HammerWiki talk:Community Portal/Structure

From HammerWiki

As is evident from the front page, I have started work on some very basic division of content. However, this is not particularly my field of expertise, so anyone with a good idea or skill in the department of structuring documentation is more than welcome to step in and suggest ways that we could format and contain information about the various aspects of WAR. --Bishop 15:15, 30 August 2006 (CDT)

Good thinking! It's a good thing we have time on our side though. There isn't too much information to keep structured. But once the NDA is lifted, it's a good idea to have a structure ready for the inevitable torrent of information that will be headed this way. --Deadpool 15:32, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

Contents 1 Stubs and Cats 2 Zone and Scenario articles 3 NDA lift 4 Spoilers 5 History & Lore 6 Empty/Nondescript Categories

[edit] Stubs and Cats

Moved here from community talk.

It's never too early to think about organizing the wiki. I am talking about Categories, of course. It's a good idea to attack a problem while it's small (or in this case, before it becomes a problem). I am proposing that we think of a cat structure, and that we add specific stub tags (e.g. Stub/NPC for NPCs, etc).

For example right now we need a category for game mechanics and subcategories for specific mechanics like Combat. We could also use templates like {{cleanup}} etc. --Deadpool 08:28, 29 April 2007 (CDT)

Also, category names generally need to be plural (eg. Category:Stubs rather than Category:Stub). What do you guys think about moving current categories to plural versions where necessary? (such as Category:Stub) --Deadpool 11:23, 29 April 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, it's always good to get more organized. What you're doing is spot on - I've been generally dumping content into the wiki without worrying too much about structure, so there's definitely a need to get things categorized. I agree that cats should be plural too. I've got no problems with what you've done so far... I'll even make sure to check for categories the next time I add content to the wiki. Keep up the good work ;) -- Pendrako 12:01, 29 April 2007 (CDT)

I applaud and support your efforts to better organize the wiki. I am not sure I see a clear favorite either way about the singular/plural issue, but I do not mind deferring to your judgement if there are no other objections. As such, feel free to move or edit the categories as you see fit -- we can always talk it over if there's disagreement later.

On a side note, however, if we are to be consistent in categorization, it may be a contender to become a point of policy, including an explanatory page on how, when and why one should use category tagging. --Bishop 14:07, 29 April 2007 (CDT)

The plural form is used on most wikis I've seen and it makes sense IMO (for example, a category of weapons rather than a category of weapon.). As for policies, that will definitely become more important later on. We'll also need a Manual of Style for WH-related things (I'm sure there are plenty of people who will type Dwarves instead of Dwarfs, for example), and when more information about them becomes available, details on how to write pages on abilities, quests, NPCs, etc.

How about these categories: Game Mechanics, with Combat as subcategory (and more later on); Lore; General Info (need to think of a better name for it) --Deadpool 02:24, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

I've also begun adding specific stub tags, such as {{Stub/Zone}}. These are important for when you're looking for specific kinds of stubs to add to later on, instead of looking around for related articles when new information becomes available. --Deadpool 15:40, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Zone and Scenario articles

Okay, currently we have the Zonebox, which I guess can stay, but a suggestion would be adding a section for map and sub-regions (what I'm thinking about is something like in wowwiki) And I'm not sure if we should make an own page for each zone's NPCs/quests/mobs (like this). It would just be cool if someone came up with a suggestion of how the article structure should be, something like this is what I can come up with as headlines:

• Overview (or we can just jump right in to the overwiev without needing a separate headline for it)
• History
• Geography
  • Map
  • sub-zones
  • dungeons
  • adjacent zones
• Quests
• Scenarios
• NPCs
• Mobs
• Notes & other stuff

I just feel it would be nice to clear up some basic guidelines for zones so you won't need to rearrange every single zone article later.

Another issue is the Scenario articles, a Scenario-box much alike the Template:Zonebox (including a screenshot in the top and a map in the bottom, although different info in the middle), a simple introduction to the scenario and it's objective won't require much organizing. ∞ Sunspots {Talk | Contribs} 23:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I made a scenariobox just as a test, Template:Scenariobox, I'm not sure which parameters I should choose (and adding too much might be against the NDA). ∞ Sunspots {Talk | Contribs} 00:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NDA lift

Okay, if it is as said, the NDA will lift tomorrow, which means things will start rolling in, we will probably need some structure to avoid a total mess...

To start with - what content do we prioritize? And another question - will we have any quest spoilers?

Some info I can try contributing with:

• Abilities
• Quests
• NPCs
• Beastiary
• Career mechanics
  • How does Waaagh, Dark Magic and such work?
• Maps (screenshots of all basic zone maps in the game, btw, should these replace the concept maps on the zone pages? also, where should maps of the fronts be placed? (like, the map over the Dwarfs vs Greenskin front)

Add in more topics that can be more or less easy to get. ∞ Sunspots {Talk | Contribs} 21:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this definitely needs sorting out. I'm going to wait a couple of days see what kind of info comes out, but I think we should probably start by sorting out the ability and bestiary articles.

