Talk:Devourer Carapace

I will start to group the collector items into categories. This should help us to sort out the species. --Tetris L 19:32, 28 October 2005 (EST)

Should this article be in the Category:Collector Items category? I mean, the Category:Devourer Carapaces itself is already a sub-category of Category:Collector Items... The categorization of this article seems to add redundency to the Collector Items category page... Actually, looking at what links here, which is really just the Devourer article, I would even suggest deleting this article altogether, and make the Devourer article point to Category:Devourer Carapaces (the fact it is a collectable item is abundently clear from the Devourer article) -PanSola 23:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've removed this article from the category for now.
 * I created this article because I felt that every category (even if it is a sub-category) should have its definition article. I planed to create a similar definition article for every sub-category of Collector Items. We can also put the info directly into the category, but when I started contributing to this wiki I was informed that by policy categories shouldn't contain much text. They should only point towards the linked definition article.
 * As for definition articles of sub-categories being categorized in the main category: We need to make a general decision here, because this is a general problem. Look at Axe. It is categorized directly under Category:Weapons. But it is also a sub-category of Category:Weapons, so it appears twice under Category:Weapons, once as a sub-category and once as an article. --Tetris L 05:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no issues with categories getting thier own articles. I'll figure out how to add the picture back without using the CollectableDrop template for now (and if the decision is to include them in the cagetory, then put the template back in).  However, if the ONLY thing in the article is a one-liner definition with a picture, AND only the corresponding category page uses the article, AND the category page also has the exact same one-liner definition (well, off by one word), then I wonder about the article's usefulness.  Is there anything else worth mentioning about Devourer Carapaces that people might be curious to find out?  Right now (well, after I put the pic back in), the only function the article can serve is "Hey you who is browsing Category:Devourer Carapaces, if you want to see what one of them look like, click here."  It doesn't serve as a definition article even though it contains the definition.
 * As for the general problem, hmm, that's a toughy. I need to think on it some more. -PanSola 07:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, we decided (I believe int he bestiary categories) that we would not use Categories for description. Instead we adopted this model of Categories simply saying "This is a list of all XYZ in the game" and then XYZ have the definition of what it is. I think the issue here is that the existing definition was too simple. I rewrote into a definition article. I hope people will reduce this overuse of templates and variables and parameters, we are becoming a website instead of a wiki. --Karlos 10:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * So Karlos you also think the article for a subcategory should be listed in the category? It still looks odd to me. -PanSola 10:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Standard practice. Started in Bestiary. Where would you list Giant? Under Category:Giants was dumb so agreed to have each level include sub categories and the definition articles for those sub categories. You could edit the mother category to say that the definition of each sub-category is listed below in the articles. --Karlos 12:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)