TaRapedia talk:Formatting/Categories/Proposal

Comments
I feel we are getting near the final version, but there are still open issues I'd like to close first


 * General
 * The classes based category system in its current version of proposal (DPL friendly version) creates a little mess in the category tree... Is this acceptable price for getting DPL friendly solution? - If we agree on this we can return to Template talk:Armor and finish the task to test the solution.


 * Characters
 * Just minor problem with Category:Tool trainings and Category:Crafting trainings. All the Category:Crafting trainings will go away and there will be only one article in Category:Tool trainings (if we don't count the historical content)


 * Items
 * The crafting tree (Category:Schematics) needs to be reevaluated after the new crafting system hits live servers. I don't want to waste our energy on it right now...
 * I still don't like the Category:Consumables section and I propose to get rid of all of its subcategories. There to few consumables to satisfy the need for so many categories.
 * Is Category:Junk proper name? Isn't Category:Junk items or Category:Vendor trash better name? Not being native speaker I don't feel it properly.

→ Zarevak 16:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Round one
After all this time, I'm starting to wonder if we've overcomplicated it. I think we have to be more focused on keeping it simple. Categories are for grouping, but we usually don't need a category if everything is already listed in a regular article. Structural categories are definitely good, but leaf categories should be added with care.

So I'll begin with the culling:


 * Tiers and subcategories: Away with it. I'm pretty sure we agreed to remove this, so chalking it up to copypaste.
 * {Class} weapons/armor/tools: Away with it. We have one page per weapon/armor/tool type, they barely fill a single category each. Listing which classes use which recursively should be done on the class page (if anywhere at all).
 * {Class} abilities/trainings. There's no reason to separate these per class, so let's just go with a {Class} skills category.
 * Ability and training subcats could also be simplified. Do we really need a category for signature abilities, when they're all also listed in the article? Same for weapons, armor, tools, crafting trainings.
 * Vanity armor is due for culling by the same philosophy, so I'm thinking we should replace it with a 'special equipment' or similar category that lists all the weird stuff - events, veteran awards, etc.

Other stuff:


 * Agreed on evaluating schematics and components subtrees when the craftin change is in.
 * Agreed that junk needs a better name. Can leave this until the rest of the item cats stabilize, though.
 * What pages are related to e.g. Recruit apart from the Recruit page and Recruit categories? I think there's room for collapsing more here, see the changes to the proposal. One division that comes to mind is class-specific skills vs all skills the class has obtained over the tiers. Which one is better suited as subcat of skills? Are there any other pages that belong here?

I have updated the article to match these changes to demonstrate. Go ahead and revert/change it to make further suggestions.

