Item talk:Kor Kaza Rune

Item namespace
Is there a specific reason why this page is not in the Item namespace? I saw in the page history that it was before, but Yoko5000 moved it back to the main namespace. &rArr; MrLizard (Contribs • Message • Email ) 16:10, October 9, 2020 (EDT)

Since nobody commented about the issue above, I've experimented moving the page to the Item namespace. So... there is an undocumented issue here which involves the transclusion of C:Riding the Storm Out loot. The item effect templates inside each Item page are programmed to categorize the page (according to the effects) whenever the page is in the Item namespace. This is done assuming that the Item: page will always be the Item which has the effect. In this specific case, this page is a "second layer" Item page transcluding the items which have the effects. For the sake of consistency, this page here should be under Item: because it is an ingredient. There must be a way to 'suppress' the miscategorization without removing the transclusion of the item table. &rArr; MrLizard (Contribs • Message • Email ) 16:52, October 25, 2020 (EDT)
 * I don't understand what you're saying the issue is. Can you ping me on Discord to explain it a different way.  There are multiple ways/templates that do what I think you're talking about.  &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 17:01, October 25, 2020 (EDT)
 * So, where to begin? When designing a template, you need to think long and hard before deciding to place categorization in it. Any template that has the potential to be transcluded to many unrelated pages should not apply categorization as a general rule. However, there are many solutions of varying levels of appropriateness.
 * 1) For a template that is meant to be transcluded in select pages and nowhere else (like Patron), the solution is to not transclude it anywhere else (pretty obvious, huh?).
 * 2) For a template that is meant to be transcluded directly to more pages than the categorized ones, you can have either a namespace check or a parameter check (with nocat) before applying categories.
 * 3) For a template that is meant to be transcluded indirectly (meaning a larger part of the page containing the template was transcluded) to pages that don't need to be categorized, you can have a title check (meaning that the title of the page meant to have categories from this template is passed as a parameter - like Journal entry).
 * 4) For a template that is meant to be used inside bigger templates, categories can be stored in a variable and then the bigger template can decide whether it wants the categories or not. (meaning you define  )
 * 5) For exceptions where you need to have a transclusion that was not meant to be, you can use dpl to manually fix the categories. Using   will remove any categories in the whole page and only apply what you tell it to. (like in Quest/sandbox)
 * Now about this specific case: The simple fix is to use case #5 and just remove all the categories you don't like. A more elegant fix would be to use case #4 and have named item apply the categories while the dpl listing will not. Also, the named item template should use case #3 to only apply categories when in the correct page. &rArr; Faltout (Contribs • Message • Email ) 19:39, October 25, 2020 (EDT)
 * Very interesting solution you implemented, Faltout. This is science! I am in favor of adding |eliminate=categories to the DPL query in Named items category. If I got how it works, this might avoid miscategorizations in future transclusions of any loot categories. &rArr; MrLizard (Contribs • Message • Email ) 21:42, October 26, 2020 (EDT)
 * This solution is meant to be temporary because there are issues with it: 1. Using "eliminate" doubles the processing time. 2. Any categories eliminated by this method are not able to be added later (unclear why). 3. When I tried to use the more reliable "reset" it did not work due to multiple dpl statements in the page and probably buggy dpl behavior. What needs to be done is have the attribute templates not apply categories directly but instead use method #4 above to let named item do that. This probably won't happen because they are admin protected, but this is not a reason to implement widespread use of "eliminate". &rArr; Faltout (Contribs • Message • Email ) 05:48, October 27, 2020 (EDT)


 * Side note: I have found another example of ingredient being categorized on item effect categories: . In this other case, it is because the item effect templates are being called directly. &rArr; MrLizard (Contribs • Message • Email ) 18:51, October 26, 2020 (EDT)
 * I was wrong. It is a transclusion as well. &rArr; MrLizard (Contribs • Message • Email ) 19:58, October 26, 2020 (EDT)

I thought the matter that this article was miscategorized was a fact, but it seems disagrees. So I am going to state the obvious and say that a page containing one or more articles (when the page's name matches more than one topic) belongs to the categories that describe the articles. And by "describe", the common sense rule is that an phrase can describe a page when " is/is about/is an/is a/belongs to a group of ". And obviously Kor Kaza Runes are Raw Ingredients and they are Bound to account. They are not intimidate items or augmented items or anything else. &rArr; Faltout (Contribs • Message • Email ) 11:19, October 28, 2020 (EDT)

