User:Arcanebot/Categories

As per Sky2042's instructions I'm posting on the issue of a proposed series of bot edits. As was requested the last time I did this I will just post the irc log. It is heavily edited to be more concise but I do not believe any meaning was lost. For the log as it was go here when it is up. Please do not make fun of me for my spelling/grammar.   arcanedeath: you know the WoW items categories, right? yes  World of Warcraft legs items, etc  well, category intersection would be nice, just to the point of type and location: Ie, change items articles with World of Warcraft legs items and World of Warcraft leather items to   World of Warcraft leather legs items wouldn't a template work nicely for that?  yes, but mixing templates and categories is a bad bad idea. Sky, I could do that I'll work on that, but first of all does anyone disagree?  arcanedeath: another something to leave on VP then :) .   and i'm sure no-one would object to it, as long as there weren't false positives... ok there shouldn't be I'll be conservative in matching categories anything even slightly weird and it wont edit  that'll take several batches of runs, if you do so.  because, call it 8ish slots times 4 types of armor is 32 runs.    ofc, the first would be largest. it wouldn't match: [[Category:Acronyms ] [[]Category:Acronyms]] but it would match:  works.  it would need to match, possibly.  i'm not sure how many spaces category code works with,    though that would be the biggest error thrower. the regex would be something like "/\s*Category:\s*Acronyms\s*/i"  oh, and you might have to deal with    :]  also possibly a space before  what about Cat:Acronyms and what if each category has a different sortkey  "what about Cat:Acronyms"?  the only way to make categories work is to use   ...    does that answer your questions? <Sky2042> you can't abbreviate "category" ok <Sky2042> it can be lowercase, however <Sky2042> the first letter of the category name can also be lower case. <Sky2042> the rest of the category name is required. hence the case insensitive matching /regeex/i <Sky2042> casing* <Sky2042> double checking =] but should I preserve sortkeys? what if I have a different leather sortkey than leg shortkey <Sky2042> only if they are different from the pagename, if possible. <Sky2042> dump them both, in that case. ok I have all the info I need <Sky2042> hmm... maybe just dump the sortkey anyway.    there shouldn't be sortkeys on the articles we're going to be killing. what? why are you killing all the articles in item categories? and I thought the sortkey was so "the murloc" would be sorted as "murloc" sorry, I missunderstood something I guess <Sky2042> yes, that's what the sortkey was for, but item articles    (specifically, articles with undefined) shouldn't have sorteys. ok <Sky2042> arcanedeath: haha, no, i'm not killing them. oh lol --  04:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree, and support even more like this - perhaps "Uncommon leather leg items" and so on? -- 06:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Negative: Quality has never been something of significance nor of viable use. For a perfect example, see Tier 2 vs Outland greens (though I would argue that there were lesser quality purples which compared to tier 2 at the time, but perhaps that had more to do with skill >.>). Where I'm planning on going with this (from a long long time ago) is to subdivide the categories that the bot will put articles into by level, ie: C:WoW leather legs items levels 10 to 19, or something of the sort (details on that set of naming can be had later). The only problem with that particular scheme (as brought up at the time) was "what about quest rewards", to which the answer is simply "go with the required level of the quest" to categorize it.
 * Presently, quality can't be used in such a way and have the categories remain somewhat useful (if mw:extension:DPL or another such extension were ever to be enabled on wiki [Semantic MediaWiki comes to mind], that would allow for the cross of quality and level oriented armor, but currently cannot be due to load - ie, it would braek teh wikiz). This is only for armor, mind you; weapons and other items from the character pane are on my (Arcane's?) todo list, though he doesn't know it. ;) --Sky (t · c · w) 07:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That makes sense :) -- 08:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I see nothing here as reasoning for this change. Naturally i'm against it (probably goes without saying). Also your desire to have level cross-catting too doesn't require this change. You're merging several levels of cats, while adding further specific ones. So yeah, make cats messy, break the nav, make things harder to find. Where you're getting quality cats as severing no use or breaking the wiki i do not know.
 * All i'm reading tbh, is that Sky has drummed up support for his idea (which i support) by introducing it to people who haven't seen it before, while trying to do other unnecessary things under the guise of it. -- <ul style="font-size: 0.85em; margin: 0; padding: 0; list-style: none; list-style-type: none; list-style-image: none; display: inline; white-space: nowrap"><li style="display: inline;">User:Zealvurte</li><li style="display: inline;">User talk:Zealvurte</li><li style="display: inline;">Special:Contributions/Zealvurte</li><li style="display: inline;">User:Zealvurte</li></ul> 11:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To your first point, no, it doesn't, but it's something to add to (imo) relevant discussion. That I linked an old conversation is only a sign of wishing for transparency; I've previous advocated for this, want to show others have agreed with me, and in general think we're moving in the right direction to cut it down to the level of an item. "Making things harder to find" I would disagree; that particular change can only aid in navigation, as it allows users to have a go at finding level based items, rather than the jumble of alphabetical category structure currently employed. Funny you should mention making categories messy...
 * I did not say that quality cats serve no use, nor did I say they break the wiki. I said that they would break (in my implementation) the subdivisions which would come from the change that arcanedeath posted. From what I can tell, players have never cared for the quality of an item so much as they have cared for the minimum level of the item required to wear said item (due to the difference in iLvls possible), and then I pointed out an example. --Sky (t · c · w) 22:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know how you are planning to implement this is the issue. You say that it would require the removal of quality categories, in previous dicussions you and i had about this, that was never needed. Removal of them would made things harder to find as i said, and you simply saying you think they're less desirable doesn't support and argument here. "but currently cannot be due to load - ie, it would braek teh wikiz" ... I failed to see the relevance of your example too. Unlinked, and no explanation of how it applies or why such a comparison would be chosen means it's just lost.


