FANDOM


Line 73: Line 73:
   
 
'''Resolution?''' It seems most people are either "on the fence" or want to keep this, so what's the final resolution? I'd like to get this resolved before everyone forgets about it. ~ [[User:Karuberu|Karuberu]] 13:14, 11 February 2007 (EST)
 
'''Resolution?''' It seems most people are either "on the fence" or want to keep this, so what's the final resolution? I'd like to get this resolved before everyone forgets about it. ~ [[User:Karuberu|Karuberu]] 13:14, 11 February 2007 (EST)
  +
  +
'''Comment:''' My 2 cents: No need for categories. It's easy enough to have a page called "Drinks" listing all the drinks, what kind of drinks, even what stat bonuses they give if someone wanted to take the time. The only thing that making it a category does is add yet another link to a "drinks" page after the auction house link to "drinks." If that makes sense... But anyways, I have to say, I don't see a true benefit to this at this point in time. Maybe if each food category had more than 100 entries I might think differently, but if I'm thinking correctly, the very max will probably be around 75 items at the very very max, and an average of probably about 40 items per food group. Don't think it's worth it. I'm sorry!!!! --[[User:Rixie|Rixie]] 13:42, 11 February 2007 (EST)

Revision as of 18:42, February 11, 2007

Template:Archive box

Subcategories

I think we should make subcategories for all the AH meal categories:

It'd make searching for similar foods a lot easier. Drinks is already made, so we'd only have to make the other five.

Tell me what you think. ~ Karuberu 23:17, 15 January 2007 (EST)

P.S. The category names were taken from the auto-translator, so I think they're the full versions of the ones on the AH window. ~ Karuberu 23:20, 15 January 2007 (EST)

You can't have the & in the Breads and Sweet article name, it messes up the page coding. I'm not sure if this is a good idea... --Chrisjander 23:37, 15 January 2007 (EST)

While I do like the idea of this but I see its faults as well. Maybe as Subpages but still I have an inkling that this was discussed before and rejected... Not sure... --Nynaeve 23:38, 15 January 2007 (EST)

Ok, changed to "Breads and Rice" (or maybe it should be "Breads And Rice"?). I don't see any other problems with this, since they'd just be subcategories of food (they wouldn't replace the food category) and would probably be some help to people looking for the best of a type of food.

And sorry if this was discussed before, I didn't know. ~ Karuberu 01:28, 16 January 2007 (EST)

Okay, recently a category was added for Breads and Rice, the following AfD was started, but since the discussion originated here, I am posting the AfD here and will hopefully have people post the continuation of the AfD here as well to get this discussion at its source:: --Nynaeve 00:57, 29 January 2007 (EST)

Article for Deletion for Category talk:Breads and Rice

Delete: This page was just created. Copying all the work from the Breads and Rice page onto this new shiny Category. This was made with no talk or discussion with the community or with anyone. Just one person coming along and deciding we need to categorize the foods. In the past I recall a discussion that was about this occuring and being voted against, the different food groups really do not need to be categorized, its a bit much. I can not find the original discussion on it at the moment - but I do recall it.

I am putting this up for deletion for many reasons. One, because no credit was given to the original creators. Two, I do not feel that the different foods need a category seeing as they all list on their pages where they come from in the How to Obtain Section. If you wanted to put lists of what is included in each section on the pages, that is one thing, but making a category out of it is wholely unneccessary. (See Breads and Rice, the table that was made for that is more than suffecient) As one of the admins has said in the past month - we really dont need any more categories... I think we covered everything that needs one as of right now. --Nynaeve 21:57, 28 January 2007 (EST)

Keep: It is being discussed, at the Food talk page, if you recall. Without a link to that "previous decision" that you "recall," this needs to be discussed again before being put to rest. Wikipedia has many categories for pages, simply because it might be usefull to someone looking for lists of similar articles (see Wikipedia:Categorization). Likewise, I think FFXIclopedia should have any categories that might prove helpfull to someone (hopefully many people) looking for lists of similar articles (in this case, items). If not the auction house categories, then maybe a category for food with similar stats (acc/DEX food, att/STR food, MP+ food), but it'd likely end up very similar to the AH food categories.