- Dashiva (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see the advantages of simplifying the categorisation in some cases, but I don't think it's a good idea to go too far or the categories won't actually be much use.
 * From the suggestions above, I think the following are good ideas:
 * Merging Category:Recruit abilities and Category:Recruit trainings into a single category - especially since each article will also be in either Category:Abilities or Category:Trainings.
 * Removing Category:Tool trainings and Category:Crafting trainings - they'll be redundant soon enough.
 * Creating Category:Special equipment as a catch-all for random items - I can't really think of a better name for it, though. Similarly with "Junk", I can't think of a better name offhand.  "Vendor trash" might be better, it's probably a more commonly used term among those that play MMOs, but how recognisable is it to those that are new to the genre?  We could easily rename them after the categories have been implemented though, so might as well keep those names as placeholders for now?
 * I don't think I like the idea of:
 * Removing Category:Weapon trainings and Category:Armor trainings - there's 12 articles that would go in Category:Weapon trainings and 7 that would go in Category:Armor trainings, enough for them to have a separate category, I believe.
 * Removing Category:Signature abilites - they're special types of abilities, and yes they're all listed on individual Class pages, but there's no central listing of them at all. I'd say they're important and numerous enough to have their own category.
 * Removing Category:Recruit armor, etc - I don't see it as doing any harm to have armor and weapons categorised in the same way as skills. Sure, there won't be that many articles in each category, some will only have subcategories, but I think it would be helpful to have the information here rather than filling every Class article with lists of equipment proficiencies that are inherited from root classes.  The information is important and relevant but it would take up a lot of room on an article page, why not use the categories for linking these related articles together?
 * -> CommandoXXX 15:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can elaborate a bit more on my reasoning for the things you didn't like.
 * Most of them are already have a central listing: weapon, armor, signature ability. I don't feel too strongly about these, but as they are really easy to add in later, I don't think we should create the categories until we actually need them.
 * Class-specific armor and weapons are (in my opinion) quite simply too basic to list. Everyone gets motor assist and two other armors. Filling categories with 1-3 items seems overkill. The same with weapons; apart from the recruit ones you get at most four other weapons. If this is a problem, it means we should be creating a more awesome summary article for weapons and armor to explain this, not a bunch of categories with next to no content.
 * And in general, anything that's recursive on class is a pain with respect to templates. We have been pretty wild with templates before, but as the wiki grows we need to make sure we're both lean and mean.
 * So, there you have it. - Dashiva (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the sleekier and simpler Category system - less categories = less work.
 * Category:Signature abilites - If I look at all the Category:Skills, there are three types: Abilites which are activated by the user when needed, Trainings which teach you new things and Signature abilites which are activated by the user when needed, but doesn't need any training points to be learned and have just one pump. I vote for the special category for them (and Category:Signature abilites being subcategory of Category:Abilites)
 * Category:Weapon trainings and Category:Armor trainings - All the Trainings teach you, how to use new weapon or new armor. (With the exception of the Tools training and the 4 engineering trainings.) There are 12 weapon types and 7 armor types and they don't need any special category. People should be able to tell the difference between Firearms and Motor Assist Body Armor. It also solves for us the problem with the Tools training not having special category.
 * Category:Special equipment and Category:Junk - yeah we need them, but we can change the name in the future. Both of these categories will contain just articles so it won't be any problem to our category system proposal. Ideas for Special equipment: Category:Reward items, Category:Event items?
 * Category:Recruit armor - Dashiva is right, if we come up with better availability table on weapon and armor articles and update all the Class articles with the whole lists of all available weapons/armor/tools, we don't need to use such categories and we don't have to create any recursive category trees...
