Category talk:Osiris - Revision history

DeepShadow at 18:35, 13 February 2010

2010-02-13T18:35:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:35, 13 February 2010
Line 10:		Line 10:

	PS - this is just my opinion. What do others think? -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 14:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)		PS - this is just my opinion. What do others think? -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 14:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

			I'm against individuals as categories, and circular categorization in particular. [[User:DeepShadow\|DeepShadow]] 18:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Gonzoron at 14:45, 13 February 2010

2010-02-13T14:45:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:45, 13 February 2010
Line 8:		Line 8:

	Also, doing it in the page has the benefit of context. The automagic list is just a list. In other words, I find [[Nova Vaasa]] to be a far more useful page than [[:Category:Har'Akir]]. :) -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 14:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)		Also, doing it in the page has the benefit of context. The automagic list is just a list. In other words, I find [[Nova Vaasa]] to be a far more useful page than [[:Category:Har'Akir]]. :) -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 14:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

			PS - this is just my opinion. What do others think? -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 14:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Gonzoron at 14:44, 13 February 2010

2010-02-13T14:44:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:44, 13 February 2010
Line 2:		Line 2:

	It was an experiment with a small domain. The idea being that in the finished result anything interconnected would automagically show up with those connections manifest. For exemple, the mummifying strips with Osiris. The result for the domain page I think is actually very good. Sitting down to write out a description of the domain, breaking it up into revelent categories, would be very simple. As for the rest, it is probably not worth the work. I could imagine a darklord like Strahd would be very usefully rendered as a catagory, since there is some much out there connected to him. But it does become pointless with one shot NPC's or one reference places, etc. Some thought should perhaps be given to the best approach, or approaches, to the matter.[[User:Cure\|Cure]] 09:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)		It was an experiment with a small domain. The idea being that in the finished result anything interconnected would automagically show up with those connections manifest. For exemple, the mummifying strips with Osiris. The result for the domain page I think is actually very good. Sitting down to write out a description of the domain, breaking it up into revelent categories, would be very simple. As for the rest, it is probably not worth the work. I could imagine a darklord like Strahd would be very usefully rendered as a catagory, since there is some much out there connected to him. But it does become pointless with one shot NPC's or one reference places, etc. Some thought should perhaps be given to the best approach, or approaches, to the matter.[[User:Cure\|Cure]] 09:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

			An interesting idea, but it leads to stuff like Category:Hotep, which is inside Category:Tomb of Hotep, which is inside Category:Hotep. Something tells me that circular categorization like that is not a good idea. I think I would rather keep categories as only for things that are truly categories. I see what you mean for the nice list at the bottom of the Har'Akir page, and I wouldn't mind a [[:Category:Har'Akir Related]] or even a [[:Category:Strahd Related]], which could be linked to from [[Har'Akir]] and [[Strahd]]. But my opinion is that Object A should be in Category B only if "A is one of many B's" or "A is one of many things that are B".

			And I think a lot of the benefit of the automagic list could be derived from a well-written base page, which would take less work than moving all these pages into categories. Which is easier for an editor? a) Click on Har'Akir, click on "What links Here", and list all those items on the Har'Akir page, group and organize them and than write about them. or b) Click on Har'Akir, click on "What links Here", and edit each of those pages to add [[:Category:Har'Akir]] and the appropriate subcategories?

			Also, doing it in the page has the benefit of context. The automagic list is just a list. In other words, I find [[Nova Vaasa]] to be a far more useful page than [[:Category:Har'Akir]]. :) -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 14:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Cure at 09:20, 13 February 2010

2010-02-13T09:20:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:20, 13 February 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Seriously, does everyone and everything need to be a category? I really don't think so... -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 04:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)		Seriously, does everyone and everything need to be a category? I really don't think so... -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 04:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

			It was an experiment with a small domain. The idea being that in the finished result anything interconnected would automagically show up with those connections manifest. For exemple, the mummifying strips with Osiris. The result for the domain page I think is actually very good. Sitting down to write out a description of the domain, breaking it up into revelent categories, would be very simple. As for the rest, it is probably not worth the work. I could imagine a darklord like Strahd would be very usefully rendered as a catagory, since there is some much out there connected to him. But it does become pointless with one shot NPC's or one reference places, etc. Some thought should perhaps be given to the best approach, or approaches, to the matter.[[User:Cure\|Cure]] 09:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Gonzoron: Created page with 'Seriously, does everyone and everything need to be a category? I really don't think so... -- ~~~~'

2010-02-13T04:11:09Z

Created page with 'Seriously, does everyone and everything need to be a category? I really don't think so... -- ~~~~'

New page

Seriously, does everyone and everything need to be a category? I really don't think so... -- [[User:Gonzoron|Gonzoron]] 04:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)