Forum:On dropping the World of Warcraft prefix

Now that I've got your attention...

The main discussion on wiki gem categories is Forum:Gem type categories.

I'm putting this as a new category almost entirely for the (hoped for) shock value.


 * Proposed
 * Keep or toss the "World of Warcraft" prefix on gem item categories

The currently proposed scheme would have a set of categories named (eg):
 * World of Warcraft inventory items
 * World of Warcraft gems
 * World of Warcraft epic gems
 * World of Warcraft socketable gems
 * World of Warcraft red socketable gems

The current consensus for tossing the prefix would result in:
 * World of Warcraft inventory items
 * World of Warcraft gems
 * Epic gems
 * Socketable gems
 * Red socketable gems

On the keep side is the argument of consistency with other 'item' categories.

On the toss side is the argument that items in those categories are exclusive to the World of Warcraft game, and so no confusion can exist about the category. (Other opinions rail against having the prefix anywhere, but that's an argument that I'm not looking to restart here... yet.)

Unless a consensus, a powerful argument, or fiat is made in favor of retaining the prefix all the way down, I will assume that the shorter names are acceptable. I would recommend commenting and voting in the original forum, but feel free to comment here as well. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This looks sort of like a vote, but not really. Assuming I'm not supposed to use vote...


 * I'm of the opinion, we need some sort of category naming guideline (maybe could add to WW:MOS), "When naming categories, avoid repeating descriptive terms in descendant categories. Repeating the relevant noun may be necessary." So rather than having an "inventory red socketable gem item" category, you just have "red gems" where red is the lowest adjective in the tree, and you can deduce that the page is also an "inventory item", a "gem item" and "socketable" by looking at the category tree. 6:30 PM, 29 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * Please make an official separate vote (that's why we have a policy for it). I don't like it getting mixed up with the gem stuff. They are completely separate topics. Also, send a message to Kirkburn asking him if he's okay with cutting ALL the "World of Warcraft..." prefixes for items, since I believe he was one of the main proponents (I was opposed). See for the historical background.
 * On a side note, since the pro-"World of Warcraft..." folks were too lazy to setup a policy vote or even add a guideline justifying their position, an actual policy change isn't needed to rid ourselves of these category prefixes. --  Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 3:36 PM PST 29 Jul 2009


 * Agreed we probably need a vote. But I'd rather the vote was more encompassing (I think the guideline idea was so we could refer back to it, when this comes up again because it will). I'd rather there be a vote to generally avoid repeating descriptive language (often adjectives but not necessarily) in sub categories. So that would apply to post fixes and pre fixes, like when "XYZ items" is repeated for 3 sub-categories, which just seems redundant. But I'd want to stress, people can use judgement. I'm sure it wouldn't be 100% of the time, that's why a "guideline" vote seemed like a good idea.


 * It just so happens this would apply to the "World of Warcraft" prefix issue, which should be explicitly mentioned in the vote no matter what it is, so as not to obfuscate the issue. 6:52 PM, 29 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * Please read the background. Your solution is simple, but does address the underlying issue (similar categories that apply to different Warcraft properties) that led to the whole prefix thing in the first place. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 4:08 PM PST 29 Jul 2009
 * 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. --  00:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * Coppied over to Forum:Gem type categories. -- 16:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't they just have separate category trees, with the root trees telling you where you are? I can tell you (and I doubt I'm in the minority), I don't want WCIII articles on mining mixed in with WoW. Lore, is a whole different ball game, potentially. 1:03 PM, 30 Jul 2009 (EDT)

On WoW vs "World of Warcraft" as a prefix
There is a vote going on here already. Please vote your preference regarding the prefix there. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

On using a prefix for category pages
There has been interest expressed in having no prefix for subcategories, where the parent category has a prefix (IE WoW, World of Warcraft, WC3, whatever).

Should sub-categories also have prefixes?

Should sub-categories always have the prefix of the parent category, if the parent category has one?

Note that 'failure' (ie a no vote) does not provide sufficient information to base a policy change on. Further discussion of "when is it acceptable not to" is required. Keep in mind also that this is "prefix agnostic". It applies to ANY category name prefix.

Votes

 * Yes (All sub-categories should have prefixes)


 * No (Some or all sub-categories may omit prefixes):
 * Some :


 * No (sub-categories should not have prefixes):


 * lightGray:

Comments
Feel free to abstain or not vote, if the issue of 'what prefix to use' would influence your vote. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

My own vote is that the category name, out of context, should be enough to tell what is in it. We'd previously decided to have categories specific to non-"WoW" portions of the Warcraft Universe, and again that while WoW dominates the mythos, it should not be the 'default' category.

For an example, take the "Swords" category. There are lore articles on swords that do not appear as items in WoW. And vast number of swords that appear only in WoW. Naming a category "Swords", then, does not distinguish where in the mythos any particular sword comes from. The "Items" category (and suffix) similarly does not distinguish whether it is an item in WoW, or one in (eg) the RPG. The "WoW" prefix (abbreviated or not) is necessary to provide that distinction. The result, "WoW swords" (or "WoW sword items"), is suitable for both the "swords" category (swords from all sources) and "WoW items".

