Forum:Bots and categories

Yo! Now that we've again access to active bots, there are some changes I'd like to propose. Some of them might be a little too debate-worthy to just create a bot request over them, so here are my wishes:

Original proposal

 * I'd like to see all the character categories for the main races changed. For example, I'd like Thrall to be categorized as in Category:Orc characters rather than simply in Category:Orcs. This is for the same reasons I pushed for class categories for the main classes changed: it's much cleaner to have a Category:Paladin characters category for NPCs and a Category:Paladins to contain everything paladin-related. The reason I ask for this is because "cultural" pages like Om'riggor, Mak'gora and Kosh'harg are buried with any orcish character having ever existed and it doesn't make it easy to find them.

With this said, there's also the problem of giving such a large amount of work to bots. As we can see, a bot simply edits too much pages for any human to check them all individually. However, bots can also introduce errors, as seen here and here. Besides only giving the simplest of tasks to bots and maybe randomly checking their edits to reduce the workload, is there anyway to ensure problems won't be introduced? I admit that while I admire the help they can give, I'm reluctant to trust them ... Xporc (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Bump! Xporc (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Debate

 * No hard opinion on the first and second suggestions but since the class characters are already done it seems nice to have more categories to follow this pattern, I guess. I agree with the definite article and plural changes. Mordecay (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * My initial opinion is that I like point two and three. Not a biiig fan of the first, although I can see the reasoning. I might warm up to that one. I'm a bit unsure about four and five aswell because it seems that both exist? Shaman with a plural "s" fits the other class categories, and if both are used, I think I prefer that one. Ofcourse that is just my initial thoughts. Can you provide an example for four and five? PeterWind (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I think he meant just to rename the category from plural to singular because "shaman" & "kodo" are also used (mostly) as plurals by Blizz. Mordecay (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand, and I don't really doubt that either. I just don't think a few examples hurt. Taking a look around I found just one official example of using plural "s" for shaman, so I'll have to, if somewhat reluctantly, agree on that one. The only example I could find was The Dreamseeker Calls. And for that one, the "shamans" part doesn't appear on either wowhead or WoWDB. I've seen several uses of plural "s" on kodo in quest texts though. The Kodocaller's Horn being one such example. PeterWind (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It might be better to have (and  for articles that cover NPCs) than a myriad of "X characters" derivatives; the cross products could be covered by intersections: e.g. Intersection:Orcs::Argent Crusade NPCs, Intersection:Orcs::Lore, Intersection:Argent Crusade::Characters etc.
 * We could also prefer that all class categories be singular (under the theory that they contain articles pertaining to the class, rather than examples of that class): e.g. seems awkward on Mana Citrine, The Arcanist's Cookbook, Clearcasting.
 * could be an option to keep a more obvious plural form. — foxlit (talk) 00:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not a big fan of having a distinction between "NPCs" and "Characters". The only characters that are really playable are ours, and we don't make articles about them. So by definition every character in the Warcraft universe is non-playable, unless we want to nitpick and start using the RTSes as a distinction.
 * I don't know about how intersection works so I have no opinion about them.
