Forum:Reorganizing the Undead

Rolandius pointed out that Category:Undead creatures and Category:Undead characters differs from how other mob classifications (eg Category:Beasts) are done. I would like folks opinions on what a 'correct' arrangement of categories would be.

Relevant categories:
 * Category:Creatures (if Undead creatures contains non-wow creatures)
 * Category:World of Warcraft creatures (if not)
 * Category:Undead (if we want to keep the Undead category, otherwise Undead creatures would go into WoW creatrues)
 * Category:Mobs (World of Warcraft creatures takes this as a parent too!)
 * Category:Named mobs (seems appropriate for a category named "undead characters", but what of Lore characters?)

Please feel free to suggest other categories that are relevant.

--Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) leaving both creatures and characters under cat:undead seems reasonable, if we are keeping that cat.
 * 2) Do these new categories include lore characters? Or only WoW?  A lot of category assignments become simpler if only WoW.   (cat:named mobs for Undead characters, for instance)


 * I believed we had arrived to a solution last time, why is it brought up again?
 * Category:Deceased characters (lore characters) includes Category:Undead characters (wow characters).
 * Why does this Category:Undead creatures even exists?
 * 19:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that there wasn't enough planning and what had been discussed wasn't really implemented. What I suggest is this:
 * Category:Undead should be kept and have lore characters and lore creatures only. If the characters overlap and are also present in WoW then they should be in Category:Undead characters.
 * Category:Undead creatures should have just unnamed mobs and be under the Undeads category. Should be under the Category:Mobs category.
 * Category:Undead characters should have nammed mobs from WoW. Should be under the Category:Named mobs category.
 * That are my opinions, what do you think? Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If others (say, PCJ, who implemented the categories as they are to date) agree, I'd like to see the descriptions of the categories express these distinctions. I have no particular objections, but I would ask where such categories as "skeleton" and "banshee" fit? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Mmmm... I'm not sure about that. It will be too complicated to maintain separated characters and creatures from every category, so I'm a little confused for what should be done. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems fairly straightforward: a Skeletons cat belongs in the Undead cat, not in the "Undead creatures" or "characters" cats, because Skeletons in general can be either. A particular skeleton character (like Mor'Ladim I guess) would then belong in Skeletons & Undead characters. This is a fly-by analysis, FWIW. :-) -- Harveydrone 20:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See here to see the full tree of category, begining at the point you choose.
 * On this link you follow Lore, Creatures, Undead, and you'll find the ghost, banshee and all the rest.
 * But I make the same comment than Benitoperezgaldos: you can't maintain separated characters and creatures from every category.
 * 22:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Harveydrone, we are going to have an "Undead cat" category? Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 02:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Barring objections, I'll set to that in a day or two. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Recommendation
 * 1) Fold Category:Undead creatures back into Category:Undead.
 * Category:Undead characters is currently under Category:Undead, Category:Deceased characters.  That's OK as-is.
 * Just to clarify #1, you mean replace Category:Undead creatures with Category:Undead on pages like Cursed Marine? -- Harveydrone 21:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ayup. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've moved a first few mobs (and the banshee category). Most 'undead creatures' fall under one of the subcategories of Undead and so (IMO) should not go back into Undead but instead into their 'type' category. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding Cursed Marine, I thought we were not supposed to put the category of their creature type for articles if we knew their race. The race category is something we put in articles if we know it. For instance, we don't put the Humanoid category for Stormwind Guard, the Elemental category for Befouled Water Elemental, etc. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 02:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You are right re Stormwind Guard, but note that it is in 'Humans', which is a subcategory of 'Humanoids'. Cursed Marine, while it was once a Human, is now an Undead.  You're correct, that it should be moved from 'undead creatures' (which consensus seems to say should go away) to 'Ghosts'.  I just had not gotten to the point of moving it, being preoccupied with gem-related issues. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that all creatures from Category:Undead creatures can be placed in it's respective category. And that could apply also for Category:Undead characters. I mean for expample moving Lost Spirit to Category:Ghosts. I'll do it if no one oppose. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Undead characters' is designated as for 'characters', as opposed to nameless mob types. Moving Lost Spirit is appropriate, but other pages (such as Timmy) should remain. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Some articles like Ahn'kahar are of a group of nerubians, so I put it in Category:Crypt fiends but I wasn't sure if this is correct. So, should I put the organizations in it's respective categories (like the example given above) or should I move them to Category:Undead? I'm asking this because I don't think that an organization of undead should be in Category:Undead creatures. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Nerubians issue is discussed here. I think that, unless Ahn'kahar are exclusively crypt fiends, then they're probably better left directly under Nerubians. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Undead creatures: individual cases

