your thoughts? --Karlos 07:20, 27 March 2006 (CST)