GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Suffix example

shoudln't Ranger skills point to Marksmanship skills? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by PanSola (talk &bull; contribs).


 * I dunno. Should it? &mdash; Stabber 19:14, 15 March 2006 (CST)


 * My opinion is it should. Marksmanship skills is naturally a subcategory of Ranger skills... -PanSola 19:17, 15 March 2006 (CST)


 * All right, making this change. &mdash; Stabber 19:19, 15 March 2006 (CST)

Wait again. A category should only contain sub-categories of the same "criterion". If there are sub-categories of more than one criterion you should put a level in between, saying " by ". This means: Category:Marksmanship Skills should not be in the same category as Category:Ranger Core Skills. Instead, Category:Marksmanship Skills should be a sub-category of Category:Ranger Skills by Attribute, and Category:Ranger Core Skills should be a sub-category of Category:Ranger Skills by Campaign. Both these categories should then be a sub-category of Category:Ranger Skills. The following tree might exlain a little better:


 * Skills
 * Skills by Profession
 * Ranger Skills
 * Ranger Skills by Attribute
 * Marksmanship Skills
 * Beastmastery Skills
 * Ranger Skills by Campaign
 * Ranger Core Skills
 * Ranger Prophecies Skills
 * Monk Skills
 * Skills by Campaign
 * Core Skills
 * Core Skills by Profession
 * Ranger Core Skills
 * Monk Core Skills
 * Skills by Skill Type
 * Skills by Aquisition Method
 * Monk Core Skills
 * Skills by Skill Type
 * Skills by Aquisition Method
 * Skills by Aquisition Method

You can matrix and cross this tree as much as you want. It is close to impossible to sort any category by any other category, because the number of subcategories grows exponentially. I don't think it makes sense to sort "Skills by Campaign" by any other criterion by Profession. -- 23:36, 15 March 2006 (CST)


 * OK, but this is a change from the categorization you suggested before. I will now update the figure. &mdash; Stabber 02:53, 16 March 2006 (CST)


 * Two questions:
 * What about skills like Antidote Signet that are unattributed. "Non-Attributed skills" cannot be a subcat of "Ranger skills", or can it? And if not, is AS in just one cat, "Core Ranger skills"? In the figure I've noted two possible cats using dotted arrows.
 * Each "Campaign skills" cat has just one subcat, "Campaing skills by profession". As this seems like a rather linear subdivision, why not simply merge the two levels?
 * TIA. &mdash; Stabber 03:17, 16 March 2006 (CST)


 * I dunno, I kinda like it. Well... what's with the direct link from "Ranger skills" to "Antidote Signet"?  Evan The Cursed (Talk) 14:24, 16 March 2006 (CST)

I've update the image to use titlecased category names. I've also merged the "Campaign Skills &gt; Campaign Skills by Profession" levels. &mdash; Stabber 17:14, 16 March 2006 (CST)

how about...
How about we scratch all the criterion categories? They are getting overly tedious. >Category:Mesmer Skills -> Category:Domination Magic Skills /                       \                                  \               /                          \                                  \ Category:Skills -> Category:Skills (Core) -> Category:Mesmer Skills (Core) ---> Backfire \                                                          /                > Category:Spells -> Category:Hex Spells - &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by PanSola (talk &bull; contribs).


 * Please propose that on the main talk page. This page should be for discussion of the example alone. &mdash; Stabber 17:50, 16 March 2006 (CST)
 * That talk is about nomenculture. How to label things.  I would make my comments at Category talk:Skills instead.  They are totally different issues. -PanSola 18:16, 16 March 2006 (CST)
 * Scratch that, I'm too tired to make a case for it, since I do recognize the opposition having a strong case. -PanSola 18:16, 16 March 2006 (CST)

comment
You can't have an example of suffixes when there are no suffixes in your example. Your graph is a example of proposed categorization structure, not an example of the suffix. -PanSola 18:51, 16 March 2006 (CST)