 * I also don't mind the class categories being plural, Mana Citrines is related to "Mages" after all. Xporc (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the distinction is that NPCs appear in World of Warcraft. While all lore characters would clearly be NPCs, not all of them appear in-game, and maintaining some indication of that distinction seems nice. As a secondary concern, it's somewhat difficult to call something like Argent Crusade Rifleman a character in the literary sense -- it's more of a walking gameplay mechanic. — foxlit (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not convinced, man. Splitting characters in two categories whether they appear ("NPCs") or not ("Characters") in the game doesn't strike me a something productive. Especially when your other argument is that Riflemen are too unimportant to be called true "characters", thus deserve to only be called "NPCs", but doing that would also put them in the same category as Tirion Fordring, who's definitively an "NPC" since he appears in the game. If I, as a reader, open up something like Category:Argent Crusade characters, it's because I want to see all people belonging to the Argent Crusade in a single list, I don't want to deal with multiple different intersections about wether or not someone is arbitrarily considered important enough to be a character or an NPC. Xporc (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not an either-or classification: Tirion could well be in both categories. When I open up something like Category:Argent Crusade characters, I don't want to see Argent Crusade Rifleman and its ilk. — foxlit (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I disagree with both things you just said. Not sure we'll reach an agreement here. Other peoples have anything to say? Xporc (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * IMO Argent Crusade NPCs should be a subcat of Argent Crusade characters. Not a fan of intersections, personally. -- (•) 22:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * FYI, the list of characters being members of the Argent Crusade but not strictly being "Argent Crusade NPCs" is the following: Infiltrator Minchar/Alrin the Agile/Alchemist Adrianna (not NPCs because they don't exist anymore IG), Argent Lightbringer/Argent Dawnbringer (affiliated only in lore, not by their in-game faction), and Stephon Marris/Jeralee/Friar Burlingham (lore characters). I don't think it's worth it to create two different categories for only 8 characters. Xporc (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * My thoughts on the points proposed by Xporc: I don't immediately agree with the first one, but I can see the reasoning behind it and why it could be useful, and suppose I could grow used to it. Agreed with the second point. I do not think we should split it into "Argent Crusade NPCs" and "Argent Crusade characters", since it seems a bit of an arbitrarily pedantic distinction between two very similar categories (named characters affilied with the organization versus any in-game NPCs who happen to have "Argent Crusade" stamped onto their NPC tooltip, or deciding what characters deserve to be called "characters" versus just being nameless, faceless, generic NPCs); better just to have all of them in "Argent Crusade characters", in my view. Fully agree with the third and fifth points; I can see why categories like "The Jade Forest" were named that way, but at this point I think it mostly just creates some unnecessary confusion when the names of the zone article and corresponding category are different. No comment on the fourth point; depends on which plural form Blizzard prefers using the most often/most recently. -- 11:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * re: intersections... i didn't like the idea at first, but after thinking about it & reading the original proposal for its use on wikipedia, i think categorizing that way could be really useful. it'd allow people to browse combinations we may not have thought of, and it'd simplify a lot of subcategory work because they pretty much function as intersections already. converting to use of intersections would allow us to automate subcategory maintenance—i.e. "Category:Argent Crusade characters" could simply have "Intersection:Argent Crusade::Characters" transcluded into it, which removes the need to put anything in there by hand
 * but, if we do go the intersection route to any degree, we should make prominent note of how to view intersections. personally i'd never even heard of this feature till i started editing here—i imagine a lot of wowpedia readers don't know about it either
 * also only semi-related and i know it's probably been discussed to death, but while we're doing category stuff can we please shorten or remove the "World of Warcraft" category prefix? so much clutter on every item page aughhh -- Eithris (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