 * Rotting Ancestor - Skeleton? Lotta flesh left.  Zombie?  No category, would put under "undead".  Something else? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like a zombie to me. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 02:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Undead (lore), but deceased?
From the discussion above Category:Undead characters is currently under Category:Undead, Category:Deceased characters, but are undead lore characters really deceased? I mean, the pre-Plague of Undeath character is deceased, but I think of undead as ex-deceased and sort of like raised as undead from a deceased character. They're aren't normally alive, but they aren't really deceased, hence undead. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 11:50 AM PST 27 Jul 2009
 * That has already been decided. -- 19:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I disagree, but it isn't totally nonsensical. I guess I have to start thinking of Forsaken as deceased AND undead. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 1:47 PM PST 27 Jul 2009
 * The deciding point is "what do we associate them with". Warcraft lore covers a time period; we can't choose a specific point in time and say "categorize based on this" because a different chosen point would automatically countermand it. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is the problem. If a Forsaken character is "deceased AND undead" that makes no sense. Firstly, all undead characters had to have become deceased to become undead so we already know this. It is like saying "breathing AND humanoid". We know they can breathe. Secondly, this is about if a character is interacting in Warcraft versus not around any longer. They whole reason they are "undead" is because they have "come back alive". If you are "deceased" then you are not "undead". What happens when a Forsaken or other "deceased AND undead" character actually gets killed which has/will happen? They are now "deceased AND undead AND deceased"? I think it has been made more complicated then it should be. A character is deceased if we know they are no longer around. If they show up somewhere they are not "deceased". Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 03:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We are referring to categorization so it makes sense to work from most generic to most specific (for the tree metaphor for categories, from the trunk out to the branches). Undead are deceased, this has already been decided. -- 04:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I should remind that this forum is not to discuss what's already been decided, but to discuss what to do with Category:Undead, Category:Undead characters and Category:Undead creatures. This section appears to be converting in an spin-off discussion. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 04:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree Undead were deceased. I just don't think we need a category as it is common knowledge. For example, we don't have a category for "bipedals". We know that a human is a "bipedal". Since it is already decided, why are people still confused about what in the world is happening? Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 04:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, the fact that a category is "common knowledge" does not make it superfluous as a category. Obviously, the Legendary items category is "common knowledge" and yet it is still useful to categorize the data to break it down and make the pages accessible by a certain type. -- 04:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I mentioned above, what happens if a character who is "deceased AND undead" dies? They would have to lose their undead category because they are back at just being deceased. That then would make it so people would not be able to find out if a character was ever an undead character. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 04:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your objections are becoming increasingly hypothetical. We have already decided this.  -- 15:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rolandius: see my comment to Fandyllic (time period), above. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't hypothetical if there are cases that exist. Correct me if I am wrong, but there are undead characters who have "died". Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 05:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I read your comment and it seems to agree with what I am saying unless I am wrong? An undead character is not "deceased" because the "what do we associate them with" part would be the undead character who is "active" and not "deceased" and giving us a quest, selling us bread, fighting against us, etc. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 05:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have a specific example, I'll continue thinking this is a hypothetical, R. "Undead character who dies (again), what do we do with him?" Is he in WoW or just lore? If in WoW, how do we (still) encounter him? As Undead? As deceased (IE some zone object called "X's corpse")?

