Forum:Gem type categories


 * Original category structure (some changes have already been made)
 * inventory items
 * jewel items (uncut gems)
 * epic jewels, rare jewels,  uncommon jewels


 * item
 * mineral items
 * gem items
 * uncut gem items (empty)
 * jewelcrafting crafted gem items
 * inventory items
 * equippable items
 * cut gem items


 * Current proposed category structure (29 July 2009)
 * World of Warcraft inventory items
 * World of Warcraft gems
 * Common gems -- quality of item (cut, uncut, simple)
 * Uncommon gems
 * Rare gems
 * Epic gems
 * Cuttable gems -- being uncut gem items that jewelcrafting turns into socketable items
 * Socketable gems
 * Jewelcrafting crafted gems
 * Bind on Equip socketable gems
 * Bind on Pickup socketable gems
 * Dropped socketable gems.
 * Purchased socketable gems
 * Quest socketable gems
 * Red socketable gems
 * Yellow socketable gems
 * Blue socketable gems
 * Orange socketable gems
 * Green socketable gems
 * Purple socketable gems
 * Meta socketable gems
 * Prismatic socketable gems

Consensus
This is for consensus; I don't feel bound by voting rules as long as we can agree. I'll update the category list as things become clear.

'World of Warcraft' prefix
Keep "World of Warcraft" prefix on categories? Say yes, no, or some (specifying which).
 * Keep


 * Toss

'Socketable'
Keep "socketable" on categories names where it is listed? (Vote: Keep, Toss, Replace)
 * Keep


 * Toss


 * Replace (provide replacement suggestion)

'Gem Items'
I think we currently have consensus on "gems", except for the base "WoW gem items" category. Tree adjusted to reflect.


 * Keep


 * Toss


 * Abstain

Other gem categories
Got other gem categories a) you want, b) you'd be willing to maintain, and c) can justify? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Howbizr, I'm guessing you're a 'no' on "WoW", a 'no' on "Items", and " 'cut' instead of 'socketable'", but I leave it to you to state. Fandy, I'm guessing much the same, but more 'meh'. Morph/Jrooksjr, I've no real read on you.

I've tagged those people I thought most likely to want the prefixes, so I've no further objection to deciding them now. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments
I was under the impression we had, at one point, categories for "red gems", "Orange Gems", etc. Socketable gems never could all fit under Jewelcrafted items categories. And having just encountered Category:World of Warcraft cut gem items, I will likely be going through and topping off that category.

... Discovering that the "cut gem items" category is separate from the "jewelcrafted gem items" reinforces my opinion that that there should be a cross-categorization of some sort. That there isn't a "cut gem" article kinda calls into question how the term came to be used.

I'm confident this has come up before, perhaps in archived Village Pump talk. Could someone dig up the arguments against colored gem categories? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As I remember, people spent so much time arguing about all the categories with World of Warcraft prefix or not, I don't think we ever got to the point of gem color categories. The item categorization is pretty messed up in general. The later professions (jewelcrafting and inscription) are probably the worst off. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 5:13 PM PST 9 Jul 2009


 * Well, then. Shall we resume that discussion?  Would you prefer...
 * Socketable gems (allows both crafted and cut gems) -> "matches red (yellow, blue, meta) socket" gems
 * or Socketable gems -> Red (blue, purple, meta, prismatic) gems
 * or (the categorization scheme in the box that Jay is holding) IE "something else"
 * And how about names for the categories? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Assuming the "World of Warcraft..." prefix police have retired or aren't paying attention, I don't really care that much. I thought cut gem items and jewelcrafting crafted gem items were the same thing, but whoever made the category seems to think they're different. Instead of "cut gem items" vs. "jewelcrafting crafted gem items", I'd prefer "jewelcrafting socketable gem items", "purchased socketable gem items", and "dropped socketable gem items". Are there any exceptions? I hope I'm not getting too off topic.
 * As for putting all socketable gems in a Socketable gems category, I'm fine with it allowing both crafted and cut gems. I'd prefer subcategories of "&lt;socket compatibility&gt; socketable gems". -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 1:33 PM PST 10 Jul 2009


 * Stormjewels currently come in the fishing quests award bag. They don't quite fall under the standard "drop" definition, I don't think.  --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)  edit: Note Void Sphere, not jewelcrafted. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Added a proto-tree at the top, indicating what I've found current, and what we've currently proposed. The existing categories need to be rationalized regardless of us inventing new ones. Many many articles currently in "crafted gems" would migrate to "socketable gems", freeing up the category to be more like the other "(skill) crafted items" categories. "Jewel" should be removed from our lexicon, IMO, to be replaced by the distinction "gems" vs "socketable gems" (with not all gems being craftable into socketable gems).

Individual socketable gem pages would fall under: (rarity) items, (acquired by) items, (matching sockets) items; the last repeated as necessary.

