Category talk:Weapon sets

Sub==Subcategories

Do we really need these subcategories or can we delete the category for each weapon set and go straight to the main weapon set page. E.G. delete Category:Dark Asuran weapons and add the "weapon set" category to the bottom of the Dark Asuran weapon page?--Sir Biggus of Aggro 14:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The basic idea was that you have a clean and small categories. We can add all weapons that are part of a weapon set in this category. Than this would have at least 437 entries. You wouldn't find anything. The worst offender is the Recipe category. So I am for keeping the seperate categories until there is a better solution. - Yandere 15:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Well it is alphabetized so I don't think that would be an issue. Hypothetically if we did have all weapon sets in this category then we would have to decide whether we wanted to link straight to each article or link each article via a subcategory first (e.g. http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Category:Dark_Asuran_weapons) Personally, I think we should just link straight to the article and delete the subcategories as they aren't needed and the articles for each weapon set have links to each individual weapon anyway. The subcategories page is surplus to requirement. --Sir Biggus of Aggro 15:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Categories don't work like that. Categories only help to organize pages, so that they're easier to find (this is mainly a benefit for editors). Generally, if you know what page you're looking for, you don't need to look up the categories. However, if you don't know what page you're looking for, or if you want to look for like pages, it helps to have all similar pages categorized under the same thing, even if an actual page already does that in a table or list Wikipedia's category page. Eventually, there will be such a mass of completely random pages that, if left unsorted, it would be impossible (or at least very tedious) to find a page unless you already knew the name or redirect of the exact page. Categories are similar to indexing, they organize related pages into the same category, and some pages may be in more than one category (eg. Logan Thackery). -CrazyRabidSquirrel 15:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said. This is an example for terrible categorisation: Category:Recipes. Alphabetisation doesn't help at all.

It doesn't help you to find anything, or to make a point: Try to find all recipes, which are used to create earrings in under 5 minutes.

You will see that it works better with this one: [[:Category:Earrings]], even though te earrings category gives you all earrings in the game, also the ones that aren't craftable. - Yandere 16:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Revisited

I would prefer it if all the weapon sets were immediately beneath this category rather than hidden away in subcategories. -Chieftain Alex 16:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not happy with this either.--Relyk ~ talk < 16:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean that the weapon set articles should be placed in this category, rather than in their eponymous category? I completely agree with that, and not just for this category, but for everything - it's been a major annoyance of mine ever since I joined this wiki. —Dr Ishmael 17:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking the weapon set categories could be arranged like the top of User:Chieftain Alex/sandbox4 (warning 86k page)

@ish; so if you're proposing that the set overview page would be put into this category, which category would "Ebon Vanguard weapons" (for example) be a sub-category of? (i.e. would the set overviews and set categories both be listed on this page?) -Chieftain Alex 17:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you just want to delayer the categories - get rid of e.g. "Crafted weapon sets" / "Karma weapon sets" / etc. and move all the categories that are currently children of them to be direct children of this category. You weren't talking about changing the categorization of articles at all. —Dr Ishmael 22:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)