So, trying to make it short:
 * Racial character categories: Mordecay, PeterWind and DeludedTroll are either neutral or not fans, though all said that they could warm up to the idea. Foxlit seems against it. I am for it.
 * Factional character categories for big factions (aka Argent Crusade): I, DeludedTroll and PeterWind are for it, Mordecay is neutral, Foxlit would prefer intersections. I am not sure about intersections, and pcj isn't a fan of them. Eithris is for them.
 * NPC/character distinctions: Foxlit is for it. I and DeludedTroll are against it. I'm not sure I understand pcj's stance about it.
 * Removing "The..." from categories: everyone seems for it.
 * Kodo/Kodos: mixed reactions, blizzard uses both.
 * Shaman/Shamans: mixed reactions, blizzard majorly uses "Shaman", but all the other class categories are pluralized with a s.

Here's my proposal: Everyone fine with that? Xporc (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Since most people are neutral but ready to accept it, we create racial categories for the 13 main races, and start using a bot to migrate them. Preferably one race at once, with a few days of cooldown between each migrations to make sure everything is fine.
 * Since most people are for it, we migrate the category into , once again with a bot. No distinction between "NPCs" and "characters". Other factions in the same situation are the Steamwheedle Cartel cities (Gadgetzan, etc.), but maybe some big categories could be split down too like the Kirin Tor one.
 * Intersections can still be implemented later if enough interest is raised about them. A bot could simply search for the "orc characters" category and split it into two categories, "orcs" and "characters".
 * Launch a project to identify all the categories starting with "The...". Once we decide to start, we migrate one zone at a time, with once again a few days of cooldown between each migrations to make sure everything is fine.
 * Not sure what to do about kodo/kodos and shaman/shamas.


 * Sounds good. No complaints from me, at least. -- 19:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * My only beef with the "race characters" is that it's longer to write really. An alternative could be leaving the races as they are, and put all the few race related pages into a new category called "race lore" or some such. Of course that would not be consistent with the "organization characters", if it would even need to be. Regardless I'm not gonna oppose the proposed decision on the race category matter. On another note, I do like the sound of those intersections for searching purposes. Might be nice for people to narrow some specific searches down, such as: "organization characters" + "specific race" or "Leather items" + "Kalimdor world drops". PeterWind (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's by looking at Intersection:Forsaken::Argent_Dawn that I noticed they were a lot of holy priests in the Argent Dawn Xporc (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

How does this look?
 * What about the Forsaken? Mordecay (talk) 11:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Forsaken are a faction of undead. The category is characters by race, not characters by race and faction. -- (•) 11:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Forsaken are referred to as both, race and faction. Mordecay (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We could do it in several different ways. First way is keep things as it is since Forsaken is both a race and faction, and another way would be to have each current "Forsaken" tagged as both an "Undead character" (race) and "Forsaken" (faction). That way it would be homogeneous with people like Aelthalyste who are tagged as both a "Banshee" (race) and "Forsaken" (faction).
 * This undead topic has been discussed ad nauseam. I don't want to even get into the part where we vote again whether or not a ghost is actually deceased. Leave it how it is. -- (•) 12:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Mh, that's a discussion from 8 years ago. I don't think that should stop us from evolving things today. Xporc (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * With this design I'd say you kind of have to make a "Forsaken characters" category aswell, as you'd end up having forsaken lore in the same category as characters, which as I recall was the idea for the change in the first place for the other races. If need be, just put the "Forsaken characters" as a sub-category of Undead characters. PeterWind (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * ghost category would be a part of the characters categories?
 * I added the orc category to the Mag'har orc pages so that they would be included in the orc characters category.
 * What about dwarves using Dark Iron dwarves category?Mordecay (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay. For those " ghost categories" which had a matching " character category" I updated it, for the minor ghost categories (Taunka ghosts category) I left it as it is since there is no matching " character category"
 * For dwarves, if we really, really want to be clean and consistent, we would have to create a "Dark dwarves" category which would be different from the "Dwarves" one, then a "Dark dwarf characters" category, then a "Dark Iron dwarf character" which would inherit both from "Dark dwarf characters" and "Dark Iron clan" categories, like Category:Forsaken characters. The same could then be done for the Wildhammer clan, but without their own racial category. Xporc (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Just adding my 2cents here. I'd always prefer a plural vs singular category name. As the category is for the topic of "Shamans" and "Kodos" and not for a specific "Shaman" or "Kodo".Celellach (talk) 09:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the official plurals for shaman and kodo are without "s" at the end Xporc (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, really? That's something very ridicules from Blizzard then. As the real-world plural for Shaman is Shamans. No idea then really. Celellach (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Accomplished work
What is already done:
 * For some very large factions like the Argent Crusade, we have a Category:Argent Crusade NPCs category. I'd like to see it changed to Category:Argent Crusade characters because currently lore characters that doesn't exist as NPCs in the game would awkwardly fit into the "NPCs" category. I don't know if there's other factions with this kind of sub-categories.
 * Change everything belonging to Category:Shamans to simply Category:Shaman because it's the way it's (mostly) officially pluralized.
 * Change everything belonging to Category:Kodos to simply Category:Kodo because it's the way it's (mostly) officially pluralized.
 * Most categories starting with "The..." were changed to remove it in order to comply with WP:NOA. Examples are Category:The Broken Shore,Category:The Jade Forest, etc.