Please feel free to edit the above trees, to show categories I missed, or ones desired. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As you can see, they are disorganized. The term "jewel" was initially used for socketable gems by Blizzard, but the community quickly crushed it and now they are called gems. I knew I forgot a "quest socketable gem items" category. I will make a proposed category tree in a day or so. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 6:16 PM PST 13 Jul 2009


 * Another gem category tree structure proposal:
 * inventory items
 * gem items (what Wowhead calls "Simple Gems"?)
 * common gems
 * uncommon gems
 * rare gems
 * epic gems
 * cuttable gem items (uncut, but cuttable gems)
 * socketable gems
 * crafted gems
 * dropped gems
 * purchased gems
 * quest gems
 * red
 * orange
 * purple
 * blue
 * green
 * purple
 * yellow
 * green
 * orange
 * meta
 * prismatic
 * That should cover most of it. I don't consider gems equippable itesm, since you apply them to equippable items, but they aren't equippable themselves. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 11:10 AM PST 21 Jul 2009
 * Updated. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 7:03 PM PST 23 Jul 2009


 * "Color of gem" cats (red, purple, etc)... are all purple gems also in red cat?  or is purple CAT in red cat?  or neither?   Also, Q on pearls: JC transforms them like it does "real" cuttable gems.  There's only one transformed result, though.  Wowhead treats them as simple, but they could also be 'cut'.  Opinion? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I supposed green, orange, and purple could go under they're base colors, but I was trying to keep it simple. A pearl is still a gem, just not a mineral (aka not mined). I would put pearls in rare gem items (Siren's Tear) or uncommon gem items (other pearls), and cuttable gem items (pearls from BC or later). They aren't socketable until they're cut. I'm not sure what the confusion is exactly. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 12:09 PM PST 22 Jul 2009


 * Confusion - just that WoWhead (simple gems definition) classifies (eg)siren's tear as simple gem, not 'cuttable'.  I'm easy with green/orange/purple being or not being in base color cats.  For a first run, "not" is simpler, as you say.  Can always be added later if someone wants.


 * More than 10 days since we started this, nobody else seems interested, we seem to have a plan. Time to proceed? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not have a Jewelcrafting character so I can't / wont comment too much - overall you look like you have it figured out on how you want to do it, but in my oppinion on the colors - you should have the 3 primary colors ( red,  yellow  and  blue ) as Main categories  and then the secondary colors as sub categories ( orange  under red & yellow,  green  under blue & yellow and  purple  under red &blue). --  20:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a primary (eeek!) example of the issue we were talking about above: are we talking about "color of the gem" (as seen, for instance, in the jewelcrafter skill window), or "color of the socket" (or rather, "what matches the socket").  When you're talking about 'gem color', it is hard to justify  'green' as a subset of 'red'.  When you're talking about 'fits the socket', it becomes a little difficult to justify 'green' at all.  Would mention on the red/blue/yellow categories, along the lines of "prismatic, Orange, and Purple gems also match red sockets.


 * I guess I semi-misunderstood - I thought you were talking about the Socket colors they fit into - Blizz icons do not always match the supposed colors of the socket they fit into ( I was meaning Primary color ((sockets in this case))  Red, Yellow and Blue - Secondary color sockets  Orange, Green, Purple --  18:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. Green would never be a sub-set of Red, it is subsets of Blue and Yellow. -- 18:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm prismatics, I forgot about them ( again I am not a Jewlcrafter) - but yeah I guess they would would go under all 3, but again as stated before - overal you seem to have it figured out -- this was more of an oppinion on my part --  18:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ... another question, I guess, is whether the category name should be Category:Purple socketable gem items rather than Category:Purple socket gem items? I would agree with 'socketable', to avoid the confusion.  --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah I think socketable should be the way to go -- 18:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at it, perhaps "meta socket gems" should stay as was, since they only activate in the proper socket, unlike 'color gems'. And I'm not as sure, on prismatic gems, whether 'socketable' applies as well. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree Meta's would go into their own socketable categories - since they do not give any benefit in any other socket -- 18:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A bit more subtle than that: I like "meta socket gems" vs "meta socketable gems" as the name. Agree/disagree?  It is a departure from all the other gem categories in that regard. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I can agree with that -- 19:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Common/uncommon/rare epic:
 * 1) Do we keep these categories?
 * 2) If so, Do we have separate categories for (eg) rare simple gems vs rare cuttable gems?  If we have quality category for one and not the other, that becomes awkward.

