Forum:Reworking how we categorize things

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Reworking how we categorize things
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 19 December 2010 by Aburnett.

When the RelatedPagesModule was added approximately a week ago, it showed a major flaw in our category system: we tend to organize things by what they are (items, monsters, NPCs...) instead of their use or location. For example, Chimp ice and Chimp ice chimp obviously are very related, but by looking at our current categories you would not know they had anything in common. By the same token, a Raw admiral pie and a Paraleather torn bag have very little in common, but the only category they have is Category:Items.

So, what am I proposing? We should create "content" categories, which would be based on individual quests, locations, activities, or other things in RuneScaoe, See Category:Do No Evil or Category:Nardah for some examples. The "thing" categories (items, shops, quests...) would stay in place. For the quest categories we would add things that are used only in a small number of quests: for example, we would include Barrel of monkeys in Category:Do No Evil because it's only used there, but not Teak plank, because it has many other uses besides that one quest. The same goes for NPCs and monstesr.

I think this would be quite helpful because it would make our categories useful to readers. In their current state, the categories we use tend to be nearly useless and not very descriptive. The only downside I can see to this proposal is that it could make the list of categories at the end of a page too long; however, the vast majority of pages would have no more than one or two "content" categories.

If you have any other ideas on how to fix our category ststem or other ways we could modify this, feel free to share them.


Support - Per above. ʞooɔ 21:29, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Though I think you need to revamp the quest guidelines somewhat. I'd suggest adding the categories to an item if it is significantly involved in a few quests. This means that things like, say, the Enchanted key, which is involved in Making History and Meeting History and just about nothing else, does not get left out of categories simply because it is involved in more than one quest, while something like the Air talisman does not get categorized into Rune Mysteries because it is involved only in that quest. --LiquidTalk 21:39, December 9, 2010 (UTC)


Strong support - It's really not that easy for new users to navigate. I've seen some people putting a "See also" section on pages, but this is way better. As for the quests, I agree that it should be specific items like the barrel of monkeys, that get added, but I suggest that things involved with entire series get put in a category for the quest series, and the bits of the series form subcategories. So, for instance, Korasi would go in {{Category:Void Knights Quest Series}} and Void leech would go in {{Category:A Void Dance}}, but inside the {{Category:Void Knights Quest Series}}. Did that make sense, or am I being obscure? Real Crazy 21:44, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

My only problem with that is that there would only be about five things in that category. ʞooɔ 22:11, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support under condition - I support only if these small categories are subcategories of the appropriate parent category. Then it will be easier to view categories. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 21:59, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Well, they're not particularly small. Most of them have between 20 and 30 pages. What do you mean by a subcategory? Part of Category:Quests? ʞooɔ 22:10, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, of course. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 22:35, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
The problem with that is that there would be 170 subcategories at the top of Category:Quests. ʞooɔ 22:37, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
Idea: Instead of making Do No Evil part of quests, how about Do No Evil is part of Category:Do_No_Evil. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 22:39, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
It's still a quest, though. ʞooɔ 22:45, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
The problem with that is that there would be 170 subcategories at the top of Category:Quests. ~~(Burnt [email protected] pl0x). Erm... too bad. It's for the better good. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 23:25, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
For the third time today, I have no idea what you're talking about. ʞooɔ 23:27, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - More categorisation the better. (but does this mean more cook spam?) Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 04:16, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Make things be more related in categories instead of being vastly vague SardominSign Me! 04:31, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Zupport - Easier navigation = Happier viewers = More new accounts = More established editors (maybe) = Better content = =D Matt (t) 04:45, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support more cookspam - Better navigation, that's enough to support. 222 talk 05:35, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support - Brilliant idea, easy navigation... As long as you do the work... LordDarkPhantom 19:17, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Cannot hurt. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 20:25, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

support - Cook, you really like spamming the RC don't you?Lol JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 13:17, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I'll probably be the only opposer here, but meh. I don't like the idea of categorizing them for navigation, categories should only be used for editing purposes only if you ask me. We already have navigational templates and see also parts for navigation, I don't see what the point of this is. bad_fetustalk 15:57, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

The reason see also and navbars would not work is because a lot of the time, there are too many pages. for that. If we did see also oftentimes it would take up more than half the page, and the navbar would be disorganized and would take much longer than categories. Do you have any reason why we should use categories only for editing? What would that mean for the current categories we have (look at Category:Content.) ʞooɔ 18:40, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the reason for using categories for navigation. I'd be very surprised if more than 5% of our users even notice them. Navbars let the reader stay on the same page, look better, and do the same job. The only problem you brought up is the length. Just split the navbars like it was done on clue scroll rewards. Problem solved. bad_fetustalk 20:25, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
The difference between TT items and quest things is that the quest things are not easily divided into different groupings in most cases. Even if we cut down the navbar into multiple things, there would be ones that are not completely related there, and some that are related that aren't there. And you are correct that many people don't use the categories; I'm trying to change that. ʞooɔ 20:35, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - Per nom. HaloTalk 01:17, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As long as it doesn't become like the eq2 wiki. Quest point cape.pngTalk Newbie856 edit count Nomad guideMusic icon.png 02:12, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per above. Suppa chuppa Talk 02:14, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The problem lies in the poor implementation of the concept Wikia has devised NOT in the way we categorise pages --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 14:15, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

We've already taken off the RelatedPages module, so forget about using that in an argument. It's just making categorisation a tiny bit easier, and making use of something we're barely using at the moment. Real Crazy

Closed - Proposal will be implemented. --Aburnett(Talk) 17:15, December 19, 2010 (UTC)