 * Category:Recruit - ??? what will be in these categories?
 * Category:Recruit skills - this is the last "recursive" category on the current proposal version. There are much more skills then armor types and weapons, but this may be handled manually on the article level as well. Using DPL for automatic listing of Skills may be cool, but we can create all list manually without big hassle. The skills are not changing very often so it won't be much of a problem.
 * New categories:
 * Category:Uniques / Category:Unique items / Category:Named items / ??? - we should add another category for Unique items. I know, there is only "Big Bertha", but more items can be added in the future (yeah, the category could be added in the future as well... )
 * Category:Sets / Category:Set items / Category:Item sets / ??? - another category which should list articles about item sets. There is currently only the Purifier set, but I feel more will come in the future
 * Howgh...   ( These comments refer to Dashiva's version from 6 September 2008 of the proposal )
 * → Zarevak 21:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If both Commando and you feel that signature abilities and armor/weapon trainings are useful categories I won't stand in the way. Other comments:
 * For 'Recruit' and 'Recruit skills', I'm thinking Recruit can contain direct skills, armor and weapons as well as the recruit page. Recruit skills can contain every skill a Recruit can access.
 * I'm not sure we need to subdivide special equipment. Veteran awards has its own page, and event items are not something you seek out, you either join the event or miss it. And if we decide to, we can Do It Later (tm).
 * I can see uniques and sets becoming useful later, but I suggest we leave them for now. Save it until we need it, etc.
 * I've updated the proposal somewhat. - Dashiva (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Category:Weapon trainings and Category:Armor trainings - I suppose I hadn't really thought about the fact that there's really only these two types, with the single exception of Tools and the soon-to-be-removed Engineering skills. In that light it doesn't make much sense to subcategorise any further, so sure, may as well remove these too.
 * Category:Recruit - thinking about the class categories, the only things that will be in there are Recruit skills (Sprint, Firearms, Motor Assist Body Armor, etc), Recruit items (Pistol, Rifle, Motor Assist Armor, etc) and the Recruit article itself. I suppose it does make sense to flatten this down to a single category per class, with everything related to that class held in it.
 * Category:Recruit skills - if we flatten Category:Recruit as above there's no need for a Category:Recruit skills. What we could do is make Category:Recruit a subcategory of Category:Soldier and Category:Specialist, and in that way link the categories together logically.  People can "follow the tree" to see a list of all skills, items, etc available to each class.
 * I'd also agree with leaving uniques, nameds and sets to later, as there's not enough of them to worry about at the moment. When there's more we could easily create a category to hold them, but getting the basics sorted out is probably the most important thing at the moment.
 * I've updated the proposal again to show more clearly the above along with more information about what's expected to be in each category, as it's a bit difficult to visualise.
 * -> CommandoXXX 12:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow! In the last few days the previous proposal with around 75 categories was trimmed to the current version with just 22 categories (in the Characters section). That's what I call optimization
 * From structural point of view I don't have any objections to the current version.
 * From the content point of view I don't understand why article about Motor Assist Armor should be in the Category:Skills?
 * The biggest (but hopefully last) issue is the Skills/Abilities/Trainings naming. From the recently updated Skill and ability list article it seems the Trainings are the same thing as Skills (and Training article redirects to Skill). We should decide, how to handle this issue and update all related articles to reflect this decision.
 * My idea is to have Skills as general term for all Abilities and Trainings. Passive Skills should be alternative name (redirect) to Trainings because of the Image:Ability window.jpg. Signature abilities are subset of Abilities.
 * → Zarevak 13:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Round two
(Round refers to resetting the indentation. Nothing more. )


