User talk:Gonzoron

Interwiki Linking?

Hi! I have a request because my wiki knowledge ends here and I don't know how to reproduce the concept. Would it be possible to make an interwiki link template? That is, when one wants to link to a wiki article on Wikipedia, all one has to do is something like [[w:Ravenloft]] or the longer [[en:Wikipedia:Ravenloft]]. It makes things a lot easier for other templates that need to link to Wikipedia, as well (instead of having [http://en.wikipedia.org/ Wikipedia] every time). I've seen it done on Wikia, and I had thought it was a standard part of Mediawiki. Mediawiki discusses it here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_link . Thanks! --Nerit 01:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive. At least this time.... :) [[w:foo]] now works. See? w:Ravenloft -- Admin 02:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yay, thank you! --Nerit 05:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The Great Page-to-Category Conversion

Eeeeeep! Look at all them new category pages. When/why did you decide to make everything a category? --Nerit 08:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Try not to be alarmed. :) Not everything. Just the things that are categories. Namely, monster types and societies. See Talk:Elsepeth,Talk:Dread Plant & Category Talk:Hiregaard Family for discussions.

Cure did some experimental work on making everything a category. See Category Talk:Osiris,Category Talk:Har'Akir,Category Talk:Anhktepot's_Tomb & Category Talk:Nidalan for details. I don't mind the nationality ones, but both DeepShadow and I were against the Har'Akir experiment.

Please feel free to weigh in with your thoughts. With so few active contributors, it's easy to mistake silence for assent. :) There's nothing that can't be un-done, if there's a compelling argument to do so. -- Gonzoron 12:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it needs refining, but we're getting closer: IMO anything that is unique is an entry; anything there can be more than one of is a category. You can't have multiple Borcas, but you can have multiple domains. There are many fiends, but only one Gentleman Caller. So far the only possible exception I've found is thrall clasps. There are multiple little suckers, but they are so interchangeable that an individual (NPC) is not possible. But then I guess the same could be said of plants, no? DeepShadow 20:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

the same could be said of lots of the mindless or animal creatures. Are we really likely to have an individual Scavyt or Carrion Stalker as an NPC? no, but I like the consistency of saying that every species is a category. It removes the guesswork and judgement calls that we'd have if only those species that contain distinct individuals were categories. -- Gonzoron 20:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

PS - Here's one to keep us all up at night pondering... Toben the Many: Individual entry or Category? :) -- Gonzoron 20:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Am I misunderstanding? Because Borca CAN be a category. A category contains derivatives, not always something of the same type and never a "multiple" (multiple things belong in a category, not as a category). So Category:Borca could have the Boritsis listed in it, as example. Think of it as a container. Vampire should be a category, because there are types and members of a race. One NPC, no, not a category in itself (it should be categorized, of course, otherwise it is an "orphan"). Should every SPECIFIC species be a category? Somehow I find that unnecessary when there's no person/character that needs to be listed within, but it is consistent and I suppose we'll see how it looks after the conversion finishes. --Nerit 06:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that domains as Categories make a lot of sense. That to me seemed to be the one thing that I felt entirely happy with from by Har'Akir experiment.Cure 14:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and to the Toben the Many joke: I would assume not unless his distinct personas need separate pages to be described. It's a practical thing :P. --Nerit 06:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you're right, there's nothing stopping Borca from being a category. (See Cure's Category:Har'Akir experiment), but as I said in one of those Talk pages, personally, I find that a little weird. I'd prefer a page for Borca itself, and perhaps a Category:Borca Related for all the things that belong to Borca. (Note that nothing in the wiki software stops us from having BOTH a Borca page and a Category:Borca. I just would prefer to keep the category named clearly differently.) But I am willing to be swayed.

As I mentioned above, the category for each species may seem unnecessary, but a) it's consistent, and b) You'd be surprised what species have named NPCs in them. Think all Goblyns are the same? Herrd ApKie disagrees. Also keep in mind, that we are allowing non-canon additions to the wiki, and you never know what some crazy DM has done. If I ever felt like putting in PCs and NPCs from my campaign, I'd probably put "Kukri" in Category:Wolf, even though to most people, a wolf is a wolf. -- Gonzoron 14:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that's where I was stumbling on the conversion logic :). It's really hard to determine whether something should have a page, a category, or BOTH. --Nerit 18:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)