User talk:Mordsith39075

''This is mostly for informational purposes... feel free to leave any notes or questions on my talk page. -- Fandyllic  (talk · contr) 10:47 PM PST 3 Jan 2008''

Tips for Mordsith?
I'm a complete wiki noob, but I'm really interested in starting. I've always been obsessive about compiling WoW information for my own use - spreadsheets on profession recipes, gear I'd like to have, etc. I'd love to be able to share that obsession with other people who are looking for that type of information.

If you have any tips for me, I'd gratefully look them over. Thanks for any help!

Mordsith 19:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You're doing a fine job. You're also a categorizing maniac! --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 10:34 PM PST 3 Jan 2008


 * lol Thanks =)  I'm actually a Library and Information Science major, so I figure I'm doing schoolwork and playing at the same time.  ;D  Category listings are a major topic in some of my classes, and when I saw the disaster that was the Blacksmithing category, I couldn't help but attack it.  I cringe at the thought of how many categories need to be reorganized.  For now, I'll work on blacksmithing.  --  06:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't feel to much pressure. We all do as much as we can do. --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 10:47 PM PST 3 Jan 2008


 * Ooooooo.... another recruit for Wowpedia:Zone category project. Muahahaha. In other news, welcome to the wiki! --Sky (t | c | w ) 07:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll definitely check that out. =)  And thanks for the welcome. --  12:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it wrong that I'm a grad student in Composition and Rhetoric and stick to fixing grammar and punctuation? Dakhma (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Orcish War Leggings
Good catch on the category! --Eirik Ratcatcher 19:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * However... you missed this when you created Blacksmithing/recipetables/artisanA ... --Eirik Ratcatcher 20:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

professions
Before you get too change happy on categories in professions, make sure you aren't contradicting anything on the Crafts and professions article. Something that is the name of a profession in video game may have a different equivalent profession name in the RPG, for example.Baggins 03:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks for the heads up. I'll look at that.  03:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually that doesn't seem to contradict what I was doing. I was merely moving profession specific articles into their relevant subcategories.  For instance, There's no need for Alchemist to be in Category:Professions when it's also in Category:Alchemy, which is a subheading of Category:Professions.  03:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, just saying that Alchemist is a "profession title". You might think of splitting things up into RPG professions, and WoW professions for differences in terms.Baggins 03:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a thought... there are some random professions that I left in the main category since they aren't in WoW, like Mortician. Didn't have anywhere to put it.  I'm not planning to change the categories here that much at the moment though.
 * I was wondering about Poisons and Riding though. I always thought they were skills rather than professions.  I left them as is until I remember to research that a bit.  Any thoughts?  03:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ooze cats
Quick question, were you asked to remove the [Category:Uncategorized] from the Ooze mobs? 06:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe so. The Wowpedia:Zone category project states "categories such as "Category:Humanoids" or "Category:Beasts" should be modified to reflect their particular type (I. e. "Category:Wolves", "Category:Centaur")."  I took this to mean that a general category like Uncategorized mobs should be removed and the mob should instead be placed into the subcategory Oozes.  Was I wrong?  06:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well..its hard to say, Blizzard defines them as Not specified which here the category was made to Uncategorized Creatures. So I believe that they should contain both cats, Oozes and Uncategorized Creatures. But thats how I see it. 06:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that they are Uncategorized Creatures. However, since Oozes are already a subcategory of Uncategorized Creatures, I think the particular oozes should be placed within the subcategory, and not in both the parent category and the subcategory.  I am still new here though, so if I'm wrong, I'll happily change it back.  06:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I see what you're saying...perhaps you're right....and it is kind of silly to have 2 cats crowded with the same stuff, so yea, lets go ahead and removed the uncategorized creatures from them. 06:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And kill Felwood too, eh? :D --Sky (t | c | w ) 07:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The corruption must end, let loose Kralnor and his good staff, just don't report him. =D 07:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was a bit busy last night. >.>  And Coobra, thanks for cleaning up the rest of the Oozes.  =)   11:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. 20:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguating item articles
If you're going to disambiguate item articles, (like Cenarion Reservist's Legguards), please use something more specific than a number. That only works sensibly for quests that are in a series (like The Missing Diplomat (12)). I'd suggest Cenarion Reservists's Leggings (druid) and the like. Thanks again for your contributions to Wowpedia! -- k _d3 05:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. I'll make that change.  05:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If anyone else is wondering - I'll fix the rest of this tomorrow. Editing with lack of sleep is making me clumsy.  =/   05:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Quest Chains
About changing the Besieged! (Horde)/Quest chain, sry I had thought using * ** *** was standard. Apparently it was, till a vote came along and standard became to use #. However, just one thing I'd like to mention... The rewards section should go under completion rather than above (per policy), as sometimes those rewards take up much space. I've been working through the quests I see and fixing them accordingly, and it would help if you could do the same. Thankyou...OH yea, one more thing, external links aren't needed at the end of the page if the id= has been filled in the Questbox. 07:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I had been hesitant to do anything with quests since I've seen a few different variations.  I'll keep the above in mind.  11:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