Thoughts? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This comes into play when contemplating where to move (eg) Jade and Forest Emerald to.--Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This one I can't help with - I do not know the Category struction for the gems. -- 21:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not getting involved in this for obvious reasons, but i just noticed one of the questions was relating to something i did. The cut gems vs. jewelcrafting crafted gems i thought would be selfexplanitory, but apparently not. There are gems that come pre-cut and have nothing to do with jewelcrafting, so i made both. -- 08:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge Socketable gems with 'gem items'?
Howbizr suggests we merge Socketable gems into "gem items". I hope he will explain more, here, himself. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OMG I'm a girl . Haven't you even peeked at my user page? Okay so I'll read your forum, just give me some time to soak it in.  5:12 PM, 23 Jul 2009 (EDT)
 * In Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) defense - I thought you were Male as well - your main page shows you have female characters - but that does not mean anything - my father has all female characters ingame but he is not a female --  21:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I must stare at my contrib count too much "This user employs peasants to count her contributions." But Pcj also called me out publically as a "token female" [1] (LOL no offense taken). 5:27 PM, 23 Jul 2009 (EDT)
 * My bad.  And no, actually, I haven't seen your user page, except to pass unto your talk page...   There was someone else (Jiyambi?  I dunno) that I was caught out this way on. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So as a very dedicated jewelcrafter (see Template:User All Cuts) since the release of the profession, I see gems and jewels like this:
 * A jewel (also known as "simple gem"), should only be used to refer to items such as Huge Emerald that are exclusively a regeant for Blacksmithing, Engineering, and even Jewelcrafting jewelry items (necklaces, rings, misc cloth helms, etc), but cannot be cut by a jewelcrafter.
 * Everything else, which is the vast majority of items, is a gem
 * From here on gems have qualities. They don't fit very nicely into a "tree" - it's more like branches from a bush, lacking a central trunk
 * (Binary) Gem is cut or uncut
 * (Mutually exclusive) Gem is BoE or BoP
 * (Mutually exclusive) Drop, Crafted, or Purchased (there are no "BoP quest" gems that I'm aware of, although Stormjewels are psuedo "BoE quest")
 * (Mutually exclusive) Gem is from the BC Expansion or the Wrath Expansion. Why bother with this distinction? Because Blizz completely eclipsed the old gems. Even the best-of-the-best JC only gems from BC are worse than the lowest level crafted BoE greens you get from Wrath. For all practical purposes, there is no reason to ever use the old gems because you can get a new one for - that will be more powerful. Note, gems themselves have no level restriction (yet). They're restricted simply by the level of gear that has sockets. I like to use Necklace of the Deep as an example. You always could and still can equip gems, throw it on the AH (because socketing BoE gems doesn't bind the item to you), and sell it to twinks. Pretty neat, because even enchanting isn't like that.
 * (Mutually exclusive) Gem has exactly one color, which relates to matching to sockets: Red, Orange, Yellow, Blue, Green, Purple, Meta, Prismatic. While orange gems are red gems (like squares are parallelograms), the gem is still orange, it's not red. It only matches to a red socket, and counts towards metas, but it's orange. You could make the same argument about it being yellow, so let's just stick with orange and ignore the color wheel. I would even go so far as to avoid the orange gem cat being a sub-cat of red and yellow gems. I'd rather the discussion about socket matching be left the JC articles and not convoluted in the category tree. Just leave colors exclusive.
 * Socketable is just a bad word. I would stick to cut and uncut. If they're uncut, they're basically just "pre-socketable." We want to clearly distinguish the (mostly retired) jewels from the gems people actually use in the end game. And with this 3rd or 4th round of "leveling ease" coming out in Patch 3.2.0, I think it's fair to focus on the end game.


 * So some examples.
 * Dragon's Eye would simply have the categories "uncut gem" and "boe gem."
 * Whereas a Bold Dragon's Eye would have the categories "bop", "cut", and "prismatic" (although after the patch, it should be changed to "red").
 * Bold Blood Garnet I would give the cats of "boe", "cut", "red", and "BC". I really wouldn't bother tagging all the "new" gems as "wrath," but I think for historical purposes, it might be nice to group all the "BC" gems, and "everything else" is just in the Wrath bucket by default.
 * There may be some merit to doing more specific branches like "JC only", "PvP", etc but I wanted to explain the simple model first and go from there. 6:06 PM, 23 Jul 2009 (EDT)

Wish you'd joined this discussion, oh, 12 hours earlier... Could you write up a proposed category list, the way Fandyllic did? edit: would help to call out the changes by bolding or tagging or something.

As I said earlier, "Jewel" should be disposed of, as it has no distinct definition, where "cuttable gem" does. If I, someone who is NOT a dedicated jewelcrafter, cannot intuitively determine the difference *just from the names*, how would you anticipate someone fresh off the street doing so?

I avoid 'cut' primarily due to lack of imagination (in the face of "sockets"). A secondary excuse could be that 'cut' only applies (when examined rigorously) to gems actually transformed by jewelcrafting, whereas "socketable" specifically describes the use to which you put the product of cutting. I agree, it's a horrible word, though.

I have no problem with marking "BC cut/socketable gems" as separate. The distinction of "eclipsed" breaks down, though, in the face of the fact that uncommon and even rare level gems are similarly eclipsed by epic ones, within the WotLK set. It's a problem also seen in enchanting, but not as much in tailoring and blacksmithing due to level restrictions. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To give you an idea of what I mean... I've seen people take an old gem they had in the bank from BC but didn't use, vendor it for the, buy a newer gem with 20% higher stats for . It's that stupid.


