User talk:SysteRn

Welcome!


 * Hi SysteRn, welcome to the wiki.
 * I notice you've been putting a lot of work in to updating the feat pages, and a couple other things, I thought I'd like to bring some things to your attention.
 * On some of your feat page edits, you wrap the content in onlyinclude tags (Balance for example). But there are no pages that transclude balance ( click what links here, then click hide links / hide redirects / show transclusions ). So I don’t know that wrapping the modification in onlyinclude tag does anything.
 * The location changes you made for MA and LoB are not correct. The "Location" field references the dungeon that the quest takes place in, not where the entrance to the quest is.
 * Currently the zone that the dungeon entrance is located in isnt directly handled by the template.
 * I’ve noticed a lot of category updates happen that I don’t necessarily agree with. As a general rule, category structure should go from least specific to more specific. Also, children (and grandchildren) of any category should be considered related to the parent ( or grandparent).
 * Using as an example then change you made of adding the past life bard feat to the bard category, Bard is a child of classes, and you made the page “Past Life Bard Feat, along with others ( Balance, Haggle, etc ) all pages in the Bard category. Feats should not be children ( or grandchildren ) of classes.
 * I couldn’t tell you why the “Bard” category was created in the first place and put in to classes category. I can’t think of a single thing that would be a child of “bard” and a grandchild of “classes”. The Bard *page* should definitely be part of the classes category, but I think that what makes more sense to me is a category named something like …”Bard related” for lack of a better word. Inside that, maybe “bard feats”, “bard builds”, “bard spells”, “bard guides”, etc. categories.
 * I dont know what the best solution is for this ( I've been focusing on item namespace ). Perhaps the Bard category should be removed from the Classes category or renamed, I dunno.
 * I just wanted to point that out to prevent the class categories from getting out of hand and maybe use this opportunity to promote creating a general category structure policy that everyone can follow.
 * Joenuts (Contributions • Message) 23:22, January 14, 2014 (EST)


 * Hey Joe, thanks for the welcome.
 * I think we see categories differently from one another. I take it that your closest analogy would be a hierarchy, like the folder structure on your hard drive. I think of them more like tags in a tag cloud on social media. While you say that "Feats should not be children (or grandchildren) of classes.", I'd point out that the Main namespace is flat, and only subpages are true child nodes of an article. Saying that Class Skills and Class Feats aren't related to the class doesn't make sense to me. I would agree with you that all the pages in Category:Feats should not be made subpages of Feats. Think of it from the other perspective: you're new to DDO and you want to play a Bard (poor fool), where are you going to go for more information on them? You've read the Bard article, but want more... so you check Category:Bard and see 3 sub categories with 1, 5, and 21 articles, and 20 other articles, most of which are class skills. We have this entire wiki, but discovering relevant information is rather difficult. If you know what you're looking for, then most of the articles are well written. If you don't know what you're looking for, the categorization doesn't help you discover it.
 * While making those changes, I found a bunch of errors such as Swim not listing that it was a Class Skill for monks. Despite it being listed on the Monk page. The point of those edits is so the next time Turbine makes another Spellcraft skill, or whatever, 1 well-written, categorized Article for the skill gets updates via DPL into the individual Class Articles. Same for Rune Arms listed in the Rune Arm article. New Rune Arm added to the Item namespace? It'll appear in the table. No need to go through the entire wiki looking for pages that duplicated the content instead of transcluding it.
 * Another general thought I have about wikis is that those category clouds make traversing information easier. Have you ever got lost on wikipedia after searching for one article, and then meandering through 15 linked or related articles? Here's an example: Reincarnation is a huge part of DDO (lack of end game, recent efforts, how ever you want to approach it, it's a big part of the game). Start from the main page, without using the search box, how long does it take you to get to the Reincarnation page? From the What's New in Update 20 page, which will fall off after Update 21... Starting from the top nav bar, how long does it take? Classes -> Bard -> Past Lives gets you there... The loose categorization makes finding information easier.
 * The MA/LOB edits happened like a year ago. Sorry for using the wrong field in the template. As a player and user of the wiki, I can honestly say that I don't care that the dungeon is named 'Syrania Conduit Floor' when doing Schemes of the Enemy, I'd be looking for a map of the wilderness area in the infobox. :) Same goes for "Free to Play: yes/no"... I didn't care that it's not Free to Play, I cared which adventure pack it was in when I was premium. Perhaps the Quest template in general could stand for an update.
 * The includeonly tags were a failed effort for the DPL report, but I thought it could be a stylistic choice. "Getting tripped will require you to make a Balance check to get back up." vs "Getting tripped will require you to make a  check to get back up." Dunno if anyone else thinks it might be a good idea or not and worth investing more time in.
 * SysteRn (Contributions • &uArr; top &uArr;) 02:21, January 15, 2014 (EST)


 * I can definitely see value in treating categories as tags. And I would have to agree that wiki's lend themselves to treating categories as tags
 * Problems arise though, when working with routines that operate on all pages in a category (and all pages in categories within that and within that, on down )
 * If you're not careful with category design, you can run in to lots of duplication / circular references / etc.
 * Maybe the "items" domain is more ... conducive ... to a tree like structure of categories than other aspects of the game.
 * I just dont like the idea of having ambiguous category uses / purposes, especially if not clearly defined.
 * Perhaps a parent category "tags" which can contain various key word named categories can be this flat / spider web like structure that can be navigated easily would be the best way to go?
 * Joenuts (Contributions • Message) 17:13, January 15, 2014 (EST)