Also, you don't need to provide credit to wiki editors in any wiki article (GNU Free Documentation License 1.2), so copy & pasting old articles to new ones is perfectly acceptable. ~ Karuberu 23:08, 28 January 2007 (EST)

Comment: No resolution occured in that discussion Karu. Also - for the last time, we are not wikipedia - we are FFXIclopedia. We have different rules and policies. What applies to them does not apply to us. Please stop saying what is acceptable there is here - because it isn't. The only people who discussed it with you on the foods page were chris and I and upon further consideration I think that the lists that Waku is putting on the pages is more than adequate. I do not think, as stated above, that categorizing all this is necessary. --Nynaeve 23:18, 28 January 2007 (EST)
Comment: I wasn't saying FFXIclopedia is the same as Wikipedia, or that thier rules apply here. I was just supporting my idea with Wikipedia's policy, which is supported by thier many contributers. ~ Karuberu 23:53, 28 January 2007 (EST)
Comment: I really do not understand you using other sites policy to support your statements seeing as its invalid here, but whatever. You should have read Mierin's post on the forums stating his keen distate and the unwantedness of new unneccessary categories. --Nynaeve 00:01, 29 January 2007 (EST)
Comment: I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was just using Wikipedia as a source because there are rarely more than three or four people discussing something, so I was boosting my side of the conversation, not with the site's policy, but with the similar ideas of the people of Wikipedia, which support the site's policy (I hope you can understand that, but if not, just ignore it). ~ Karuberu 00:32, 29 January 2007 (EST)

Comment: While we have no contractual obligation to provide credit to wiki editors, I'm sure you and I would be irritated (to say the least) if someone took a page that we worked hard on to create, then copied and pasted the info onto a new page, making it look like they did all the work. It's common courtesy to keep the chain of the page history intact. Moves from an article to a category should be thoroughly discussed, to give the community the opportunity to make the decision to break the chain of contributions or not. I'm not convinced this article requires a category all it's own, especially if every item that it pertains to already links to it (via the Auction House Category line). I think just the article itself, with a list of all the bread and rice items, will suffice for all the organization we need. Also, as said many times elsewhere, we are not Wikipedia. We have neither their structure, nor their resources. --Chrisjander 23:15, 28 January 2007 (EST)

Comment: Ah, yeah, I forgot about the history. I could understand people being upset about that (personally, I wouldn't care, but that's beside the point).
As for the categories: By your logic, no page should be categorized if it has a link to a "category-eske" page (a page with a listing, but isn't a category) on it. So then, there's no need for an armor category, or a weapons category, or almost any of the other item categories currently existing. Sorry for being a little harsh-toned, but if I'm not, then noone responds. ~ Karuberu 23:53, 28 January 2007 (EST)
Comment: I just wanna throw this out there- you really shouldn't call yourself "a free-content wikipedia" right on the front page if you are neither affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation nor considering any of their policies for influence on your own. As you have said this site really has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia- it just happens to run on the same software. It would be a simple fix to just change it to "a free-content wiki" instead, and at least partial save yourself from this confusion in the future. --Toksyuryel 22:01, 31 January 2007 (EST)
Agreed. Done.--Gahoo 09:58, 1 February 2007 (EST)

Comment:I actually like the way Category:Drinks looks. I wouldn't mind having categories for the different food categories. It groups together different foods with similar effects. --Chrisjander 22:57, 30 January 2007 (EST)

Comment: Drinks could be a single page - it doesn't have to be categorized to look like that. I like the tables on those pages but I am not a fan of the categorization - adding something to each page at the end when its right there in how to obtain and when you click it you come to the page and if the page lists them all - I dont see the need. --Nynaeve 23:10, 30 January 2007 (EST)

Comment: Hm.. Well, I kind of like the idea of pages for the subcategories of foods; it's kind of a pain scrolling through the whole Category:Cooking page to locate and compare the effects of the different kinds of sushi, or sushi with other seafood or meat dishes, for example. If the pages for the subcategories could list out the effects of the foods as well, so that they could be compared at a glance, then I think the pages would be very useful. The Food Categories table (which I've felt has been too vague to be of much help) over on the Cooking page could be changed to make it easy to access the subcategory pages as well. Like equipment pages.. only for food. It'd be interesting to see something like that for Medicines as well. --Lunarcurtain 05:23, 31 January 2007 (EST)

Comment: Upon further review, this kind of organization can occur without the use of categories. I'm working on a slightly altered look for drinks in my sandbox. I think this sort of thing could be applied to the other food "categories" without actually making them wiki categories. The colors are still being played around with though... --Chrisjander 09:29, 31 January 2007 (EST)