 * I'll try to work on the cat tree, but it's hard for me. I normally shy away from them because they kind of scare me. But I'm pretty passionate about JC, so if we could get rid of "socketable" in the names of the cats, I'll be happy, lol. "Socketable" in-line with descriptions I can live with. 9:48 PM, 23 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * I definitely don't want to start using "jewel" to mean something like "simple gem", since Blizzard initially was using the term jewel for socketable gems. Also, I'll fix my example category tree to use socketable. I think I was just lazy and started copy/pasting after I typed socket. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 7:00 PM PST 23 Jul 2009


 * I'm pretty much stopped on this, Howbizr, unless/until you come up with your alternate category arrangement.
 * --- Putting names aside, do you disagree with any of the category concepts in the working description?  I assume that we could get a bot to come in later and do the manual C2C work, once we agree on names. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ya sorry I fell asleep last night. Was unusually tired at about 10:30 EDT. For "category concepts" should I look at the descriptions of the categories on their respective pages? 4:25 PM, 24 Jul 2009 (EDT)

Gems: other issues
I've made notes on Minerals and Gems. Currently, these templates are used in a hit-or-miss fashion. I have interpreted 'Minerals' to be "mining crafted gem-like items", as opposed to "conceivable cut-gem sources". 'Gems' seems closer to a gemcutting related template, but as I said on its talk page, it is too unfocused for me to come to grips with. Do you folks have opinions on the use we should put these templates to? And any changes you think would be useful? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Going with what Fandy said above, could we make Minerals and Gems be mutually exclusive? So if it can be cut/socketed, put it on Gems, but if it's a legacy "gem/jewel" and can never be cut/socketed, put it on Minerals? 4:28 PM, 24 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * Minerals vs Gems: Having "grown up" in an era where Jade WAS a gem here, I am loath to kick it out of bed for the New Hotness. It hasn't become any less "gemmy", we just need a new term to distinguish them.  Even so, calling them "Minerals" would put the minerals template to bed.  --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Quest gems:  -- Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * They are less gemy, because "gem" got redefined to be something you can equip, instead of a reagent. 8:06 AM, 28 Jul 2009 (EDT)

Alternate proposal

 * Points
 * 1) Dropped redundant language like "World of Warcraft" prefix or "items" suffix.
 * 2) Most groups are mutually exclusive - don't tag red,yellow,blue,prismatic for instance. Just use prismatic.
 * 3) Dropped the confusing word "socketable"
 * 4) "Gems" and "Minerals" are also mutually exclusive. "Gems" include:
 * 5) Items that can be socketed
 * 6) "pre-socketed" items or "uncut" as JC says
 * 7) "Minerals" or "non-gems" are the catch-all for legacy items from classic and BC WoW that sound like "gems" but are not related to sockets. These items are reagents for low level crafting (blacksmithing, jewelcrafting, engineering)


 * Tree
 * Category:Inventory items
 * Category:Minerals (not even any need to have quality or binding, because I think they're all BoE uncommon)
 * Category:Gems
 * Category:BoE gems, Category:BoP gems
 * (sub of BoP only) Category:Jewelcrafting BoP gems
 * Category:Common gems, Category:Uncommon gems, Category:Rare gems, Category:Epic gems
 * Category:Burning Crusade gems (where applicable)
 * Category:Cut gems, Category:Uncut gems
 * (sub for uncut only) Category:Engineering reagent, Category:Jewelcrafting reagent, Category:Blacksmithing reagent
 * Category:Red gems, Category:Orange gems, Category:Yellow gems, Category:Green gems, Category:Blue gems, Category:Purple gems, Category:Meta gems, Category:Prismatic gems
 * Category:Dropped gems, Category:Crafted gems, Category:Purchased gems, Category:Quest gems (none currently)

Here's my rough draft, as per request. 4:54 PM, 24 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * It looks like your changes are:
 * remove 'socket' or 'socketable' everywhere, as well as "world of warcraft" prefix
 * "socketable gems" -> "cut gems", "cuttable gems" -> "uncut gems"
 * call "old gems" (aka simple gems) "minerals" (which also disposes of the "minerals" template as counter to nomenclature)
 * add "burning crusade gems", "BoE", "BoP", and "BoP jewelcrafted" categories.


 * Still unclear:
 * Do common/uncommon/rare/epic apply only to cut gems, uncut gems, both?
 * Why "engineering Reagent", etc, instead of current "engineering ingredient item", etc.?
 * There are very few "uncut gems" (notably, raw metas) that do not also have "other" jewelcrafting uses. Is the distinction necessary?


 * I think "jewelcrafting crafted" is still a distinction we should make re gems. While unlikely, other skills could concievably have recipes added to make things to put into sockets.