Page protection
I see that the page was reverted to the broken state and protected even though there is no rationale behind keeping it in a broken state. Since there are no administrators to oppose the destruction of this wiki's structure and content caused by, I just wanted to place this note here for any future editor to know the reason this is protected. &rArr; Faltout (Contribs • Message • Email ) 15:37, October 28, 2020 (EDT)
 * The page was reverted to the WAI state of which there is consensus to keep both here on wiki and on . Token items, such as runes, should be listed in effect categories as the tokens indirectly have the effects.  This is the consensus amongst editors and administrators in both places.  This is consistent with other similar items and should remain as such.  &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 07:27, October 29, 2020 (EDT)
 * Discord or any other social media is not a place to have consensus since it can't be monitored. If a discussion took place in Discord (which I doubt it did), then obviously noone was able to pose the question of "What does a category mean?". To which the answer I posted above. While the above administrator may claim that pages can indirectly belong to categories, there is no such policy here (which would take at least 6 months to make) or in wikipedia. And if such a policy were applied, after placing almost all the pages in all the categories because they "indirectly" belong there (like quest pages in item categories because they drop items), then a talk about changing the category policy back would probably begin shortly. &rArr; Faltout (Contribs • Message • Email ) 13:48, October 29, 2020 (EDT)
 * Achieving a consensus on our Discord (and IRC prior to that) is totally acceptable and has been happening for over a decade. It can easily be monitored and is not "social media" but instead a live chat forum for discussions and consensus building.  We even have templates on wiki where consensus building on Discord can be documented if need be.  It was actually another administrator on Discord that first mentioned how the categories apply as they're indirectly associative.  Our policy that pages can indirectly belong to categories is a de facto one that stretches back since the creation of the Item namespace and revamp of categories for that.  You are still welcome to start a discussion to change that, but it may take six months or longer for that to change.  &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 16:56, October 29, 2020 (EDT)
 * The above are very one-sided because it's only one man supporting them. You created the IRC, you created the Discord, you have been discussing things there instead of here (I'm happy to provide citations all the way back to 2013), you have made the social templates and apply them to stuff. As for the "de facto" policy, the "facts" are that of the countless ingredients in the wiki, only a handfull (4 to my knowledge) have item categories and it's by accident because they transclude item templates in the Item namespace. Another "fact" is that Yoko5000 was the one that moved this page out of the Item namespace to prevent the additional categorization. The categorization only re-appeared recently because MrLizard moved the page back to the Item namespace. So, there's absolutely no such "de facto" policy because it's only your opinions made on the fly. &rArr; Faltout (Contribs • Message • Email ) 19:39, October 29, 2020 (EDT)
 * I actually didn't "create" IRC nor did I create the IRC channel that we used to use. It has the support of many administrators.  Bottom line is if you want to change it, then get a consensus to change it.  I've restored the page to what it was before the changes happened and until there is a consensus to change it, it can stay as it is.   &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 11:48, October 30, 2020 (EDT)

Item effect categorization guideline discussion
My thoughts: -- &rArr; Cru121 (Contribs • Message • Email ) 02:50, October 31, 2020 (EDT)
 * The current categorization of Kor Kaza Rune is beyond stupid and indeed a broken state that should be fixed. No, the rune should not belong to these categories.
 * There is definitely no consensus among administrators on the wiki.
 * I don't use IRC and rarely use Discord.

I believe this has ascended to be part of a bigger discussion related to the creation and defining of some guidelines for which items should be categorized, and criteria that can be used to determine when those items are categorized. Please review DDO wiki:Structure guidelines and DDO wiki talk:Structure_guidelines. The more people we have that can vote/provide feedback, the easier it will be to make sure that we're moving in the right/best direction. We can hopefully also use that forum to identify the shortcomings of the existing structure and then be in a position to come up with appropriate designs to accommodate everyone's requests. &rArr; Joenuts (Contribs • Message • Email ) 06:44, October 31, 2020 (EDT)

Recent Formatting Change: My Reasoning
I shall begin with a short note of context. About a year ago, Kor Kaza Rune was involved in an edit war over whether the page should be formatted to appear in the categories associated with items it bought or not. There were, in my opinion, missteps on both sides, but as I wasn't involved in the discussion I shall refrain from further judgement.

The eventual outcome of the matter was that the page was protected while the categories were enabled. However, as I see it, having the page be a member of said categories doesn't make sense, and it's not in line with how the wiki handles such things.

Let's take Item:Token of the Twelve as an example. 20 Tokens of the Twelve can be used to purchase augments that, for example, provide +9 to Constitution. But the Token itself does not provide +9 to Constitution, and thus it isn't included in that category.

In fact, Kor Kaza Rune is the only page on the wiki which appears in categories for items it can be used to buy. Not even other raid runes do it. And since all the items appear on the page, a basic knowledge of the raid rune system is all that's needed to realise that including the rune itself is unnecessary, because such items already quote the raid from which the rune is sourced.

Consequently, to achieve consistency, we would either have to go through every other ingredient on the wiki adding it to categories of items it can purchase, or reformat just this one so it is no longer a member. I'd say it's pretty clear the latter is preferable.

Henceforth, I have taken two steps to fix matters. Firstly, I have unprotected the page, something which frankly should have been done months ago. Secondly, I have reverted the page to an earlier version so that it is no longer included in the categories.

I would ask that anyone involved in the previous edit war, should they wish to make changes to this page, discuss matters on the talk page prior to doing so. The last thing we want is another edit war, especially one that probably couldn't be prevented by protecting the page. &rArr; PurpleSerpent (Contribs • Message • Email ) 08:33, July 21, 2021 (EDT)