For another example (that prompted this), "Prismatic Gems" do not appear in any of the other properties. Thus, there currently can be no confusion over whether they are gems from WoW or from elsewhere. This has two downsides, though: inconsistency, and the risk of that exclusivity going away (for instance, if the RPG introduces socketable items to the tabletop game). --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * But the Category:Prismatic gems would be sub category of Category:World of Warcraft items. So if they ever added prismatic gems to WCIII, those gems wouldn't be eligible for that category anyway. That's how ancestry works. Seems like a non-issue to me. 6:18 PM, 30 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * Therein lies the problem. The NAME "prismatic gems" does not *itself* convey the "world of warcraft"-ness of the category.  The fact that it predates the (hypothetical) WCIII gem doesn't change that fact.  On creation of the WCIII gem, we would be obliged to change the category name ... or accept that "WoW" was the "default unless otherwise specified".  The latter means we'd have to label everything BUT WoW.  And that's even messier.  "Lore", "Book", etc disambiguations on categories.  --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is fundamentally about namespaces. Modern programming languages and the wiki software (MediaWiki) have some intrinsic support for namespaces, and some of them support nested namespaces. One approach to this problem would be to put each game under its own namespace. WoW might optionally go in the unnamed "main" namespace, requiring no prefix, since it's implied by this wiki's domain name. Unfortunately, I don't think MediaWiki supports nested namespaces, and Category is already a namespace. So there's no way to have a "Category:WoW" namespace. That precludes a technical solution. So for now, I think including the abbreviated game name as an explicit prefix in the category name is an acceptable fallback. -- ScratchMonkey (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It sounds like I'm hearing most people say (a) prefix large categories (b) use discretion whether or not to prefix sub-categories. Guidelines for whether or not to prefix are (c) how long the category name is and (d) whether or not it collides with WCIII.


 * Personally, I don't see why we aren't dropping prefixes on the WoW categories and just prefixing WCIII only? It's WoWWiki, not WarcraftWiki, not WCIIIWiki. It should be obvious that the default topic is WoW. 4:52 PM, 31 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * I agree there as well. I think Category WoW should be understood as the default category and should not have to be used. The only put category prefixes that should be used are like [Category WC3 ], [Category WC2 ], [Category WC1 ], [Category RPG ], etc ... -- But if we do have to have to use prefixes then it should be [Category:WoW ] and not [Category:World of Warcraft ]. -- 21:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That vote is currently pending closure (to switch over to WoW). Finally. 6:02 PM, 31 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * Is there some way to extend the wiki's category functionality to work with another wiki namespace? For example, could we have wiki namespaces :Category-WCIII: and :WCIII: and put all the WCIII categories and pages in those namespaces? WoW stuff would then naturally go in the default wiki namespace (and default Category namespace) and other games and such would go in their own wiki namespaces. -- ScratchMonkey (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not as confident that a true namespace would help over a pseudo namespace (such as Quest:). The primary difference would be in how the mediawiki search function would be able to filter.  There are issues about namespace-limited user properties, in that accounts are Wikia wide, and category-linked properties are as well (but linked by index, not name...).--Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

One way of looking at the current vote (31 July) is: 1) a vote-closing majority in favor of keeping the top level prefix, 2) a muddle opinion on prefixes elsewhere, seeming to favor "editor discretion". --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Something I haven't seen mentioned is how the existence of a useful header or associated page for each category would help this. If the Prismatic Gems header or page made it clear that Prismatic gems are only in WoW (assuming that's true), then no need for the prefix. If prismatic gems get added to another game, then it's clear what should be updated and how. -- Harveydrone 17:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * PS to my own comment: My opinion on this applies to any part of the category name, and also to article names. For example, if by definition all swords are items, then the category name should be merely "Swords", not "Sword items". And, the page about swords should be named "Sword". If, on the other hand, "sword" is too general a term and could be confused with things that are not "items", then the page about sword items should be "Sword item", and the category also "Sword items". Likewise, if the "WoW/World of Warcraft" prefix is necessary to establish what a category is about, then it ought to also be in the name of the page (if any) about the same subject. -- Harveydrone 19:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This vote seems to be inconclusive as the Some votes are winning, but that doesn't really help make a decision. A new vote should be raised with more specific changes proposed. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 1:27 PM PST 12 Aug 2009


 * I had been reluctant to do so given the "WoW vs W.o.W." prefix question was in the air, and some voters would seem to be influenced by the result of that. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Use "WoW" not "W.o.W.", but as to the some if the category were NPC's, which are found in WC1, WC2, WC3 and WoW then yes we need the cateogry prefix WoW NPC's  but Gems are not found in WC1, WC2, nor in WC3 so WoW Gems are not needed, then again User:Coobra suggested no WoW prefix at all for this is WoWWiki so all non WoW categories should have prefixes to match their game version and all non prefixed categories are WoW categories by default, but anyhow if it is obvious that it is WoW then why should we have to put WoW, just like why put Items (everything in the game is and Item just about) it is logical to put the suffixe on things that are non items, but that is a different forum. --  21:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Did I? This topic is rather old so I can't remember... I remember commenting on making it WoW over World of Warcraft back when it first started. 20:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought I read it as your comment, maybe it was Fandyllic, if so then my apologies for saying it was you. -- 20:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Prefixes
We have a situation where we have a very specific policy page that this forum topic is exceedingly appropriate to. As the current vote there is currently closed, and the vote here has come to a halt with a relatively clear opinion, I would like to close the vote here and continue the discussion on prefixes there. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wowpedia talk:Category policy/Names
 * Don't take it personally Eirik, but 2 to 5 to 1 is not a "relatively clear opinion." Especially given that "some" is not even a valid vote. It just seems to me the vote was phrased poorly.
 * However, I really don't think going through another vote is necessary. Just write up what you're doing, if you haven't already, and see if anyone screams in a few days. If not, then start doing it. 6:52 PM, 13 Aug 2009 (EDT)
 * Quite right. Why I said "relatively clear" and "opinion".  The voting mechanism is great at binary choices, but less so at creating consensus over a wider field.  Why I felt that "some" had significant value, particularly in view of the comments.
 * Got an immediate project, but I'll get back to this soon. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)