Hellfire Citadel
Is there really a need to change all the categories involving Hellfire Citadel to Hellfire Citadel (alternate universe)?

The category Category:Hellfire Citadel at the most will only contain the categories of the Outland dungeons. While I understand the moving of the zone categories, moving this one is pointless. 23:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It is not strictly necessary, but Category:Hellfire Citadel quests had to be moved to Category:Hellfire Citadel (alternate universe) quests in order for the quests to link to the right Hellfire Citadel. I figured it would be better to be consistent with this. Plus I read very old discussions about possibly creating Hellfire Citadel, Aunchindoun and Tempest Keep categories to regroup their various dungeon categories rather than have them sit in the Hellfire Peninsula, Terokkar Forest and Netherstorm categories. Xporc (talk) 08:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, made an addition to the questbox template. Use the zone parameter to link to articles that don't match the categories.


 * category=Hellfire Citadel
 * zone=Hellfire Citadel (alternate universe)
 * This should fix any issues with other categorized quests as well. 18:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oki. Once this is done with the Auchindoun quests and Pcj moves the "Nagrand (Outland)" zones this should be over for the alternate universe movings. Xporc (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If my bot was working I'd go ahead and do it, but I haven't been able to use my bot for over 9 months now with no fix insight. Really disappointing. 19:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Pcj is fast enough, it's usually done within the day :D Now, to return to the original subject... I'd have preferred if we used (alternate universe) categories for Hellfire Citadel and Auchindoun, because someone might accidentally put MU-related content in these categories, but I don't want to fight for this. Say, are there any other case of similar categories? Categories not having "alternate universe" but also not existing in the main universe either? Xporc (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, it was only just those 2 instances and zones. Nothing else would be applicable for categories. 19:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Mmmh I guess unless someone wants to create MU Hellfire Citadel and Auchindoun categories to regroup their respective dungeons and raids in a single umbrella category, it's probably not needed Xporc (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hellfire Citadel does exist in The Burning Crusade as a subzone but it isn't a raid as it is split into Magtheridon's Lair and three 5-man dungeons that are named differently, so it'll be in the category for Category:Hellfire Peninsula subzones while Hellfire Citadel in Tanaan Jungle would need its own category and be in the Category:Tanaan Jungle subzones category because it is a raid for one and a subzone. Therefore, no reason for the The Burning Crusade one to be in Category:Hellfire Citadel because it acts as a subzone and doesn't exist as a raid. And from what I know, subzones do not get its own category (named after itself). Pretty much what Coobra did makes a whole lot of sense. 19:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Dwarves
Alright, I messed up a bit with the dwarves to set it up approximately how I would see it.


 * Category:Dwarves is both the main category for all dwarves and the main category for Bronzebeard/mountain dwarves. Sub-races will have their own sub-categories.
 * All characters in this category should be moved from Category:Dwarves to Category:Dwarf characters.
 * All cultural articles about dwarves should stay in this main category, including things like Dwarf (playable), Sister of steel, Icon of the Forge and Bronzebeard clan, all family trees like Barleybrew, organizations like Brock's School of Mining and Surveying, and so on.
 * I tagged Category:Wild dwarves, Category:Mountain dwarves, Category:Ironforge dwarves, Category:Hill dwarves and Category:Bronzebeard dwarves as speedydelete because they are too small and based on RPG/unused novels lore. They are redundant and their content should be merged into the other subcategories.

Now this is for the main dwarf category. On to the sub-races, with the most important one:
 * Category:Dark dwarves inherits from Category:Dwarves. It is for all dwarves with dark skin and red eyes. I am not sure it should inherit from Category:Races.
 * Category:Dark dwarf characters inherits from both Category:Dark dwarves and Category:Dwarf characters.
 * There are two main groups of dark dwarves: Category:Dark Iron clan and Category:Thorium Brotherhood. Since the Thorium Brotherhood is a relatively small faction, it doesn't need its own character category, but there are many Dark Iron dwarves, so a category Category:Dark Iron dwarf characters should exist and inherit from both Category:Dark dwarf characters and Category:Dark Iron clan. The current Category:Dark Iron dwarves should be moved there, with all cultural articles moved to Category:Dark Iron clan.