If in lore and not in WoW, then either or both might be appropriate.

Mind, all of this has no real bearing on how we organize the categories themselves. And only hypothetical bearing when talking about individual pages. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Why argue with Rolandius? Just wait til he gets permabanned. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 3:22 PM PST 29 Jul 2009


 * Thought I was still debating, musing, contemplating special cases. I'm also vulnerable to trolls... --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Mostly the cases are in the game. I don't play a Horde character, but I do know there are some Forsaken who are "dead", as in lying on the floor "dead", that Horde players find about. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 02:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Name me a for-instance, and we can go from there. Usually "on the floor dead" counts as deceased regardless of forsaken-or-human.  If you encounter the same entity "moving around dead" or "moving around alive" we can talk about whether it should go somewhere else. I think, though, that this can safely be taken up on your talk page, Rolandius, as the original topic had a different emphasis, and we ARE talking about this sort of issue over there.--Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe an example given previously of an "on the floor dead" Forsaken was Apothecary Eli. She doesn't appear as a dead NPC, but there's a page for her that needs to be categorized. Right now she's in Category:Deceased characters directly and in Forsaken, which is technically redundant. The question is whether she gets to be in a special category because she is doubly deceased. -- Harveydrone 22:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC) PS -- what was decided in the vote was that she should not be directly in Deceased characters, so I guess maybe I'm not following the question correctly, or am also being led astray by a troll. -- Harveydrone 23:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For what I interpret, she is in the Forsaken category because she used to be part of the organization called Forsaken, not for the race, but I'm not sure. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Category tree
Can someone make a category tree of what exactly was decided? Also, I guess creatures classified by WoW as Undead will all now go into the Undead category so they will be mixed up with undead from the RPG and other lore sources and the Undead creatures category will go away? Also, I'm assuming Undead category should go under Category:Game creatures and Category:RPG creatures. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 1:56 PM PST 27 Jul 2009


 * As we didn't make a formal tree, I can only give it my best guess.


 * Category:World of Warcraft creatures
 * Category:Undead
 * Category:Ghosts
 * Category:Characters
 * Category:Deceased characters
 * Category:Undead characters


 * The distinction being the "undead characters" category and deceased/not.


 * Category:Undead creatures was discussed, but didn't have enough backers. Category:Deceased also didn't have much support independent from Deceased creatures, and seems to have been dropped.  From the descriptions on RPG and Game creature categories, I would guess that Undead wouldn't actually go under them very well, given that it specifically DOES include WoW creatures.  I really do not know how critters that are common to all of the above (say, death knights, perhaps?) are handled, or are wanted to be handled. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above tree appears to be fine. -- 04:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What about whether Category:Undead goes under Category:Game creatures and Category:RPG creatures? -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 3:24 PM PST 29 Jul 2009

Re-openning discussion
I think that the current tree has some mistakes: Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 04:01, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see a reason to have Category:Undead characters, the category is too small, and all of them could be placed in their respective categories, i.e. Kegan Darkmar in Category:Forsaken or Abrakkar the Wretched in Category:Liches.
 * Same goes for Category:Undead creatures.
 * Some articles currently in Category:Undead are creatures that could be moved to their respective category, i.e. Slahtz could be moved to Category:Ghosts.
 * Category:Undead should be under Category:Deceased characters as was approved here.


 * I was confused on the whole subject... 04:10, November 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * So I was. That's the reason why I'm bringing the inconsistences here, to try to solve this thing. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 01:01, November 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, per that vote, Category:Undead would be under Category:Deceased, as 'undead' run to being mobs, characters, objects... And that latter category does not exist.  --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 01:10, December 3, 2009 (UTC)