 * I've no objection to your proposed BoE/BoP categories, nor the BC one. But I think we need to run the "drop the WoW prefix" by WoW Prefix Gestapo, lest we get a pogrom called down upon us. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Like I said... rough draft.
 * Always worth a shot to get rid of the prefixes - some of these proposed categories were really cumbersome/adjective-heavy.
 * I think dropping "uncut" and keeping "cut" is fair. Just remember there are "cut" gems that are not crafted, drops, vendor, etc.
 * I would still go either way with the color cat (cut only or both uncut and cut). A red uncut gem can make a red cut, and red cuts are only made by red uncut gems. Same goes for metas. But you're right - the uncut gems are reagents for multiple professions so it's a little bit confusing, although not terribly, in that way.
 * I dropped "items" to be consistant, but if you need it to be more verbose, it's at your own peril ("world of warcraft engineering ingredient gem item" is really awkward).
 * I'm in favor of "old gems" or "minerals" or "jewels" - I just would like to see all "cuttable" and "cut" gems grouped together, or rather grouped away from the legacy stuff. 5:57 PM, 24 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * Ah, but we have folks with a vested interest in keeping the prefixes... I'd rather not get into a screaming match if I can avoid it. Same goes for "item" suffix.  Me, I could care less, as long as it seemed consistent.
 * We have plenty enough items that qualify as 'cuttable' or 'uncut' that a category for them works out. As well, it is a shoo-in for 'jewelcrafting ingredients', kinda by definition.  I would more argue "which name" than "at all".
 * "All uncut go into a color cat" would kinda ask for them to be put first in sort order lest they be lost. With the number of cuttable "color X" raw materials going up, I'm reluctant to start that.  Collectively, I don't think that eg "engineering gems" would deserve a separate category from "engineering ingredients".  That's not a distinction we make even for Bars, and there are more bars than uncut gem types....
 * Many of the uncut gems pal around with the legacy gems in the mining crafted items category.


 * Hmm... I wouldn't have any problem with:
 * Inventory
 * Gem items (simple gems go here)
 * uncut/cuttable gems
 * socketable/cut gems
 * yadda, yadda
 * Would that work for you? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If the "WoW category nazis" seriously want to advocate for Category: World of Warcraft Burning Crusade gem items I'm going to laugh at them. I think we should have a policy that all non-Category:Things to do categories have a max of 4 words. When it was just World of Warcraft (insert one noun here) okay, I could support that, clumsy as it may be. But having multiple suffixes and prefixes is silly.


 * Eirik, you're kind of losing me here with the long comments, just make a new "draft" - it's easier. Please use the full category names you're proposing so we're not hiding any naming issues. 11:01 PM, 24 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * Okay where do pearls go in this new structure again? Especially things like Small Lustrous Pearl which is not a cuttable gem or a mineral. This category proposal may be too JC-centric. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 12:53 PM PST 29 Jul 2009


 * Small Lustrous Pearl: not cuttable, therefore under "Gem Items" and/or (rarity) gems.
 * Jaggal Pearl: Cuttable gems, (rarity) gems.
 * Both: pearls Work for you? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I guess this part of the initial proposal is what confused me:
 * "Gems" and "Minerals" are also mutually exclusive. "Gems" include:
 * 1. Items that can be socketed
 * 2. "pre-socketed" items or "uncut" as JC says
 * It implies only socketable and pre-socket, which some pearls can be neither. There really should be a
 * 3. "non-socketed" items or "uncuttable"
 * -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 3:11 PM PST 29 Jul 2009

Other Gem comments
As I understand Zeal's comment, anything that you put into a socket, that was not jewelcrafting-created, was under 'cut gem items'. That would encompass what currently is proposed as 'purchased' and 'quest' gems. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow prefix consenus
Could we all agree, given the depth of these categories, that we should drop post and prefixes? Leave them on the high level categories for "general consistancy," but this is just rediculous:

when this is what we meant to say:

1:14 PM, 28 Jul 2009 (EDT)
 * I agree it's ridiculous, but you need a consensus for consistency outside just gems. -- 17:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Odd, but I agree wih Pcj on the name consistency issue, but mostly for consistency with currently established item categories, which seem to care the WoW prefix to the bottommost level. Anyone have prominent counterexamples? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's just resurrect the old post (heavens knows where it was) and ping the posters who actually cared. If they don't speak up, then the honest thing to do (be bold) is to impose a depth guideline. Something similar wasn't brought up before (that I remember), and I think it's definitely different than what was being mentioned in the previous discussion (which seemed lateral moreso than vertical). 5:22 PM, 28 Jul 2009 (EDT)

Item suffix comments
Howbizr's abstention notwithstanding, I think we're agreed on dropping the 'items' suffix from all but the base category of World of Warcraft gem items.
 * Given the option Pcj described, I'm siding with him. I really think simpler language is a good idea. 5:29 PM, 28 Jul 2009 (EDT)

Socketable adjective comments
Howbizr, do you feel it should be replaced, or removed entirely? I'll remind you that "cut" is not descriptive of several cases (pearls, Sphere gems from enchanting), and may not match well as a replacement adjective.

