Forum:Archaeology structures

As one of those who revel in wiki architecture, I find myself needing outside opinions.

Things found (solved) by Archaeology: If we call them artifacts, we have to disambiguate between them and the item quality. But the Archaeology "completed artifacts" tab calls them artifacts.

It gets better! "Completed Common Artifacts" are uniformly quality items. "Completed Rare Artifacts" may include epic quality items, I do not know.

Oh, and there's always the question: prefix the category with 'World of Warcraft' or not.

My current scheme has:
 * Categories called Archaeology finds (no 'world of warcraft')
 * Subcategories of "poor", "common", "rare", "epic" on item quality.

I am not heavily invested in 'finds', and could support "Archaeology artifacts". Also, I could throw in and support "common" and "rare" based on the archaeology dialog. I'd rather not add "World of Warcraft" to everything.

If someone has completed an epic item quality archaeology artifact (see how quickly that becomes cumbersome?), could they say if there's a "completed epic artifacts" section under completed artifacts?

Also, I'm intending to put archaeology dig sites on individual pages, unless someone says "don't do that". --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Dig sites are basically just new subzones, right? If they're in existing subzones, I would suggest putting their info in the subzone article and having the dig site name just be a redirect. --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic (talk &middot; contribs) 6:43 PM PST 10 Dec 2010


 * Not subzones at all. Some occupy existing subzones (many of the "ruins of..." dig sites, for instance).  Some occupy a portion of a subzone ("eastern ruins of..."), some are in "no specific subzone".  While using some of the existing subzone pages can work, there are others that won't work so well.  I'll consider it, though, when making new pages. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Okies, what I've been doing: I've been labeling the digsite maps as UI screenshots. Comments on any of this? Suggestions (or demands)? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * if the name of the dig site is the same as the name of the subregion, I've been adding the subregion to Category:Dig sites, and added a Digsite section to the page.
 * (else) if the dig site is named for the subregion it occupies, I've been adding a Digsite section to the subregion page, and creating a redirect for the dig site name. The redirect goes into the Dig sites category.
 * (else) the dig site doesn't have a (reasonable) subregion name associated, I have created a dig site page and (sometimes) added that to the region category as well as Dig Sites.


 * What do we do about subzones with "dig site" in their names that aren't Archaeology dig sites. --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic (talk &middot; contribs) 10:43 PM PST 15 Dec 2010


 * I created Category:Excavation sites some time ago for areas of the such. 09:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)