Keep/Comments: A lot going on here and I hadn't seen this before. Few thoughts:

  1. I love CJ's sandbox. Maybe the left area can even be links such that you can hop around all AH categories via that "template" (even armor/weapon pages?).
  2. I like the current food subpages which "categorize" types of the food, i.e. Soups, Drinks, Breads and Rice and Sweets. I think this should be done for Seafood, Meat and Eggs, and Vegetables.
  3. I then think each page could be revised so that it both (a) groups like foods together (i.e. Juice, Au Lait and "Food" from the Drinks page and (b) also provide the stats (like the Seafood page. This would provide the most useful information and a way to compare similar foods.
  4. Finally I think subcategories are ok in this instance. SE routinely adds new foods, so if the lists are out of date at least they will appear in the subcategory.
  5. I also think Medicines, Scrolls and Fish AH categories should follow the above.
  6. Finally if they are called "xxx Dishes" we can move the pages to use the correct terminology. There should be redirects for the short form.

--Gahoo 09:50, 31 January 2007 (EST)

Comments: Thanks ^^. I checked it out, the Auto-Trans does list those as "Meat Dishes" etc (I think redirects would be appropriate in this case). I'd be happy to tag my "template" on all the other "AH category" pages (even the armor and weapons if we feel like it). I want to work out the look first though. Feel free to play around with it in the sandbox, I'll look at it when I get back from class. --Chrisjander 10:32, 31 January 2007 (EST)
I am fond of the formatting in User:Chrisjander/Sandbox. I think that the additions of the tables are extremely helpful... I am still against Categories - everyone is saying subcategories but in reality - they would still be categories and I don't think they are needed for the reasons I have listed above. >.>' And yes I was going to put links in the Sandbox earlier but Wiki kept timing out on me last night so I gave up since I couldnt even hit Show Preview to see how it worked... Damn lag and errors >.>; --Nynaeve 19:28, 31 January 2007 (EST)

Keep: Categories are a powerful orginizational tool and I fail to see what is so horrible about having a lot of them if they are properly utilized and organized. A lot of decisions I see seem to come purely from personal administrative preferance rather than a careful and objective examination of the facts. If someone could give even one good reason (good meaning not "My preferance/feelings about this is..." or "This was discussed previously, but I won't be telling you when, where, or if that discussion is still or ever was relevant.") why the number of categories should be kept low, that doesn't stem from sheer laziness, I would absolutely love to hear it. --Toksyuryel 22:01, 31 January 2007 (EST)

Comment: Our personal preference of avoiding unnecessary categories stems from a few things. We don't want categories that are useless (I.E. Category:Items... what organization would this provide except make a list that's entirely too long and nearly impossible to format). Then there are the people that will give 5 categories to something that deserves one or two, such as giving a quest the categories Quests, Kazham Quests, Kazham Quests Fame 2, NPC Kopopo Quests, Gil Reward Quests, etc. Some people just like to make up categories that just complicate the organization process. That doesn't mean they all do, so we try to discuss whether it serves a very useful organizational purpose before we implement it. As it stands, some of us aren't yet convinced (although community preference may override our objections) that food needs subcategories when a single article would suffice. I'm personally on the fence about this, although I do want some sort of page, category or article, that helps organize these foods together in some way. --Chrisjander 10:27, 1 February 2007 (EST)

Comment: I like how Categories help organize things, but I understand fully what might happen if you too many. I guess, even though I started this conversation again by creating the Breads and Rice Category, I'm on the fence about the use of it. Maybe all the pages need is a little more updating and internal organization. --WashuOtaku 16:18, 1 February 2007 (EST)

Resolution? It seems most people are either "on the fence" or want to keep this, so what's the final resolution? I'd like to get this resolved before everyone forgets about it. ~ Karuberu 13:14, 11 February 2007 (EST)

Comment: My 2 cents: No need for categories. It's easy enough to have a page called "Drinks" listing all the drinks, what kind of drinks, even what stat bonuses they give if someone wanted to take the time. The only thing that making it a category does is add yet another link to a "drinks" page after the auction house link to "drinks." If that makes sense... But anyways, I have to say, I don't see a true benefit to this at this point in time. Maybe if each food category had more than 100 entries I might think differently, but if I'm thinking correctly, the very max will probably be around 75 items at the very very max, and an average of probably about 40 items per food group. Don't think it's worth it. I'm sorry!!!! --Rixie 13:42, 11 February 2007 (EST)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.