Fandyllic, any opinions? Pcj (other than the WoW opinion)? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Voted on the rest of it. -- 19:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You think an is a gem? It's just a crafted item.  5:31 PM, 28 Jul 2009 (EDT)
 * The icon appears to be that of a gem, it can be "cleaved" into other "gems". I suppose it depends on your definition of gem (and adequately determining exactly what real-world thing Icy Prism corresponds to).  Also as Eirik pointed out, not all socketable "gems" are cut. -- 21:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They weren't all cut by a player jewelcrafters, but they were (conceivably) cut by an NPC jewelcrafter (if you want to get really RPG-ey). I can't make a Purified Jaggal Pearl without my Simple Grinder. But it still seems like poor judgement to go from a term everyone understand ("cut") to an awkward term ("socketable") simply for less than a dozen legacy items no one will ever ever use again. I'll give you that "spheres" aren't "cut" - they were "enchanted," whatever that was supposed to mean. 5:56 PM, 28 Jul 2009 (EDT)
 * Since I didn't say before, I think the Icy Prism and Brilliant Glass should just be container items. No one calls them gems, because gems wearable. I've heard it called a "cooldown" or a "transmute" however. 5:59 PM, 28 Jul 2009 (EDT)
 * I actually think more people would understand "socketable" and what it means over "cut".-- 22:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I still get people asking me the ABCs of Jewelcrafting (what's a socket, can I put a blue gem in a red socket, what's the reagent for a strength gem, do you have resilience gems?).
 * Again with the in game examples (which is where people will draw from), I see ads for "JC LFW - ALL POPULAR CUTS" or "JC LFW - ALL PVP CUTS" but not "JC LFW - ALL WORLD OF WARCRAFT SOCKETABLE GEM ITEMS" LOL.  6:05 PM, 28 Jul 2009 (EDT)
 * Yes, I get those too (people asking for a list of all my resilience gems after I list my profession - and I have every cut - deserve the spam they get). Your point about cuts is well taken, but I am still not completely sure about the whole "hey an NPC cut it at one point in time so everyone will just go along with this being a 'cut' gem" thing.  Either way, we should probably use a subcategory to separate the JC cuts and the PvP/fishing daily/BC heroic/quest gems.  -- 22:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We've got that planned to some extent, Pcj, with the 'purchased', 'dropped', and 'quest' categories (in the list at the top). Got requests for other categories?  Or reorganization ideas? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't see that, it should work as-is then. -- 16:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Latecoming, looking for a summary
Ok... the section heading explains it all.

What's the current plan for categories so we can get this nailed down? Voted upon if necessary? Implemented? There's a good number of different options at present from my cursory glance of the page. -- k_d3 22:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See "Current proposed category structure" at the top, and the Consensus vote below it. -- 22:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The items that we could probably use feed back on are
 * Should we carry the "World of Warcraft" pre-fix at all? only the root level?
 * Should we carry the "items" post-fix at all? only the root level?
 * Do you like the term "socketable"/"else" or "cut"/"uncut" (or have any better organization ideas)? In particular, some examples of items that don't fit the mold include Purified Jaggal Pearl (came from a pearl), Tigerseye (can never be a cut gem), Prismatic Sphere (not made by a JC), and Icy Prism (transmute container item thingy). 6:43 PM, 28 Jul 2009 (EDT)

A good afternoon's work
Hoping for Kaydeethree's input still. However, given suggestions and prevailing opinions: Let me explain the latter: The goal behind it is to find those gems that are not obsoleted. Yet, the only thing the 'BC gems' category lets you find are those that ARE obsolete. Doesn't help for searching for things you want. Howbizr, since you suggested it in the first place, can you think of a reason that the category would be useful, since it doesn't sideline gems out of any other category?
 * removed 'items' from "WoW gem items"
 * left 'socketable' in, added it back to meta gems
 * removed 'BC gems'

Further comments/requests not amenable to the votes above? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Need to fix "socketable gem items" to "socketable gems" too. -- 00:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * TBH I never really agreed with the "WoW items" pre-/suffixes on every cat. At the top-level, sure... but it's not really necessary to have that duplicated all through the tree.
 * Something that was brought up on my talk page was a cut/uncut, socketable/something else decision... I'd go with cut/uncut as that's what is most often used in game. The exceptions can be handled separately if it's really necessary... though I'd just stick them in whichever of cut/uncut fits better.
 * If we need a "current" cat at all, I'd go with a "Wrath gems" cat. We can do BC gems for consistency too. This way we've got a "current" category, and as soon as the next expansion comes out, we create a new "current" category and just update the relevant links on mainspace pages. -- k_d3 00:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Biggest problem I have with "expansion" type categories is its lack of discrimination. I'd be happier if the gem pages had "similiar cuts" similar to the enchantments' "similar enchantments" sections. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay so I'm trying to use categories (maybe not the best place) to help people find good or similar gems. Right now if you use a database site like wowhead and search for 'red gem' and 'bold', which seems plenty specific, sort by item level, it looks like the best one is the old stuff, Bold Crimson Spinel. For some reason, even on the PTR, it's the only gem with an item level of 100. Even the new Bold Stormjewel and Bold Cardinal Ruby are strangly a lower item level, even though they have twice the strength of the old epics.
 * This is where a wiki could really shine, because of the human intervention. There is a lot of "noise" with gem cuts already, in particular during this patch since gems are just starting to be released.
 * Whether or not you do it this way, that was the goal I was trying to accomplish. A "expansion tag" is one way to do it. Another way is to have duplicate trees (like I said completely segregating) based on the expansion. But even though that's in the best interest of most users, I'm not sure it's a good idea. 5:59 PM, 29 Jul 2009 (EDT)
 * A noble purpose, but I'm not sure categorization is necessarily the means by which we should do that. I think the JC articles we have should (and may already) reflect that. -- 22:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I encourage you, Howbizr, to look at Enchant_Boots_-_Agility and Enchant_2H_Weapon_-_Savagery as possible models that might work better for finding better/worse related items.  For instance, following the savagery example, you might refer from Vivid Forest Emerald to 'green gems', 'hit rating gems', 'stamina gems', and perhaps others.  Categories are unsorted (except by name) and thus are not as useful for evaluating differences. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Last call for the WoW prefix
I've added ANOTHER forum topic designed to twig anyone who has strong feelings on the WoW prefix, directing them here. I've also modified the category structure again, to reflect the prevalent view of dropping the prefix. Examine the structure again, see if your vote remains the same.

