Template talk:Armor

Armor by class categories?
Hi, do we really need Category: Armor by class category and its subcategories? All these categories contain just one article and AFAIK it won't change in the near future in any way. I know, category system here on Tarapedia is weird and not yet standardized. There are a few proposals, but none was finished and implemented. After previous discussions personally I'm against categories with just one article. Your thoughts?

Category proposals and discussions (all linked from my user page): → Zarevak 17:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * TaRapedia talk:Formatting/Article names
 * User talk:Zarevak/Categories
 * TaRapedia:Formatting/Classes
 * Proposals:
 * User:Zarevak/Categories
 * User:Dashiva/Categories
 * User:TABULA-TABULA-Asdef

PS: Please feel free to comment the proposals or create your own category system proposal


 * Yeah, I know what you mean, when I finished it it wasn't quite how I expected it to look. The main reason I did it was because the class articles (like Ranger) all say "See also Class armor category" but those pages didn't exist and would have been empty even if they did exist (since the Armor template didn't put it into a category).
 * What I'd expected was to end up with the categories listing all available armor for that class - so, for example, if you looked up Category:Sapper armor from the Sapper page it would list not just Mech armor, but also Hazmat and Motor Assist, as these are all armors that are available to the Sapper class. I think that'd be really useful to newcomers to the game, to point out that yes, you might be a Sapper (or an Engineer or whatever) but you do have more choice than just Mech armor.
 * Unfortunately it didn't quite work out that way... Do you think having this would be helpful?  And if so is there an easy way to do it other than editing each Armor page and adding the extra class categories?
 * CommandoXXX 18:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I had a bit of a play around today and made some changes that make the categories look a little bit more how I expected them to when I set them up. I think it makes the whole thing a bit more useful, but the code is more complex than I'd wanted it to be as it involves both an include and some DPL to generate the full list of armor on each page.
 * I originally wanted to use a single line of DPL to generate the lot, meaning no include necessary, but I couldn't figure out quite how to use DPL to recurse down the line automatically. The alternative would be to put the DPL output into a section and pull out the section from each page instead of using an inherit, but again, I couldn't work out how to do that.  I might have another look tomorrow because it would make things a lot simpler.  But as an example of what I was aiming for, what do you think?  Is it useful?  Is it appropriate content for a Category page?  Let me know what you think.
 * Pages changed: Category:Recruit armor, Category:Specialist armor, Category:Sapper armor, Category:Specialist armor
 * → CommandoXXX 16:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I had another go at this and found a slightly cleaner way to do it. It's still not recursive but it uses sections rather than standard includes.  This also has the helpful side-effect of removing unwanted blank lines.
 * The code is fairly simple and could probably be used on other pages as well. For example, the main Demolitionist page could look up information on inherited skills and trainings and list them in italics above the ones specific to that class.  But again, the question is "is it appropriate for a Category page, is it useful and should it perhaps be somewhere else?".
 * Plus, of course, does it generate too much extra load to be used in a situation which could easily be handled without DPL?
 * CommandoXXX 12:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm getting bit worried about your changes but I'm not planning to intervene yet because great ideas need a little mess before the final breakthrough.
 * I'm even more concerned about the category magic. I would be happier if we can get rid of including category articles into another ones and get rid of DPL magic there as well. Category articles should simply describe the category and point to the related general articles and they should not contain list of articles. This complicates too many things. If you want to state that Spy can use Stealth Body Armor, Reflective Body Armor and Motor Assist Body Armor it is better to do so on the Spy article.
 * Just a note about DPL. Please don't overuse this feature, as it generates higher load on the database servers and creates problems with caching. After you are finished with your DPLs add allowcachedresults=true to allow caching and lower the server load. For more information please take a look at these two pages:
 * w:c:help:Help:DynamicPageList
 * w:c:help:Help:Using_DynamicPageList_Effectively
 * → Zarevak 13:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, yes, it would make more sense for that information to be somewhere other than the category page. In that case, should the category links be removed from the individual class pages?  For example, Spy has a list of abilities and then a link that says "See also: Spy Class Abilities category" which links to a category that has exactly the same list.  It makes sense to have this link if the category is going to list all abilities available to a Spy (including those inherited from root classes), but it seems a little pointless to provide a link if the category isn't going to give any extra information at all.
 * I do think the categories serve a purpose as they're available for inclusion on other pages. For example it would be much less straightforward to construct a complete list of all abilities available to the Spy if there wasn't a Category:Spy Class Abilities category and a Category:Sapper Class Abilities category.  And if there are categories for the abilities it makes sense for there also to be a category for the trainings, armor and weapons available to each class even if the category has only one entry.  As an example, if there was only one mission in an instance we'd still want a category saying what missions were in that instance - we wouldn't delete it on the basis that it only contained one article.
 * I'll delete the DPL lists from the categories (they were only really there as a demonstration anyway, pending discussion here on whether it was worthwhile) but I think the "Armor by class" category should exist for the same reason that the "Abilities by class" category exists - for completeness and for reference and list creation.
 * I didn't realise allowcachedresults was a per-call setting, I'd thought it must be a site wide setting. I'll add it to the DPL calls I put into the Armor articles, though since those calls are simple single-page references I doubt there's much in the way of server load generated by them.
 * → CommandoXXX 15:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The link on class pages to the categories are very very old (they were created before I became an admin) and probably their idea was to function in the way you are describing it. We never got around to deal with these links and categories. For this to work correctly we would need to specify all 15 classes on all the articles of recruit abilities. Another reason was we don't even decided how the category system should look. For instance there were lengthy discussions for the general Skill, Trainings, Engineerings and Abilities category name. In one proposal the term was just "Skills". In another it was "Skills and Abilities" because of the name of the relevant ingame window.
 * I understand your argument for keeping the categories to be in the same system as other Ability related categories.
 * I propose: Let's finish the Skills categories system design first and then return to this issue
 * Please take a look at User:Zarevak/Categories (and User:Zarevak/Categories) and comment and or devise your own category system. After we decide how the category system should look, we can change the articles and do whatever necessary. I like your ideas and admire your work, but I'm afraid your effort could end up in vain if we decide to go another route in the future.
 * → Zarevak 17:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: We don't have to design whole category system at once, but I'd like to have some grounds on which to build the system.


 * If you're paying attention to that proposal again, how about commenting on my comments? - Dashiva (talk) 13:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)