The other subraces are rather small and rather straightforward, there's probably no need to change them... besides the Wildhammer clan:
 * First, is the Wildhammer clan a race or a faction ? Should the fated-to-be deleted Category:Hill dwarves category be used here to mirror the Dark dwarves/Dark Iron clan thing? Should we just have a Wildhammer clan category inheriting from Category:Dwarves?
 * Since the Wildhammer clan is both a lore organization and an in-game faction, how should NPCs being member of the in-game faction tagged with?

I know this sounds very complicated but the dwarves are honestly the hardest with this thing, the other races should be much easier to handle. Xporc (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If we're going with this new categorization, I don't think it's a good idea to leave out "faction characters" groups out, due to size of factions. I can see why it might not really be "needed" for 1-page categories, but in my opinion, it's not very consistent, as we'd have a "how many members of a race/group does it take for a race/faction characters category" situation. PeterWind (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well everyone here has a limited time. I don't think it's worth creating a "characters" sub-category for everyyyy single factions because there are tens (or hundreds?) of them on this wiki, and shuffling entries around takes time. There are approximately 200 Wildhammer dwarves and 230 Dark Iron dwarves, so IMO that's enough to justify a sub-category. Xporc (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Also note that the Dark Iron and Wildhammer dwarves are already tagged as a "race + faction" categories! Xporc (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I lean towards agreeing with Peter for the characters category for the Thorium Brotherhood (15 or so members).
 * The dwarves are hard indeed and I don't have objections. U really gave it a thought! Mordecay (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Mmh I was thinking. So far we have a Category:Undead characters for the people using the playable Undead model, a Category:Forsaken for everything related to the Forsaken, and a Category:Forsaken characters inheriting from both for people who are both undead and members of the Forsaken. Sound straightforward enough, right? But what about the Dark Iron dwarves? We have a Category:Dark dwarf characters category for the people using the dark dwarf model, a Category:Dark Iron clan for everything related to the faction, so should we have either a "Category:Dark Iron dwarf characters" or "Category:Dark Iron clan characters" for the people who are both?
 * "Category:Dark Iron dwarf characters" has the merit of making it clear by precising both the faction and race in the category name, but what about the eventual Dark Iron clan members who are not (dark) dwarves? There are some, like Balgaras the Foul.
 * "Category:Dark Iron clan characters" on the other hand can be used by any race affiliated to the Dark Iron clan, but then what is the point of making it inherit from Category:Dark dwarf characters?
 * Should every Dark Iron mob be tagged both as a "dark dwarf character" and a "Dark Iron clan character"?
 * Also should we change the current "Category:Forsaken characters" to "Category:Forsaken undead characters"? It would have the merit of being clearer, but Forsaken is both a faction and a race. Xporc (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI I checked every single page in the Category:Dwarves category and I came up with the following "cultural" articles that are not about a dwarven character in particular:

Now that this is done, I suggest moving everything not listed here from Category:Dwarves to Category:Dwarf characters, as well as move Category:Dark Iron dwarves to Category:Dark Iron dwarf characters and Category:Wildhammer dwarves to Category:Wildhammer dwarf characters. This way, the dwarf categories would be all cleaned up. This would also gave me a few weeks to ensure everything was moved properly before moving up to the next race. Xporc (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * One thing for sure, the idea of moving the Dwarf categories to the "characters" versions sounds like a great idea, I'm all for that! Though the "Forsaken undead characters" gives me headache, not because of the name but because of the whole thing around it being a faction and a race. It'd probably be best to keep that "Forsaken characters". 19:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I decided to settle on simplicity and to leave it only as "Forsaken characters" as well :) Xporc (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