I think we're just about ready to go on these, folks. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How you have it set up now (IMO) is the way it should be. -- 21:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I read at Wowpedia talk:Category policy/Names they Voted and approved of WoW not World of Warcraft for the category prefixes - Did I read that wrongly? - and Kirkburn recommended that other prfixes from Book citation index be used for other Warcraft related materials. I can go along with WoW: but not World of Warcraft as a prefix for every category relating to World of Warcraft. -- 00:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Copied over from Forum:On dropping the World of Warcraft prefix: "Aye, I continue to prefer WoW as a prefix. Everyone understands it, and it doesn't make categories excessively long. 15:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)"
 * -- 16:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe it's one vote short of winning... The 3 no's cancel out 3 yes's, leaving the winning margin only at 4 (need 5 to ratify I believe). You still haven't voted yet, Morph  5:29 PM, 30 Jul 2009 (EDT)

Repeating words in the lower trees
Didn't we just have this discussion? Why are we repeating socketable all the way down the tree?


 * Category:Socketable gems
 * Category:Jewelcrafting crafted gems
 * --> Category:Bind on Equip gems
 * --> Category:Bind on Pickup gems
 * --> Category:Dropped gems
 * --> Category:Purchased gems
 * --> Category:Quest gems
 * --> Category:Red gems
 * --> Category:Yellow gems
 * --> Category:Blue gems
 * --> Category:Orange gems
 * --> Category:Green gems
 * --> Category:Purple gems
 * --> Category:Meta gems
 * --> Category:Prismatic gems

6:07 PM, 29 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * Particularly for the categories that don't wear 'socketability' on their sleeves (ie dropped gems, purchased gems, etc), without an adjective the category name (on its own) does not indicate if it includes 'raw gems', 'simple gems', etc.


 * As for just having the discussion, "keeping 'socketable' adjective" is what I read the vote above to be indicating that the majority is in favor of. If the immediately above organization by Howbizr is what folks want, please indicate that in your comments on the vote, or under this heading. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * More specifically I would be happy, with a little more encouragement, to drop "socketable" from such categories as the BoE/BoP, and the various 'color' categories. I'm more reluctant to do so for "dropped", 'Purchased", "quest". --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think dropping from only the colors would be a good use of "editor discretion" as I've mentioned before. Is this more palatable then? 5:26 PM, 30 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * Category:Socketable gems
 * Category:Jewelcrafting crafted gems
 * Category:Bind on Equip socketable gems
 * Category:Bind on Pickup socketable gems
 * Category:Dropped socketable gems
 * Category:Purchased socketable gems
 * Category:Quest socketable gems
 * --> Category:Red gems
 * --> Category:Yellow gems
 * --> Category:Blue gems
 * --> Category:Orange gems
 * --> Category:Green gems
 * --> Category:Purple gems
 * --> Category:Meta gems
 * --> Category:Prismatic gems


 * Acceptable to me. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Also missing... (What to do with 'simple gems')
Where are the legacy gems, that cannot be cut, falling into the new tree? It looks like that got lost in the shuffle. They definitely can't go into "cuttable" since they're not. Which reminds me... does anyone else find "socketable" and "cuttable" really bad opposites (as in non-intuitive)? I still think this is a mistake having them named this way, but I don't seem to be convincing anyone. 6:11 PM, 29 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * Legacy/simple/mineral gems, in my mind, would go under &lt;rarity&gt; gems at a minimum. My preference would be for them to also appear either under "WoW gems" (to call out that they exist), or under a specific category: "simple gems", "legacy gems", or some such.  I would resist "mineral gems", as the difference between a Jade and a Deep Peridot lies in the crafting use you can put it to, not its essential makeup. (My comment on 'socketable' is elsewhere to keep this from getting side tracked.) --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine. Just wanted to make sure it was intentionally dropped. 5:30 PM, 30 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * Fandyllic may have input based on the current Mineral items category --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Implementation