MIA
I'm sure that if anyone noticed me you're wondering where I went and thinking "well that was shortlived". School is about to start up again, and life got a little hectic. Same reasons I quit WoW in the first place. ;) I will probably be back occasionally, most likely once the semester is over.  Have fun and see you later! --  15:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
.. for your nice comments over on my talk page :) It looks like our interests in working on professions are complementary, since I'm mainly interested in jewelcrafting and leatherworking. It's great to see the other crafting pages are getting upgrades too. If you find your revamped recipe pages get too long and slow, consider the collapsed approach I did for leatherworking patterns (though now I think I need to add a few icons, as the page looks rather bland when it first loads...) --W.woods (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip! I didn't know you could collapse the tables like that. If I find the time I will look into that change. Feel free to adjust them yourself though if you like - I can't claim ownership or anything. =) I'm having trouble finding the time for everything I want to do with my last year of school ahead of me. But I'm sure you're busy too... the beauty of a wiki is that someone should be able to get to it! Have fun editing! --  14:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I had "Eirik Ratcatcher" asking me about it, too. It looks like he also has plans for blacksmithing_recipes, so I'll leave it to you two. I posted my thoughts and experiences (based on jc and lw) on Talk:Blacksmithing_recipes. I see you've put a lot of time into that page, so you might want to read it if you haven't seen it lately :) --w.woods (talk) 07:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Moving an image
You will have to upload it manually again. 01:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks -- 05:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I love it
We're so similar! Two wowwiki addicts, both tanks, married females IRL. Sweet. -Howbizr (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL awesome ;D --  10:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wowpedia-diction
You're scaring me with the pace of your edits... -- Fandyllic  (talk · contr) 1:09 PM PST 19 Jan 2009
 * lol I'm scaring myself. ;) Procrastination + obsession = crazy wiki editor I guess. -- 20:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Golden Kobold award
12:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! =D --  19:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Similiar categories
I asked Ragestorm about some categories and he suggested I give you a query. What do you think about the following categories: Category:Books, Category:Novels, and Category:Warcraft books? Any ideas about restructuring? Ragestorm said that Category:Books could refer to anything remotely in book form, while Category:Novels would be specifically novels. Category:Warcraft books seems to be the redundant one. Rolandius ( talk  -  contr ) 03:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I'll take a look. -- 04:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okie dokie. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 04:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like the Books category is a little disorganized. I agree with you that Category:Warcraft books is redundant and should be deleted. Also, there are three book categories in Category:Sources that should be moved under Category:Books and many articles that could be cleaned up.


 * If you're looking for something to do, the articles should be in the most specific Warcraft book category. Looking at Manual of Monsters for example... It should remain in Category:Warcraft: RPG books, but Sources, Books and Warcraft books should go. I'm pretty sure it doesn't qualify as a Novel, so that should go too. RPG books is a subcategory of Roleplaying books and Warcraft: The Roleplaying Game, so those should be gone as well. After editing the categories on that article we should be left with Category:Warcraft: RPG books (the appropriate book category), Category:Hardbacks (a descriptive category), and Category:Speculation (because the article has the speculation template).