There, isn't the Category:Dwarves all pretty and cleaned up now? :D Xporc (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Posh! Mordecay (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Lovely! Though one question, why is the Territory categories (not just the Dwarves category) not under the T section? 16:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Heads up everyone! I finished validating the Category:Dwarves category. That doesn't mean that every dwarf-related page is perfect, but it means that to me the race doesn't need anymore category cleanups and refactoring. I'll start working on the Forsaken and undead characters following the same template now. Xporc (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Forsaken
Since xporc has been changing |race=Forsaken into |race=Undead recently I'd like to revisit it again. The confusion may arise when Blizzard calls the undead race and the organization as Forsaken. As far I'm aware, Forsaken were also treated as a race here too. The only time they were not was the cause with the undead of the Risen since they got their own story, being raised by Balnazzar, thus clearly not being affiliated with the race or organization of the Forsaken. In my opinion, all those changes should be reverted back. + the undead page, except maybe one section, is basically a list of undead races unlike the other race pages. All undead race info is on the Forsaken page. Thoughts? Mordecay (talk) 11:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * From what I read, the debate has already been done to death (to death? get it? :D) several times. My current stance is that any undead that do not seem to be actively part of the Forsaken/Undercity faction should rather be tagged as an "Undead character" rather than "Forsaken character". I 100% believe that people like Alchemist Finklestein and the Twilight Darkcasters were part of the Forsaken at some point, but if they do not seem to care about the politics of Undercity/became hostile to it, can they really be said to still be "Forsaken characters"? Also there has recently been a rise of free undead having absolutely no relations to the Forsaken, like Old Fillmaff and Meryl Felstorm.
 * In the end I am not hostile to merging back most of the "Undead characters" to the "Forsaken characters" category, excepted for people who are clearly hostile to the Horde, like the Crown Co. Chemicals and the Twilight's Hammer.
 * EDIT:Or, another possibility is to leave the "|race=Forsaken" parameter and but to still categorize them merely as "Undead characters" to show they are not interested in the politics of the Undercity. Xporc (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yea the thing with the Forsaken parameter could be ok. Just don't add it to the Scourge members, the Risen, Fillmaff and Meryl (the undead who are specifically told not to be forsaken undead). Mordecay (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This could suggest that the Venture Co Forsaken may actually be voodoo drones/zombies as well. Xporc (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can call the "Forsaken" a proper race, makes little sense to me. What happened originally is the following. The Lich King lost control over a large number of undead (who belonged to multiple races), some of which united and formed a faction called the Forsaken. And this faction was made of several different races, including undead humans, high elves, banshees, and so on. So 1) not all freed-undead joined the Forsaken 2) the Forsaken are not even made of the same race, so it doesn't make sense to call them a race in general. Another example to add to Xporc's list is Baron Valimar Mordis who freed himself from the Lich King through his sheer will, and then joined the Forsaken. He is a Fosaken by allegiance, not by "race". - MyMindWontQuiet 13:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Alright, here are a list of all the "cultural" Forsaken pages:

The faction is ready to be transfered by a bot from Category:Forsaken to Category:Forsaken characters. I still need to clean up Category:Undead characters to make a precise distinction between a "Forsaken character" and an "Undead character". Xporc (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * FYI I'm finally done with cleaning up the Forsaken categories. I'm only two weeks late on this! Not sure what the next race should be Xporc (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Another suggestions
I'm gonna ask and suggest some more things xporc suggested related to categories. Would it be possible and worth to edit templates and whatnot so NPCboxes would generate the categories ( category for starters as these already have the new name, as well as race and faction ones) like, for example, Questboxes generate the quest, quest, quests at Categories? Mordecay (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If that's the way we want to do it sure. The question is should every page with NPCbox be categorized as an NPC? -- (•) 22:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hmm, the current naming of the categories use "NPCs" with organizations only, I think, but xporc wants that changed, so I don't think that's would be a problem. Is that what u ask?
 * Basically what I imagine is that the |class= or |character= line (or both, not sure what is their difference) would create the already existing Category: characters. When xporc's new naming is settled then it would be done for |race= & |races= line and |affiliation= line. Mordecay (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is necessary or wanted. We have 10000s of NPC pages, and far from all of them are correctly formatted for such an endehavor. Plus not all affiliations would have their own categories, etc. Xporc (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh i get it. It's not a good idea because even user characters would be then included. Ok, nvm! :D Mordecay (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * There's also stuff like NPCs being tagged as members of the Silver Hand instead of the proper Knights of the Silver Hand. The NPCBox would try to create a "Silver Hand NPCs" category instead of the right one. Xporc (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Categories from templates
Is there a way to detect pages that are manually added to categories that their templates are already placing them in? With quests as an example, the questbox tempalte has a parameter for faction, but many old quest pages manually have the aswell. PeterWind (talk) 08:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no real reason to unless we're changing how they're categorized. Duplicate categorization doesn't affect anything. -- (•) 11:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Questions
I'm coming into this conversation very late... but I would like to know why are we making the racial categories longer (ie Orcs to Orc characters)? What is the main purpose in this change?

