GuildWiki

GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.

READ MORE

GuildWiki
Advertisement

This list is getting so big, it isn't helpful any more. May I suggest that we remove NPCs from the main category if they are already in a sub-category, even if this will be one hell of a crusade. But at least this way we get a nice tree structure. And maybe we should come up with some more NPC subcategories, for example Quest Giver. --Tetris L 05:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

°BUMP° Anyone?! --Tetris L 05:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Heh, I like your bump. :)
Irregardless, categories aren't meant for browsing so much as for cataloging (as I understand it), so if an article is an NPC it should be in the NPC category. I believe there have been other arguments around here about category trees and such I don't know where they are though. --Rainith 05:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
What annoys me is that even SUB-categories are being split into two pages, even though there are so few of them. Is there a way to force all sub-categories to be on page 1? -PanSola 06:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Since for most other category trees, the articles are only listed in the leaf categories and not in the ancestor categories, I'm going to ditto Tetris L. Collecting votes for 7 days. -PanSola 16:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Two votes for, one against? (assuming Tetris L and Rainith still hold to their positions from months ago) Less than a day left for votes. I would like to have a bigger margin there. -PanSola 07:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I do (hold my position from months ago)! But I would also like to see more people voting, and a result with a bigger margin. --Tetris L 07:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. As always, one article should only be in one category of the same tree. So if it fits in a sub-category, kick it out of the main category. --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 08:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree on the principle, I don't know about the implementation. So, King Jalis Iron Hammer is going to be categorized as "Dwarves" But Dwarves is a Bestiary Category, not an NPC Category. Say for the Deldrimor Dwarves, they are all NPCs, but for the Stone Summit it's tricky. Makar Thoughtslayer is a Stone Summit NPC, if we put him in "Stone Summit" that will land him in Bestiary, not NPC. If we make Stone Summit a sub category of both Bestiary and NPC then Summit Taskmasters will be NPCs. I do not like the idea od giving Makar two ridiculously similar Categories like "Stone Summit" and "Stone Summit NPCs." Have no solutions.. Just roadblocks. :( --Karlos 08:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Right now EVERY member of the NPC is in the Bestiary, or is supposed to, so I don't see the issue. Bestiary is mostly organized by species and factions, whereas NPC is organized by service/function. They are two parallel trees. There wouldn't be a "Stone Summit NPC" sub-category for NPCs, though there is Collector sub-category. I hope that is clear. -PanSola 09:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Practical issue: For a vote, please create something like
  • Yes:
  • No:
  • Other:
My vote here is against, keep them in one big chategory. --Xeeron 09:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with adding an article to more than one category, as long as the categories do not belong to the same branch of a tree. An article being listed under both "NPCs" and "Dwarves" isn't a conflict, because those two are on separate branches of the category tree.

By the way. Skills are already categorized this way. For example: "Shields Up!" is listed under Shouts and Tactics Skills, but not under Skills or Warrior Skills.

  • Skills
    • (Skills by Type)
      • Shouts
        • "Shields Up!"
    • (Skills by Profession / Attribute)
      • Warrior Skills
        • Tactics Skills
          • "Shields Up!"

Depending on the decision here we may have to roll back the skill categories! --Tetris L 09:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Vote Talley -> is 4 vs 2 enough of a margin?[]

5 for Yes: Pan Sola, Tetris L, Karlos (yes on principle but was unsure on implementation), 84-175, William Blackstaff 2 for No: Rainith, Xeeron

Are people comfortable enough with the margin to consider it passed? Or should we continue discussion and/or drag more people here? -PanSola 22:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Add my vote to Yes, it's always been my opinion that if it belongs to a subcategory, it shouldn't be in the cateogry (becuase it already is by existing in the subcategory. --William Blackstaff 23:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd say it's enough of a margin. Go ahead and make the change. --Rainith 23:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll get on the task with PanSola today. This will be a lot of edits. You better hide minor edits on Recent Changes, folks! --Tetris L 02:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
What is the implementation? Can someone explain? What exactly will you guys be doing? --Karlos 07:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
We're going to remove any NPC from the maincategory NPCs if it is already in a subcategory of NPCs. --Tetris L 07:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok. that seems harmless enough. I thought PanSola had more insidious ideas. :) --Karlos 08:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Quest NPCs[]

