Hey I've noticed that you've been adding character categories like [[Category: Characters (Chaos)]], but there is a problem with it. While that works for the wh40k wiki which is a unified setting, it doesn't work for Warhammer fantasy which is much less so. We need to distinguish between certain parts of the setting, I've been using the (FB) and (AoS) tag to the categories to distinguish them, and there could be more to the future like BloodBowl (BB). We should do instead something like [[Category: Chaos characters]], as it more coherent with wiki policy and allows for more flexibility when dealing with different parts of the fantasy setting. Do you agree or disagree?--Ashendant (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2016 (MST)
- When going through the pages, I noticed that the categorization was incredibly haphazard: some pages were marked "Category:Characters (FB)", and some were not, so the options are, to go through each individual page and add that categorization, or to use it as a subcategory, which is more uniform. Hence, all "Characters (High Elves)" are also "Characters (FB)," and where characters have already been marked as "Characters (AoS)" I have preserved that separate categorization. Frankly, the whole set up is a mess and I am just trying to clean it up, and create rules that can be fairly well understood by someone reading the pages. If you can suggest a better way, please do so.--Proteus77 (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2016 (MST)
- Yeah it's a bit of a mess because there wasn't a solid structure on lexicanum in the first place and then there AoS happened and diverged the setting in new ways. Characters (FB) and (AoS) are my way of trying to use that properly. The problem is that it doesn't quite work and using () in categories is a bit unwikipedic, or at least I can't find any category in the official wiki that uses it.
- Anyway here is my suggestion:
- Replacing "Character (FB)" and "Character (AoS)" with "Characters in Fantasy Battles" and "Characters in Age of Sigmar". This way there's less potential confusion.
- Create subcategories using the faction names like "High Elves characters" and "Stormcast Eternals character" and link them to the major categories "Characters in Fantasy Battles" and "Characters in Age of Sigmar" and those factions categories. It looks like AoS will have entire new names for every new faction so there shouldn't be any problems. This will, in a way, limit most articles to have only one character category.
- If a character doesn't have a official faction we put it under either the "Characters in Fantasy Battles" and "Characters in Age of Sigmar". We could of course be flexible with this.
- Delete categories that are too generic or less precise like "Characters (Chaos)" and "Characters (<Deity name>)". So that there's less potential repetition.
- Change name for Special characters to Characters with rules or Characters with models. Special characters isn't really informative.
- My issue with it was that it isn't used by the wikipedia, but after a more through study of it they do use it () but not for this purpose. In wikipedia the () is used to clarify what the category means in case the words has double meaning or it is a name so that two unrelated topics don't get mixed into a single category, examples: "Cabinets (furniture)" and "Chemistry (band) albums". In the lexi it is used to limit the category itself, and not only creates extra unnecessary confusion it could also could create problems down the line, like if for example someone made a "Characters (letters)" and "Characters (individual)". I think we should follow the example of the official wiki because it's less confusing and puts a clear purpose on the function of the (), rather than using it to limit a category.--Ashendant (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2016 (MST)
- Well seems like i'm gonna use the () sooner than I thought. GW decided to name the new faction as the Everchosen and I need to distinguish between the holders of the Everchosen title in FB and the Everchosen faction in AoS, so I'm gonna call it the "Everchosen (faction)" and "Everchosen (title)" unless you oppose or have a better suggestion?--Ashendant (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2016 (MST)