Seems to me this will make adding categories to articles even more bothersome to new editors. I already every few months or so go into Category:Trolls just to move the NPCs into their proper subcat, just because most editors just put their main race, be it troll, ogre, undead, or whatever we've split into further subcats.

Some factional categories require having "The" at the beginning such as Category:The Taunka to differentiate from their race category Category:Taunka (Category:The August Celestials - Category:August Celestials) while factions like Category:The Anglers might be best to keep the "The" otherwise many editors might start tossing in random characters that fish into it. So if we start making exceptions to the rule then it throws the consistency out the window (for official names of zones, factions, instances).

Ultimately I'm all about consistency... if this change is something everyone wants, it can't be just the main races, it gets too confusing figuring out which categories need additional words or not half the time and really slows editing down. 20:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The reason for having " characters" categories is already stated above: to stop content being buried in their main racial category. Someone interested into reading articles about orcs would read the Orcs category, but he would abandon quickly after noticing that there are hundreds of pages about orc characters. My proposal is to move these pages in their own sub-category. It was nearly impossible to find the articles about paladin gameplay, lore and subclasses in Category:Paladins until all the character pages were moved to Category:Paladin characters.
 * I don't really see subcategories getting too complicated for new editors as a problem - first because 85% of the changes on the wiki are made by a handful of veterans, and second because it's something that can be easily fixed when an error is noticed.
 * The distinction between racial and faction categories for taunka and celestials is indeed problematic, hadn't thought of that. Don't know how to handle this situation. We could probably keep the "The" for them.
 * The change is not that dramatic. There are already plenty of oddities and inconsistencies in the wiki. Because of this, wanting to keep the current status quo is not really fighting for consistency either ... Xporc (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, just some more musings to make my though process clearer: when I said "I'd like to see all categories starting with "The..." to be changed to remove it in order to comply with WP:NOA.", I didn't knew yet there were categories like "The Taunka". I only wanted to fix zone categories like "The Jade Forest" and "The Broken Isles", as well as categories like "The Earthen Ring" having a different category name than their actual name. So the Taunka and August Celestial things can stay as they are. Xporc (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I still think "Taunka" (the race) and "The Taunka" (the faction) should be separate pages, but that's a different discussion altogether. -- 08:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Tauren mesas
User:Xporc, what did u mean by it being ugly in infoboxes? Give an example. Mordecay (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I just meant that if your request was followed, in npcboxes, you'd have originally the location of an npc as "Lower Rise, Thunder Bluff", and after your bot request it would be "lower rise, Thunder Bluff", when it should be "Lower rise, Thunder Bluff". Xporc (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Naah those should have the capital L. I updated the request. Mordecay (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Work in progress
Every category listed in Category:Characters by race should contain all the characters of its race instead of having them in the main racial category.

Worgen, Vrykul, Mogu and Nightborne
I'm done with worgen. Xporc (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Since there's no discussion going on anymore in this thread, I deprecate its use. People willing to follow my progress should see User:Xporc/Racial categories. Xporc (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)