 * Removing weapon/armor trainings cats seems resolved.
 * I agree with the contents of Category:Recruit proposed above: skills, weapons and armor obtained with that specific class.
 * Recruit_skills should (if it exists) contain every skill a recruit can access (what I proposed earlier), but I am also fine with removing the category. I don't feel strongly either way.
 * I do feel strongly about having Recruit not be a subcategory of Soldier. We can easily get the same functionality by simply making a category header for the class categories, which displays a practical class tree.
 * I've updated the proposal, also removed the item that snuck itself into the skills examples.
 * I agree with Zarevak's nomenclature for skills. Especially since crafting skills are going away, that really simplifies it.

- Dashiva (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Things are looking pretty good.
 * Oops, yes, putting Motor Assist Armor in the Skills category was a typo, well spotted.
 * I'd agree with Skills as a general term for Abilities and Trainings, and putting Passive Skills as an redirect/alternative name to Trainings, and having Signature Abilities as a subset of Abilities.
 * The category header sounds like a good idea too. My main reason for suggesting sub-categorisation was wanting to ensure that someone browsing Category:Commando easily see and jump to Category:Soldier and Category:Recruit.  A category header might be a smarter way of doing it.
 * -> CommandoXXX 15:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If we're agreed on the categories for the Characters section, shall we start implementing it? I'd imagine most of it can be done by manipulation of the templates.  I'm happy to make a start on it if we're all happy with the current proposal?
 * As for the Items section, should we start discussing that now on the basis of what has been announced so far about the Engineering changes? Personally I think we could come up with a workable Items category system based on what we already know.  It's likely to be months before the new crafting system goes live and we don't want to be waiting that long before we sort out the category list.
 * By the looks of things, the only major differences as far as our current category proposal goes will be:
 * Removal of Category:Modification components (it only has a single article anyway)
 * Removal of Category:Thermodynamics, Category:Photonics, Category:Chemistry and Category:Genetics (keeping Category:Fabrication schematics, as these are still present in the new crafting system)
 * We can probably consolidate a few of the existing categories as well, and fill out some of the others by expanding certain articles. For example:
 * Do we need Category:Junk? Unless we're going to actually create an article for every junk item it doesn't seem worthwhile.  I'd imagine there'd just be a single "Junk/Vendor trash" article listing every vendor trash item.
 * Shouldn't there be a separate article for each Grenade type? Currently the article is just a huge table that doesn't even list the damage done by each level of grenade.  This should really be expanded into several articles which can all be listed under Category:Explosives.  Each type of grenade could have a single article which lists grenade level, character level required, damage and cost (can grenades be purchased from vendors?) in one section and crafting details for each rank in a second section.  Grenades would then be an overview linking to the different grenade articles.
 * The above would probably make sense for other articles as well. Rather than having a huge crafting table in Ammunition, split the table so that each type of ammunition has its own crafting table.  The same could be done for every fabricated item.  This would completely remove the need for a Schematics category.
 * We have individual articles for Pyramidine Nucleotides, Purine Nucleotides, etc and a single Fabrication components article. We'd probably be better merging the individual articles into a single Nucleotides article, a single Micromech article and a single Mechanical/Electical Components article and having Fabrication components as an overview.
 * Instead of Special equipment we could have Special items. This could list Holiday Hat, Kirin Mask and the items received from the Soyuz Salvage mission series, plus items like the various Mini-pets (which don't really need their own category).
 * I've updated the Items section of the proposal to show the ideas I've got for how this could be done, adding in examples of what would be in each category.
 * -> CommandoXXX 11:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Characters section has a green light from me - I don't see any more issues with it anymore
 * For the Items section I was afraid that we still had all the recipe article on the wiki, but looking at the Deletion log I see Dashiva already deleted all such articles in January
 * Category:Special items seems to me to be the best name so far.
 * Category:Junk - I was planning on adding some information what items you can get from which enemies and list their value. You are right this can be done on single page with links from different enemy pages.
 * Only problem is when someone decides to write some lore about a few Junk items. Although Eloh Resonator is mission item it shows good article about one single item.
 * TBD: The name of the Junk article
 * Unique items: Good idea to categorize them into their respective type-based categories, but I'd still them to have special category in the future, because I'm for one is a collector and I'd like to see all the Unique items at once, in one category... (this is low priority, but I saw the "Later: Possibly add 'unique items' subcategory. " line missing in the current version)
 * Category:Crafting - dividing it into three categories is good.
 * I don't know what will happen to the Fabrication schematics, but as you said we can add crafting information to each product article simplifying the fabrication articles and removing related categories.
 * From what I know about the new crafting prototype there are two types of items: Armor modules and Weapon modules. Each module has one effect and 5 quality levels (each with different icon and strength of the effect). If we create one article about each module it's ideal to have these two categories. If we somehow create one or two articles with all the modules listed we don't need them. Because of the module count I'm for one article about each module which can also contain tips for using them.
 * Category:Consumables - I'm not a big fun of its subcategories - mainly the Category:Combat consumables.
 * I've just checked Medical vendor and his goods consist of: Ammunition (all kinds), Micromechs, Pharmaceuticals (is this ammmo?), Scrap Metal, Adrenaline Boosters, Power Chargers, Armor Chargers, both Personal Waypoints, Squad Waypoints, Med Packs, Res Trauma Kits, Healing Discs (tool), Repair Tools (tool) and EMP Bombs. If we don't count the Specialist's tools everything else are consumables needed for the firefight. Armor paint, Grenades, Attribute Respec Tokens, Skill Respec Tokens, Experience Boosters and special reward items (eg., , Fireworks, ...) are few more consumables available in the game. How would you subcategorize them? Waypoints are problematic; Scrap Metal and Micromechs are problematic; Armor Paint is problematic; Respec Tokens and XP Booster are problematic; ...
 * I for one would like to see just two categories:
 * Category:Ammunition containing items which are automatically used by another activity (Weapons are using Ammunition; Skills are using Micromechs or Scrap Metal)
 * Category:Consumables containing items which are used by the user actively to get some result. Med Packs are used to replenish life; Soyuz ISS Model Rocket is used to launch the model rocket into air; Respec Tokens are used to get training points back; Emote gift packages are used for learning new emotes (now sure with this one)
 * With this in mind I'm not sure anymore if Category:Ammunition should be subcategory of Category:Consumables or they should be on the same level...
 * Oups, my indentation has gone wild. I'm sorry, I need sleep...
 * → Zarevak 00:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

On to the items
(Another reset, ho ho ho.)

