Category talk:Dragon weapons

Does anyone else thing this category is completely invalid? These items are most certainly NOT a "family", in the way that Celestial or Zodiac weapons are. Dragons are a very common theme in fantasy games, and most of these items have no connection other than having something to do with dragons. I vote for this category to be deleted. On this topic, what about other categories that are based on similarly shaky grounds? For example: Category:Ruby items There are only two items, and this category's existence has already been questioned. Category:Runic items  These items share NOTHING in common which would have them be a "family", except a word in common. The Runic Hammer is an incredibly common skin that is found in all campaigns. The Runic Blade is a fairly rare skin that used to only be found in the HoH chest and is now only in GW:EN and core areas. The Runic Maul is exclusively from Factions. The Runic Shield is a low level collector's shield, for chrissake. Category:Aureate items  "Aureate" just means golden. These items share nothing in common that would make them a "family" besides the fact that they are golden; they don't share a drop area, and they're not even from the same campaign. This is another case of over-categorizing.

The weapons family category seems to be populated with quite a few invalid categories. What are everyone's opinions on the deletion of the above categories? Since it is such an overhaul, I don't want to GW:BOLD without support. Thanks! Ailina 23:58, July 22, 2010 (UTC) PS, sorry that the categories aren't linked. For some reason, the links wouldn't appear.
 * I'd side with you on this issue - but I'd also like to have more users chime in with their views. If we get it, I can easily remove the selected categories with a bot. --  Random Time  00:38, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't even know those categories existed. They do seem certainly pointless and I won't miss them.  Voting delete. Ethigenetic 01:08, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't vote. We're operating by consensus, i.e. giving the best argument a chance to prevail. -- ◄mendel► 09:03, July 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * This category was created by User:Drakeskullnl who is (was?) in the guild R I S E Against [DRGN], and yes, they have a dragon on their cape. So I suppose he wanted for himself or his guildies to use "dragon" items, how little of a family they appear to be. Likewise, the runic and aureate weapons share a design feature that some people may be attracted to.
 * For the ruby items, that category is very small. However, the interesting thing about it is that these items do salvage to ruby. Going by the salvage categories, there are only a select few more weapons that do: Amethyst Aegis, Iridescent Aegis, and Jeweled Daggers. Some of these also salvage into sapphires and diamonds; a weapons that also does is the Diamond Aegis. Put these in and rename it "Jewel weapons", and it's not too small any more.
 * So some people found/find these categories useful, they're reasonably full, what's the problem? The problem seems to be that they don't fit with the other categories in Category: Weapons by family, most of which are much more cohesive in terms of design and where they are available. The least controversial remedy then seems to be to take these four categories (well spotted, by the way!) out of Category: Weapons by family and put them in a category of their own, maybe "Weapons by design"? Weapons by family could be a subcategory of that, and we'd have these 4 categories in it as well. What do you think? -- ◄mendel► 09:03, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go with an old axiom of mine, "the wiki is not made of paper" therefore "any page (or in this sense, category) found significantly useful, where there is no harm in letting it stay, should be kept". I agree with mendel on this --  Random Time  09:05, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I like your idea about the Weapons by design or something like that. However, like I mentioned above, the Runic category most certainly does NOT have anything at all in common.  The shield that I pointed out has a crimson carapace skin, which is certainly not "runic" in nature.  The only thing the items there have in common is a fairly common word, so I feel that that category is most certainly invalid.  Ailina 17:44, July 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point, Ailina: if we're doing "weapons by design," then we should require that they share a significant design element. That would indeed rule out the Runic items, as only the hammer and its glowing version are alike at all.  I think it would also rule out the Ruby items, because they don't seem to have much in common, either.  Maybe we should call it "weapons that have a common word in their names" or something like that.
 * The idea of a "Jewel weapons" category sounds somewhat useful, but that wouldn't really fit under "weapons by design," it would be more "weapons by rare material content" or something like that. Also, if you're looking for a specific jewel, then a Jewel weapons category wouldn't be much help, as it can't tell you specifically which jewel each item can contain; the existing categories like Category:Contains ruby are more useful for that.
 * I don't know about putting "weapons by family" under "weapons by design" - while it would be appropriate because weapon families do share design elements, weapon families additionally share a common acquisition method/location (the point that started this whole to begin with). I'd say leave them both as first-level subcats of the main weapons category.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 18:05, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Mmmmh, as far as I could see, the runic weapons all have runes on them.
 * I want to leave "weapons by family" as a category under "weapons", but also cat it under "weapons by design" so that people who choose that category remember to look at that as well.
 * "Weapons by name prefix"? Meh. -- ◄mendel► 19:39, July 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, they all have runes on them, but that hardly seems significant enough, especially since the style of runes on each weapon is somewhat different. (Actually, I don't see any runes on the "Runic" Hammer.)  And other weapons have runes on them without the moniker "Runic."  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 21:00, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) How about putting these 4 in "Bogus weapon families", and put that in "Weapons by family"? It would avoid other people re-making the categories (and thus save us work), and it would keep them "alive" for those few who need them. -- ◄mendel► 07:18, July 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I just realized; the jewel weapons category is completely useless, since we already have Category:Contains_ruby, for example. The "Jewel weapons" category is strictly inferior to the contains ruby one, and I see absolutely no reason for keeping it around.  Also, while the "Wiki is not paper", superfluous categories (like the runic one) do take up space when they are linked to, and lists of categories (such as the "weapons by family" one) are thus made more confusing and cluttered by the inclusion of unhelpful, pointless categories.  So while I do not necessarily object to them existing, I do object to links to them cluttering up areas of the mainspace.Ailina 00:10, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I seem to not have made myself clear. My point was this: if we delete these four categories outright, it will be a matter of weeks (well, maybe months, or years, but eventually...), then someone will think "why don't they have a category for these dragon weapons", and make one. Which we will then have to remove again. Therefore, keeping these four and putting them in "Category:bogus weapon families" with anote on the category saves us work, because then the someone above will see teh cetegory, will see where we put it and why, and not generate work for us. :) -- ◄mendel► 12:35, July 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * There will also be people who will see that an item like Draconic Spear is in a "Dragon items" category, think something along the lines of, "Oh SWEET, there's a whole set of dragon items for me to collect!" then, when they see the category description, they'll think, "Well, why in world does this even exist? You tricked me!"  Y'know, people like Ailina here.
 * I feel like keeping a "bogus" category of any sort runs contrary to the purpose of categories, which is to provide useful information about how groups of articles are related. I don't see this as being useful at all, only misleading.  With the game and our community both dying out, I don't expect these categories to ever get re-created.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 13:42, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * So, make them hidden categories? -- ◄mendel► 14:10, July 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm... I'd forgotten about that feature (ref), since we don't use it very much here. That would be a reasonable compromise, yes.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 14:45, July 31, 2010 (UTC)