 * Category changes:
 * World of Warcraft gem items -> Category:World of Warcraft gems  (eventually to Category:WoW gems)
 * World of Warcraft uncommon jewel items -> Category:uncommon gems
 * World of Warcraft rare jewel items -> Category:rare gems
 * World of Warcraft epic jewel items -> Category:epic gems
 * World of Warcraft cut gem items -> Category:Socketable gems
 * World of Warcraft cuttable gem items -> Category:Cuttable gems
 * World of Warcraft socketable gem items -> Category:Socketable gems
 * World of Warcraft purchased socketable gem items -> Category:Purchased socketable gems
 * World of Warcraft meta socket gems -> Category:Meta socketable gems
 * World of Warcraft prismatic socketable gems -> Category:Prismatic socketable gems
 * World of Warcraft prismatic socketable gems -> Category:Prismatic socketable gems


 * New categories:
 * Category:Red socketable gems
 * Category:Yellow socketable gems
 * Category:Blue socketable gems
 * Category:Green socketable gems
 * Category:Orange socketable gems
 * Category:Purple socketable gems
 * Category:Dropped socketable gems
 * Category:Quest socketable gems
 * Category:Bind on Equip socketable gems
 * Category:Bind on Pickup socketable gems


 * Discarded categories (unused):
 * World of Warcraft red socketable gems
 * World of Warcraft yellow socketable gems
 * World of Warcraft blue socketable gems
 * World of Warcraft green socketable gems
 * World of Warcraft orange socketable gems
 * World of Warcraft purple socketable gems
 * World of Warcraft dropped socketable gem items
 * World of Warcraft quest socketable gem items

Socketable gem items will get categorized into:
 * Categorization:
 * one of: Category:Bind on Equip socketable gems, Category:Bind on Pickup socketable gems
 * one of: Category:Red socketable gems, Category:Yellow socketable gems, Category:Blue socketable gems, Category:Green socketable gems, Category:Orange socketable gems, Category:Purple socketable gems, Category:Prismatic socketable gems, Category:Meta socketable gems
 * one of: Category:world of Warcraft jewelcrafting crafted gem items, Category:Dropped socketable gems, ,
 * one of: Category:Common gems, Category:Uncommon gems, Category:Rare gems, Category:Epic gems


 * Undecided:
 * Simple/Legacy gems/Minerals - do we put them in Category:World of Warcraft Mineral items? In Category:World of Warcraft gems?  both?
 * Do we put (simple gems) in Category: gems, despite the fact that they'll become obscured by the preponderance of "socketable" gems? If not, do we rename Category: gems to be Category: socketable gems?

Opinions? Did I miss anything? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks pretty comprehensive.How would we categorize legacy pearls? They are not mineral items.
 * I think simple/legacy gems/minerals should go in Category:World of Warcraft mineral items and Category:World of Warcraft gems, but also the appropriate ingredient categories.
 * I think we should not put socketable gems in Category: gems and create new Category: socketable gems for them. A raw gem can be used for multiple purposes, but once cut it can only be used for socketing.
 * -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 1:19 PM PST 12 Aug 2009


 * I've taken the liberty of transferring items from the ' jewel items' to ' gems' categories, and a couple of other minor transformations, but none of the disputed stuff yet.


 * How about an actual "World of Warcraft pearls" category, if they aren't classified as 'minerals'. If you approve my changes to Mineral, I will carry on. with changes to the mineral items category. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Some notes:
 * I see that sometimes you do things like "Purchased Socketable" and other times "Purchased socketable" - the latter is correct.
 * How do you feel about "BoP" and "BoE"? These are very common acronyms, and wouldn't be out of place now that we'll have "WoW" categories. I only bring it up because again, visually, these are really wordy categories. Anything over 3 words should set off a red-flag as possibly in need of shortening ("Keep It Short and Sweet it" as the expression goes).
 * Why "jewelcrafting crafted"? Enchanters can make "socketable gems" too, remember, although a very small number.


 * 9:34 PM, 13 Aug 2009 (EDT)


 * Purchased: point taken.
 * BoP/BoE: *shrug* sure. Not categories I am heavily invested in.
 * Enchanting does not have enough samples to justify its own category. "Jewelcrafting crafted gems" also makes a dandy insert into "Jewelcrafting crafted items" category.
 * Do you have a particular preference on category order on pages? As most/all gem pages will be revised, this is a unique opportunity to set one, if you do. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Category:WoW pearls helps and we can just put it under the appropriate categories. Let's go with BoE and BoP unless someone feels strongly. By the way, thanks for all the work on this and other topics, Eirik. It is appreciated. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 5:24 PM PST 14 Aug 2009


 * I have no interest in the order. But I didn't mean to suggest two categories, I meant to suggest Category:Crafted gems instead of Category:Jewelcrafting crafted gems. 10:30 PM, 14 Aug 2009 (EDT)

Going to see about a WoW pearls category... tomorrow...  Despite having touched almost all the "World of Warcraft Jewelcrafting crafted gem items" entries, I didn't quite have it in me to move them all to "Crafted gems" or whatever. I'm kinda against removing the "jewelcrafting" from that category anyway, because of the enchanting crafted ones.

But as of now, I *think* I'm done with the general run of gems. Look for any I may have missed, if you would. Any in the Stubs categories would be possibilities, though many meta gems are still stubs. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)