It might be better to continue this discussion at HammerWiki talk:Community Portal/Structure. - Pendrako talk 22:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking forward with some anticipation, and a little anxiety, to see what will happen when the NDA drops. I'm especially interested in seeing if the number of active contributors to the wiki goes up by a lot, or if the few and the proud already active will still be pulling all the weight after tomorrow.

As far what content we should focus on, the most beneficial approach will probably be to work the content that people will be using, first. That means information about starting areas, starting quests, classes, skills and the like. Basically, the faster we can make the wiki really useful to people playing the game for the first time, the faster we will attract new contributors. I agree with Pendrako that structure-specific discussions should probably be had on the structure discussion page...

And with regards to quest "spoilers": That's a yes, as far as I am concerned. We document the game. All of the game. » Bishop · talk « 22:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course. If people don't want things spoiled for them - it's simple enough just to not visit the Lair articles / quest articles etc. If we really needed to, we could make a spoiler template to warn people, but that's about all that's needed, I reckon.

As ability articles and bestiary articles will be the messiest, I agree they should be the priority, as should working out a clear format for all article types. I'd say there'd be a great influx of information (hopefully it will be sustained) - when advertising HammerWiki out in the community I got a very large amount of "i'll add more when the NDA lifts" type comments. ~ Revoran | talk 05:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Come to think - as the in-game maps will likely be artistically rendered themselves (as opposed to compilations of mini-maps) we should probably use them to replace the concept art maps. Unless people are that nostalgic for those. As for the overall maps (not the zone maps) they might be best off in our World Map article. Also... how do you spell bestiary? I see beastiary and bestiary and it's annoying. There was also another user... i'll see if I can't track him down. He apparently had information files client side. ~ Revoran | talk 05:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

About ability articles, there might be quite big differences between skills on high and low levels (also with different mastery lines), state should the ability added be? Like, lvl 40 unspecced, at the other hand, the abilities' stats are rarely consistant through ranks 1-40. ∞ Sunspots {Talk | Contribs} 09:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Bestiary. » Bishop · talk « 12:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna continue with the structure for career pages, what I would like to see is a separate page for each career's abilities (such as Marauder Abilities and so on) where we list all the actions, morale abilities and tactics, is this something you think we should go for? ∞ Sunspots {Talk | Contribs} 17:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Here we go ∞ Sunspots {Talk | Contribs} 20:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spoilers

Thanks to KyleH and a few community members, we now have collapsible spoilers available for use! Go to Template:Spoiler to use! Just thought I'd plug that in here since it's mentioned in an above section. ¬ WTarrasque { talk | contribs } 14:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History & Lore

After much trial-n'-error, mostly by me making mistakes and user:Heaven's Agent pointing them out, we now have strong basic structure for the Tome of Knowledge History & Lore unlocks. Please visit the 'History & Lore' page to see the general layout. Furthermore, the basic organization:

1. Each zone has it's own 'History & Lore' page.
   1. Each Page contains all the unlocks in the zone, organized by being Destruction Only, Order Only, or Both
   2. Each 'History & Lore' page is a subpage of the zone's page. This would work
   3. Each Page is categorized by it's RvR Pairing and its Tier.
2. The Tier Categories and RvR Pairing Categories are subcategories of Category:History & Lore. Category:History & Lore/Tier 1 Zones and Category:History & Lore/Dwarfs vs. Greenskins
3. ???
4. Profit!

I think I will organize "Noteworthy Persons" in a similar method. Maybe I will start to work on this tomorrow, as unless people take issue with it, History & Lore will now fill up on it's own without too much more intervention from myself. Mount Bloodhorn/Noteworthy Persons here I come! ¬ WTarrasque { talk | contribs } 08:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Empty/Nondescript Categories

I've been going through the master categories list and finding ones for whom there is no category page, and fixing that. For many, this means editing the article (usually just one) in them to not include that category, and include the other currently used category spelled slightly differently.

A good example were the two items in the 'Accessories' category, and the one item in the 'Accessory' category, and the many other items which are accessories in the 'Items' category. With these I recategorized them both into an accessories category, and made that a subcategory of the Items category, as I expect once item information pours in we will need some kind of division between item types.

All of the changes I'm making (with the exception of subcategorizing the Items category) are just general cleanup of typo'd category tags and addition of basic descriptions of category pages which are being used but have nothing listed for them. I would like to help work on a categorization heirarchy primarily for Items and Abilities, and discuss the categorization of NPCs with whoever is already working on that. I'd also like to appropriately capitalize/alter article and category names, but have not yet figured out how.

Anyone have any suggestions for an items articles structure other than 'Items' and then subcategories by slot (and weapon type)?

For that matter, should we even have distinct articles for individual items, as this will generate large numbers of incredibly brief articles? Does anyone have a suggestion for a better way to contain this type of information?
Gazzwidget 22:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)