Wowpedia talk:Category policy
- Past discussions archived to...
- ...Wowpedia talk:Category policy/Archive01 Archived
20:39, 3 July 2006 (EDT)
- ...Wowpedia talk:Category policy/Archive01 Archived
- 1 Proposal to ban redirecting categories
- 2 Quests and Sets categories
- 3 Format
- 4 Macros
- 5 Category Creation Info
- 6 Confused about the large amount of tiny guild / server categories
- 7 Sentence case and Title Case
- 8 World of Warcraft category proliferation re-think needed
- 9 Deprecation method update
- 10 Ordering
Proposal to ban redirecting categories
Copied in from WoWWiki:Policy/Proposal to ban redirecting categories since it's ratified --Mikk 14:59, 24 June 2006 (EDT)
However, when doing this, I noticed that there were still articles in "Category:Elemental" (I've moved them out now).
Then it hit me: if I make this a redirect, people will still be categorizing their pages in the old categories by mistake, and chances are that they'll never realize that they did it, since the link at the bottom of their page will be nice and blue. And there's no easy way of looking at contents of redirected categories, if you navigate to it, you just end up in the new category (obviously).
|This policy has been adopted.|
Disallow redirecting category pages, since it allows contributors to miscategorize their articles into deprecated unviewable categories without noticing. Categories no longer in use are simply deleted.
There is definitely a chance that a visitor may mistype a category name, but it seems to me that categories are something that you navigate by clicking, rather than typing manually. Page names are an entirely different story (and, indeed, not affected by this proposal).
I feel that the gain from not allowing redirecting categories is larger than the potential loss from not handling mistyped category names (if indeed people ever type category names manually).
=== Policy ratification vote ===
- Yes Mikk 16:30, 1 June 2006 (EDT) - (my proposal, so...)
- Yes Fandyllic 4:35 PM PDT 1 Jun 2006 - (Why didn't I think of this? Bonk's head.)
- Yes Ralthor 18:10, 1 June 2006 (EDT) - (I was a big fan of redirects for common spelling mistakes because it prevents new categories from accidently being created and ensures someone typing it in goes to the right place, but it sounds like the cons outweigh the pros of redirecting categories.)
- Yes Schmidt 11:49, 13 June 2006 (EDT) - (BAN THEM ALL!!!! muahahahaha)
- Yes Ohmikeghod 04:53, 17 June 2006 (EDT) - ()
- Yes Kirkburn 07:03, 17 June 2006 (EDT) - (Maim! Kill! Destroy!)
- Such a good idea. --Fandyllic 4:35 PM PDT 1 Jun 2006
- @Ralthor: Yeah, I was voting in favor for redirects myself. I didn't realize how bad it could be until I was going to redirect a category and saw that new pages had plopped into the deprecated category while the vote was running. --Mikk 18:23, 1 June 2006 (EDT)
Quests and Sets categories
It is very unclear right now for the Category:Quests what it should contain. imo, it should contain only and purely "quests" and have two subcategories, Quest Rewards and Quest Items (Quest Items including any special reagent needed in quest like a even tho its not really a quest item).
As for Sets right now its a mess aswell.. my original proposal would have been merging Category:World of Warcraft armor item sets, Category:Weapon Sets and Category:World of Warcraft item sets (mainly because the sets since 1.7 can be in more than only one of these) into Category:Set Items, leaving only the Set Items in this one, which is itself a subcategory of Category:Sets. Example:
**[[:Category:Mage sets]] (Subcategory of [[:Category:Sets]]) **[[:Category:Sets]] *[[Netherwind Robes]] **[[:Category:Set Items]] (Subcategory of [[:Category:Sets]]) **[[:Category:Mage sets]] (Subcategory of [[:Category:Sets]])
Right now its only an idea and its only my opinion, but some feedback would be great... as I modify the icons I correct categories on the go. Should it ever need help, I'll be there :P --Adys 18:24, 4 October 2006 (EDT)
- It's making sense to me. Although with one nit: I don't see why the set items need to go in two parallel categories. Either the items go in "Set Items" (and the handful of all-set description articles go in e.g. "Mage Sets"), or it all goes in "Mage Sets", imo. -- (T) 19:28, 4 October 2006 (EDT)
Should I place Macros under Category:Formulas and Game Mechanics? --Jeoh 19:29, 29 December 2006 (EST)
Category Creation Info
At one point, this article mentions Category:Air Elementals as a category that shouldn't be created because it would not have more than 10 entries. Well... it has, and it does... so is there a better example we could use? I can't think of any right now. ----12:00, 4 February 2007 (EST)
Confused about the large amount of tiny guild / server categories
When reading the policy for categories, it says that categories should be broad and have about 15 pages or more in them. However when looking through the categories list, I see a massive amount of 1 item categories for guilds and servers. Is it OK for those categories to be created? And doesn't that contradict the policy on categories? Dyna18 17:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- That part of the policy is a rule of thumb, whereas WP:GUILD explicitly states that guilds should be categorized as such. --Pcj (T•C) 17:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Sentence case and Title Case
The page now recommends sentence case, for a couple of reasons:
- It was never meant to say Title Case - it was a mix up when Mikk was consolidating policies in the middle of last year.
- Sentence case better follows grammar rules.
- It's easier to write, and make sensible sounding categories with.
Hope that makes sense?17:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
World of Warcraft category proliferation re-think needed
See Wowpedia talk:Category policy/Names. 22:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Deprecation method update
I've tweaked how to deprecate the category to make it easier for all involved.06:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've also updated the usage section with more realistic advice. 09:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I note we don't a description of how to order categories anywhere - it's not hugely important, but it might be a good idea to get something set down. I would suggest alphabetical as it's easiest to maintain.14:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)