 * I understand that you are working with a mentor who authorizes your edits, so don't take my word as authorization to work on a bunch of articles... check with your mentor first. However, I will vouch for you on the category changes I mentioned if you want to move forward with those - getting rid of Warcraft books and moving the three warcraft book subcategories out of Sources. If you do get authorization to work on a bunch of book articles, I would help you with any category questions you might have. -- 04:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay that brings up some more questions. You said that "RPG books is a subcategory of Roleplaying books", so wouldn't one of those be redundant too since "RPG book" means "Roleplaying game book"? If we are trying to put articles into the most specific categories, why do we need categories like "Lore" and "Books"? Is it so that we can mark the subcategory articles with a parent category? Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 05:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a good question. We do need those categories though in order to structure everything. Ideally, a category structure should start with one super category. Wowpedia uses Category:Root for that purpose. Then, there is a second tier of categories which describe the type of things that can be found on Wowpedia: Category:Wowpedia which holds all of the articles regarding policy and how to actually edit, Category:Media which holds all of the images and video, and Category:Content which holds all of the warcraft articles that non-editors come here to see. Each of those categories then has a bunch of subcategories that get more and more specific as it goes on.


 * Articles should be placed in the most specific categories because otherwise you would have one of those higher tier categories cluttered with a ton of stuff. Category:Lore is a perfect example right now. It has almost 1000 articles and doesn't have any particular focus. Ideally, it should be split into subcategories and there should be very few (possibly none) articles actually sitting in the Lore category.


 * When the categories are structured properly, you can start at one of the upper categories and browse through clicking on categories that get more and more specific until you get to what you were looking for. So, Category:Books should hold all of the books that we have articles about here. But they should be arranged into subcategories. Series of books, or paperback/hardback, or type of book (novel, comic book, etc). The individual articles can be found in several of the subcategories (like the MoM example I went through with you earlier). So you could find MoM if you went from Books --> Hardbacks or if you went from Books --> Roleplaying books --> Warcraft:RPG books.


 * I'm currently working on straightening up a branch of the category tree that starts with Category:Mobs. I'm keeping notes on it at User:Mordsith/Sandbox1 if you want to browse that and see what I'm up to. Hopefully it would help explain things, but if you have more questions feel free to ask. -- 14:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

More creature classification condundrums
I think we need special categories to categorize an article if it is a creature class of some type, vs lore class type.

For example, Fandyllic just removed Bone giants from Category: Giants. Because it is isn't classified as a giant in game. But from a name/lore standpoint it should be in a category about "giants" in general. My suggestion would be something like Category:Giants (creature type) and generic Category: Giants then creature type can be a subcategory of the main giant category.Baggins (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * hmmm. That could be a slippery slope. Sounds like that might lead toward segregating the wiki even more than we already have. And we'll end up with articles that have 3 or 4 different creature categories just because they're slightly different in each game. I think the creature subcategories will kind of have to be a mix since everything overlaps at least a little bit in warcraft. I've seen a few lore/wow conflicts since I started this. We just have to place them as best we can. Being inclusive is probably better than exclusive in a case like you mentioned so the article should go into both the wow and the lore creature type categories. As long as the upper structure of the categories is precise, you'll be able to follow that article back up to either the WoW parent categories or the Lore.


 * That said, the article you refer to in particular doesn't have any indication that it's something different than the WoW mob other than the disambiguating statement at the top. I think if it were fleshed out (I've got the pun on the talk page stuck in my head) then it would be obvious that this article belongs in the Giants category. If you could cite something from the lore that describes bone giants as actually being giants, then it shouldn't be a problem. You might also want to add an html comment next to the category explaining why it's categorized that way. -- 00:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Weapon Lists
Thanks. I had not considered minute changes like that from patch to patch. Thanks for the communication. Hikui87 (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

All apologies
I've been away from the wiki and IRC for quite awhile and just read and responded to your post User_talk:Dakhma/Proposal_feedback. Sorry! Too much dissertation writing and not enough. . . anything else.