I'm mostly satisfied with the current proposal for items. However, I would like a full (or at least more detailed) demonstration of which items go into which of the categories Fabrication_materials, Ammunition and Consumables. It feels like there's going to be some overlap, and I want to make sure we can agree to a sorting. - Dashiva (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As you've probably noticed from the Recent Changes spam, I've updated the templates and major non-template articles and created the categories for the Characters category update. I'll try and make sure none have slipped through the net in a bit, and I still need to mark all the obsolete category pages for deletion.
 * One problem - although the templates are updated and the pages themselves show as being in the right category, the category pages don't contain the right articles. I'm guessing if I did a null edit on the articles they'd display properly but I don't really want to have to null edit every single class, training, ability, weapon and armor article...  Is there a way to force a category refresh or do we just have to wait?
 * Okay, back to Items. The latest outline looks good, though I'm a bit worried that Category:Consumables is a little overcrowded.  As far as I can tell, the following should be in each category:
 * Category:Fabrication materials - Pigments, Bonding Agent, Fabrication components, Micromech, Nucleotides, Mechanical/Electrical Components, Pharmaceuticals (7 articles)
 * Category:Ammunition - Ammunition, Cartridges, Power Cells, Canister Ammunition, Rockets, Pharmaceuticals, Micromech, Scrap Metal (8 articles)
 * Category:Consumables - Consumables, Adrenaline Boosters, Power Chargers, Armor Chargers, Personal Waypoints, Squad Waypoints, Med Packs, Res Trauma Kits, EMP Bombs, Armor paint, Grenades, Concussion Grenades, Cryogenic Grenades, EMP Grenades, Fragmentation Grenades, Incendiary Grenades, Attribute Respec Tokens, Skill Respec Tokens, Experience Boosters, Firecrackers, Fireworks, every emote-gaining consumable (at least 5 veteran reward emotes and 7 special emotes), every event consumable (Soyuz ISS Model Rocket, etc), ... (at least 35 articles)
 * Personally I think Consumables is big and varied enough to subcategorise at least some of the articles within it, but it could be kept how it is if you think it's still a useful category without subcategorisation.
 * Category:Junk - I hadn't thought about people creating lore items for junk articles, but yeah, I suppose that could happen. It's sensible for Machina Control Chip to have its own article even though it's a junk item.  The only names I can think of are "Junk" or "Vendor trash", though.
 * -> CommandoXXX 12:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good work CommandoXXX! The caching on different levels is complicating things and as far as I know there is no other way how to process Job queue faster then using null edits. According to Special:Statistics we have around 1500 jobs queued. Dashiva had a null edit bot and maybe he can run it after we finish all the changes on the templates.
 * Back to the items section and consumables problem. You are right the category contains very large number of different items, but these items are in very small groups. There are 3 waypoints (we have only 2 articles). There are 2 Respec Tokens or 3 Prestige based bonus Tokens. There are 2 medical items - Med Packs and Res Trauma Kits. There are 4 healing items used in the heat of the battle (Adrenaline Booster, Power & Armor Charger, Med Pack). There are 7 explosives (EMP Bomb + 5 Granade types + general Grenade article). There are many event/revard items (emotes, Shadow title, pets, fireworks, rocket model)
 * I can see Special consumables category for all the event/bonus items. Nobody would use any of them in the heat of battle. Armor paint can move to this category as well. This would lower the article count to 18.
 * Other groups contain just few items/articles and IMHO flat category would be better.
 * → Zarevak 13:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Category:Rewards would be a better name for the event/bonus items? Armor paint would have to go back to Category:Consumables but 19 articles isn't too much, and it would then contain all the ones that can be purchased from vendors or crafted.  Category:Rewards would contain everything that's awarded based on special event quests, buying the collector's edition, veterency, etc, and would probably remove the need for Category:Special items since that could probably all go into the same category.
 * -> CommandoXXX 13:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good idea putting all special items together, but then we lose the Consumables idea of all items that are actively used by the user. Also in the one year veteran program there are two useful items planned: Resupply Beacon and Dropship Extraction Beacon. These two are rewards but are both usable during normal gameplay. I would like them to be in general Category:Consumables section because of their usefulness even when they are rewards.
 * → Zarevak 14:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, true, but I'd say there's already a big difference in that consumable rewards can only be used once (because you can generally only get them once), while regular consumables can be used as many times as you buy/craft them. I'd say the fact that they're rewards is a more important distinction than the fact that they're consumables, and it fits in with the idea of having a single category containing all the special rewards available in the game (for those that want to "catch them all" ).
 * As for the special one-year veteran rewards, they're not really consumables, I don't think? Since they can be used repeatedly (though only once per hour) and aren't "consumed" it would be strange to put them down as Consumables, but would make sense to have them as Rewards.  Of course, not having seen them I can't be sure that's how they work, but I'm not sure how you'd get a re-useable consumable that can't be purchased from a vendor, unless you have to craft them like armor paint.  But then you'd have the "schematic" to classify, and we're removing the Schematics categories...
 * -> CommandoXXX 15:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Round four?
I think we've kind of stalled here.

I've thought about it some more and I do think we'd be better off separating the rewards, which are (usually) one-time items that, once consumed or destroyed, you cannot get back, into a single category (Category:Rewards). Then have Category:Consumables for all those items which are directly used/activated by the player and are consumed in the process and which can easily be purchased and used again. I don't think there's a great deal of benefit in categorising an item which you can only ever use once as a consumable, even though technically it is.

The only 'difficult to categorise' item under that scheme would be Clone Credit, as it's a consumable and a reward but you can get several of them by completing ToOs. I'd say it should be classed as a reward since there is a limit to how many you can get of them, and people have no reason to stockpile them and use them all at a specific time (same as with the other consumable rewards like the ones that teach emotes, but completely different to Armor Chargers and Grenades).