 * The addition of the level cats is a good one, and i support that, but clearly we need more explanation of your intended implementation, especially as i can not see how the number of cats for an article could/need to be reducded through this unless what i excused you of is true. -- <ul style="font-size: 0.85em; margin: 0; padding: 0; list-style: none; list-style-type: none; list-style-image: none; display: inline; white-space: nowrap"><li style="display: inline;">User:Zealvurte</li><li style="display: inline;">User talk:Zealvurte</li><li style="display: inline;">Special:Contributions/Zealvurte</li><li style="display: inline;">User:Zealvurte</li></ul> 11:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Could one of the proponents make up an example category tree showing the category organization after the proposed changes? From what I can tell, this effort may just introduce an increased proliferation of categories in exchange for less categories on the actual articles. --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 3:03 PM PST 6 May 2008


 * Fandyllic, yes, I can do that (later). The number of categories increases in what I would consider a useful way and yes, also decreases the number of categories on the actual articles. --Sky (t · c · w) 22:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

- undent : Haha, Zeal xD. No, that was not my intention at all for it to be interpreted that way. I'm not saying we should remove the quality cats, I'm saying we shouldn't use those in defining the subcategories of the merged categories (Ie, not Jiyambi's suggestion of "Category:World of Warcraft legendary leather legs items).

For example, the final categorization of the item "Leather Leggings of Legality (non existant level 15 blue item)" would be the three categories of "World drop" (this isn't changing), "World of Warcraft rare items" (this is also not changing) and "World of Warcraft leather legs items from levels 10 to 19" of which the last of these three would be a subcategory of "World of Warcraft leather legs items" and "World of Warcraft items from levels 10 to 19". This would reduce the number of categories located on any given page by one (usually). The intitial change Arcane's bot would implement would be to take the categories of "WoW leather items" and "WoW legs items" and merge them (on the article) to "WoW leather legs items".

Fandyllic, I hope this answers your question also. I can draft a more legible category structure with some time, as well as add a category or two into that example, which would be another meta category.

Zeal, did that explanation make sense? --Sky (t · c · w) 00:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it scalable?


 * Types of armor: 5
 * Number of level ranges: 8
 * Number of armor slots (That have a type): 8


 * Tier 1: $$5 = 5$$
 * Tier 2: $$5 * 8 = 40$$
 * Tier 3: $$5 * 8 * 8 = 320$$
 * Total Categories: $$5 + 40 + 320 = 365$$

Lets say we decide to add another field to the category (just as an example), world. It can be Outland, Azeroth, or Northrend.


 * Tier 1: $$5 = 5$$
 * Tier 2: $$5 * 8 = 40$$
 * Tier 3: $$5 * 8 * 8 = 320$$
 * Tier 4: $$5 * 8 * 8 * 3 = 960$$
 * Total Categories: $$5 + 40 + 320 + 960 = 1325$$

I am not really trying to argue one way or another, I just wanted to put some numbers out there.

Of course, we don't need categories if there aren't any items in them. So the total number of categories is proportional to the number of items. I don't see there being any real problems unless we start getting over 5-6 fields. -- 01:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Avoiding going over previous category structure disagreements between us, then yes that explains it, ty. I support it all apart from the removing of the two mentioned categories ofc, but i'll likely be in the minority there ;)


 * I think quality and level should mix, but that doesn't stop this going forward, as level would exist seperately as you want too, so don't worry. I would like to see some better naming with the level part though.. i dunno "World of Warcraft leather legs level 10-19 items" or something. Most importantly ensuring items is the last word in the name (to explcitly show that the category is for item articles, not articles about items, as is the naming pattern i tried to put in place). -- <ul style="font-size: 0.85em; margin: 0; padding: 0; list-style: none; list-style-type: none; list-style-image: none; display: inline; white-space: nowrap"><li style="display: inline;">User:Zealvurte</li><li style="display: inline;">User talk:Zealvurte</li><li style="display: inline;">Special:Contributions/Zealvurte</li><li style="display: inline;">User:Zealvurte</li></ul> 10:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The naming I could care less about. I think "WoW level 10 to 19 leather legs items" (as opposed to "WoW leather legs level 10 to 19 items") sounds better, but I'm not sure that goes well with the naming scheme. It is important to me that we use the word "to" rather than a "-", however. I should say, I would like to divide quality partially, probably by source, type, or body-location (a la: WoW legendary leather items, WoW legendary world drops, or WoW legendary legs items), though I'm leaning toward source...
 * That said, there is a specific structure that I'd like the level categories to take, due to the fact that at level 60, 70, 80, we've had raids happen and thus there are bumps in total item distribution at these levels. I'd like them set up like so, with level 60, 70, 80 items only going into the subcat.
 * Fandyllic, here's your category tree. --Sky (t · c · w) 21:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone want to have a look at the code? This is just does not add level data, just combines item type and slot.
 * -- 17:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * After working out some bugs, it is currently running.An example change. -- 01:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)