To prune the NPC main category even more, may I suggest a sub-category "Quest NPCs", which could be split down further into "Quest Givers" and "Quest Subjects". (The split-down may be overkill.) --Tetris L 10:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah splitdown is overkill, but otherwise I'm cool with the idea. But let's crusade through the merchants, traders, and other sub-cat NPCs first d-: I'm taking a few hours break from doing collectors (got to Jacobs in alphabetical order). -PanSola 10:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
My personal thought is to make a "Quest Givers" category. The others (those who are involved in quests in otherways) should stay in NPCs. --Rainith 11:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with PanSola. Only Quest Givers. --Karlos 04:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I plan to go on an NPC crusade soon. I'll add a category for quest givers and start filing all of them. --Tetris L 06:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Using the Redirect Category Trick?[]

Currently many of the individual articles for the "generic" NPC types, especially traders, are blank/missing. There is little point in creating individual articles for all of them, because all Rune/Dye/Scroll/ ... Trader offers the exact same services. The only thing that differs sometimes are the visuals, but who really gives a damn about how they look? Nonetheless it would be nice to have them all listed in the categories. To do this, we could use the "redirect category trick". For example, to fill in the article for Sheel, the Rune Trader in Ascalon City, we could use:

#REDIRECT [[Rune Trader]] [[Category:Rune Traders]] [[Category:Ascalon City (Post-Searing)]]

This way we could handle all "generic" NPC types:

What do you think? Unless somebody objects by Monday, I'll go ahead.

As long as you are just filling in the ones that are blank and not removing existing ones, I'm fine with that. Some of the existing "service NPCs" actually have slightly more background (well the ones I can think of are all in Ascalon), those information I would want to keep (-: -PanSola 06:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Which one are you thinking off, specifically? Off course if an NPC is more than just a generic, we can always fill in the full article. --Tetris L 08:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
You've been warned. 4 days later, no one objected. I'll go for it. :) --Tetris L 04:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

NPCs without purpose[]

Okay, I'm almost done with the NPCCC (NPC Category Crusade). All the NPCs that are still in the main category Category:NPCs are NPCs that serve no special purpose. I'm thinking about putting them in a new sub-category called Category:NPCs (no subtype) or Category:NPCs (Extra) or similar, to make clear that they have no purpose. As a non-native speaker I have to ask: Is "Extra" a common, clear term in english? I'm afraight using it might cause confusion. --Tetris L 19:21, 23 February 2006 (CST)

"Extra" is a common and clear term, but I don't think it explains what you want it to explain... -PanSola 19:47, 23 February 2006 (CST)
I suggest add "Wintersday 2005 NPCs" and "Halloween 2005 NPCs", then make "Wintersday 2005 Collectors" a subcat of "Wintersday 2005 NPCs" and "Collectors" etc. And then the generic ones will be so few we might not have to worry about them until Chapter 4 (I won't worry about them unless they overflow to a second page and make sub-categories not appear on page1).
Or if you really want to, call your category "Background NPCs" or something. -PanSola 19:55, 23 February 2006 (CST)
Most of the "Extra" NPCs are Wintersday/Halloween NPCs indeed, but not all of them. I want a generic category for all NPCs that serve no purpose, are not involved in any quests, missions or anything. They are just "ambience". "Background NPCs" might do. --Tetris L 20:11, 23 February 2006 (CST)
I'll start moving them all to Category:General NPCs now. If anyone thinks that the name is a bad choice, object now, or simply come up with a better name later and move all the NPCs. --Tetris L 20:55, 1 March 2006 (CST)
Advertisement