I've updated the proposal again to reflect these ideas - what do people think? -> CommandoXXX 16:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we should put off items until the crafting system is somewhat stable. Until then, I consider Armor, Tools and Weapons to be stable enough for implementation, as well as Crafting as a catchall without further subcategories. - Dashiva (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Back to drawing board?
With the recent update of the PTS version of Tabula Rasa to 1.13.2.0 there were two changes announced affecting our category system. Source: Deployment 13 - Patchnotes & Known Issues - September 2008 (PTS) As for the crafting subtree of items: There are also Tool modules. I'll update both proposals to reflect latest changes... Let's do not implement them until D13 goes live, because everything can still change. → Zarevak 07:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Additional item sets have been added which will drop off all creatures in the game. Some creatures have a higher drop chance then others.
 * We should create article about the current Purifier set and start to think about the Category:Item sets
 * 1) Ability names consistent across all abilities
 * This complicates matters much more, because now the game contains Abilities and (Passive) Skills (all Trainings were renamed to Skills). This contradicts our system we developed a few weeks ago. The Category:Trainings should be renamed to Category:Skills in the system and we need new general term for Skills and Abilities.


 * Agreed on starting item sets. Two proposals for the renaming:
 * Skills and abilities contains skills + abilities
 * Skills contains passive skills + abilities
 * - Dashiva (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just when we think we have everything sorted out they go and change it all. I'm sure they're reading this and just want to make our lives difficult!
 * Skills - Personally I'd go for Dashiva's second suggestion - having the word "and" in a category name just seems wrong to me, somehow, and it makes sense to divide them in the same way they're named - Passive Skills and Abilities. On the downside I can see some confusion arising from this, when people get the terms Skill and Passive Skill confused, but provided that we keep an eye on the usage of these terms in our articles I think we'd be okay.
 * Item sets - If more sets are being put into the game then yes, I'd agree we ought to have a category for them. I'm assuming we just want one article per set, which lists information about all the parts of the set, rather than an article for each piece?  The article can then be in Category:Item sets and Category:Armor.  I'd assume all item sets are going to be armor to begin with, but I suppose it's possible there'll be Series 3 pistol sets or something like that, so I'd suggest not having Category:Item sets as a subcategory of Category:Armor and instead having articles be a part of both categories.
 * And yes, definitely agree about not implementing these changes until D13 goes live, as they could easily change it all. Again.
 * -> CommandoXXX 13:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sets: Yeah, just one article per set. AFAIK all the items in the set have the same set bonuses. When trying to craft set items in the new crafting system it looks like it is (blue) weapon/armor with one special set module, which cannot be taken out (tested only with the armor rewards from Velon Hollow missions). The Purifier set contains weapons as well - I saw people on Global chat channel selling them - they are random drops from enemies in Velon Hollow. I don't know if all set items are based on blue items or could there be green and violet versions as well (set items are yellow - rarity could be determined by armor/damage values)
 * Skills: Personally I prefer the Skills and abilities version. Third idea is to leave out the general category altogether and have Category:Skills and Category:Abilities children of the main Category:Characters without any other connection to each other.
 * Armor skills: Another problem we will probably encounter with the new skill naming is the removal of the word "Body" from Armor related skills:
 * Example: (skill article) is renamed to  (currently article about the armor items)
 * → Zarevak 15:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Then I suppose we can finally merge them. There have been a lot of talk about that over the year(s). - Dashiva (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sets - if these can contain both weapons and armor in the same set, perhaps they should just be in Category:Item sets and not Category:Armor or Category:Weapons? Would it be too complicated to have a single article in all three categories?
 * Skills - I think perhaps we'd be best off not having a general category at all, then, and keeping Skills and Abilities separate. Having a single article being in both Category:Skills and abilities and Category:Abilities just looks messy to me.  I can't really think of any particular need to have a category that contains both.
 * Armor skills - meh, more changes. We could merge them, but if we merge the training and armor articles shouldn't we also merge the training and weapon articles?  Personally I think they should be kept separate, for the same reason that there is both a Net Gun article and a Net Gun (training) article.  Some weapons trainings cover more than one weapon (i.e Firearms and Launchers), and I think it would be more consistent if we treated all armor, weapon and tool trainings as separate articles to the items themselves.  The existing Reflective Body Armor article could simply be renamed Reflective Armor (skill).  On the same note, we should rename articles like Net Gun (training) to Net Gun (skill).
 * -> CommandoXXX 11:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)