Gaming
 

Talk:Beastman, Gor

From HammerWiki

(Redirected from Talk:Gor)

I'm pretty sure that The picture for this creature " Gor_concept.jpg " is actually concept art for a Bloodbull, a Minotaur which has dedicated itself to Khorne. They are similar, but Bloodbulls are much larger and less intelligent than a Gor. I'm going to go ahead and remove the image, though of course anyone can re-add it. Revoran 06:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moved for ToK Consistency?

This article was recently moved for the reason of consistency with the in-game Tome of Knowledge. I feel this is a mistake. This is our primary article on the Gor creature type, and it should remain simply [[Gor]]. Consistency with the Tome is a nice concept, but when it flies in the face of common sense I think it should be abandoned. -- Heaven's Agent 22:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Gor will redirect to Beastman, Gor as a result of the move, so you get the TOK consistency of the latter with the search and link functionalty of the former. The other option I suppose would be to make the reverse true, making Beastman, Gor redirect to Gor, so that monster lists trying to mimic the ToK display creatures with prefixes in the correct order. --Moccy
Actually, we try to avoid redirects whenever possible. All it results in is wiki bloat. Is this added article naming format even needed? I can't think of anyone who would run a search for [[Beastman, Gor]] before running a search for [[Gor]]. Articles should be named as simply and clearly as possible, and this format only makes things more unclear. What I'm asking is, why are you renaming them this way at all? -- Heaven's Agent 00:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, quite simply the game categorizes this creature under "Beastman, Gor" in the bestiary. First and foremost, this article is a reflection of this bestiary entry, therefore it should be consistent with it. Whilst people will no doubt search on "Gor" instead of "Beastman, Gor", naming it "Gor" is still falling short of what the game tells us this creature is. "Gor" therfore should be considered an abbriviation, and thus, any entry for it should technically redirect to "Beastman, Gor". Also, as you said, articles should be named as simply as possible, so naming it as it appears in the game (the reason people will search for it in the first place) is more appropriate because readers know they are looking at the correct article. Due to it being prefixed with "Beastman" in the TOK, it may lead people to believe that "Gor" may be ambiguous with creatures types other than beastmen. Also, as far as redirects go, there are ver few creatures in the TOK which have prefixes before the creature name, so I dont see bloat being an issue for this. --Moccy (wiki-n00b that doesnt know how to add UTC dates)
I see the problem. This is not, first and foremost, a reflection of the bestiary entry. This is our primary article on the Gor, a type of creature that has a historic role in Warhammer lore that goes beyond WAR. While I agree that we should organize articles based on the ToK, we should be able to do so without changing the name of articles such as these. [[Gor]] is as simple a title as we can have for this article, and while we should have another article for Beastmen as a whole, the two should be separate.
Of course, it may be I'm just not following your reasoning. Is there any benefit to naming articles in the manner you've done here? -- Heaven's Agent 02:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
This isn't a wiki for warhammer lore, its a wiki for the game warhammer online. Therefore this should be the primary source of information, not the warhammer lore, and the game says the creature is called "Beastman, Gor", so quite simply, thats what the article should be called. While it may contain lore added by users to expand on the background of the creature type as dictated by WAR lore, it is at heart supposed to reflect the bestiary ingame. I suggest linking to external sites/wikis if you want it to point to a page dedicated to lore. --Moccy
The way I see it, naming it as it appears in the game is in correct context with this wiki. Naming it as it appears in the general warhammer lore (i.e. simply "Gor") is incorrect context :) - Moccy
I disagree completely. What we do has to be based on the lore, else we're throwing out what they game itself is built upon. In addition, it could not possibly have been originally intended to reflect the bestiary in game; the article was created before that feature was revealed.
I firmly believe the article should remain as it was originally established, though a redirect from the designation you specified may be warranted. That being said, even if we were to go with the in-game naming conventions, the appropriate article name would be [[Gor Beastman]]. Listing the larger group first is done in situations where alphabetical sorting is necessary, which isn't the case with an online database such as a wiki. Finally, though the ToK article is listed in this manner, I feel this is for no other reason that to provide structure and order in the Tome itself; the in-game text almost always refer to these creatures simply as Gor, not Gor Beastmen.
As an aside, going ahead and changing other articles in this manner, after an concern with such action has been raised, shows a lack of respect for your fellow contributers. This is a collaborative project, and in such situations we need to come to a decision before taking action. -- Heaven's Agent 03:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
You're entitled to disagree, but you're quite wrong in saying that it has to be based on lore. It has to be based on the game. If the game happens to deviate from the lore slightly then this wiki should reflect that and not the original, since the wiki is about the game. And as far as the article being written before the bestiary was revealed, that is completely irrelevant. The point is the bestiary is in the game now, this wiki is about the game, this article is for a specific NPC type in the game, and the game has specified what that NPC type is called. The wiki should reflect this. --Moccy
A redirect from "Gor" to the current title I believe is more appropriate, because it points people toward content that is in the game, instead of the game pointing to what is in the lore that the game differs from. You are quite correct in saying that it should perhaps be "Gor Beastman". The same can be applied to "Giant Spider" and "Giant Scorpion" too, one of which someone added a link "Scorpion, Giant" to the beastial tactic page I created. I simply thought this to be a good idea and followed this up by moving the articles.
The wiki requires entries anyway for the ones I moved for reasons already specified. I see no harm whatsoever in doing this whilst this discussion is ongoing so that the articles are consistently named and links are available, as we always have the option of changing the redirects on them around once a decision has been reached if indeed the majority agree with your point of view. Speaking of which... how do you get more people than the two of us involved in this exactly? otherwise this discussion is somewhat of a pointless excersise since clearly we are both set in our opinions of what is correct. --Moccy

As far as getting others involved, we wait. We've only been discussing this less than a day, and it takes time for others to notice and get involved; we're really in no rush here.

I still believe the only reason the ToK is laid out this way is to make indexing easier for the programmers, since everywhere else in the game it's overwhelmingly just "Gor": we're getting nowhere because we're using the same reasoning, simply applying it differently. You're looking at the ToK heading as the primary source, I'm looking at the ToK entry and the rest of the game as such. -- Heaven's Agent 05:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent and quote) Great information, but shouldn't this article really follow naming conventions? There's a reason that the Karl Franz article is called "Karl Franz" and not "Human Emperor, Karl Franz" or "His most Imperial Majesty Karl Franz Shcleiswigg-Holstein IV, Emperor of Sigmar's glorious Empire and Grand Prince of the Reikland". See? ;)
The most intuitive name for the article is just Bray Shaman. And that's what people are most likely to search for. - Best to not have a bajillion redirect pages just to accomodate a funny way of naming articles. ~ Revoran | talk 11:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys, I just saw that this had been going on, the above is from Talk:Beastman, Bray Shaman. If I don't get some sleep now i'll be dead in the morning ;) - But i'll come back tomorrow give this a full read and such. I'm leaning towards what HA is suggesting at the moment, but we'll see how the discussion goes I guess. And yeah Moccy, it's generally considered good practice to discuss first before moving articles - in situations where cinflict might arise like this one. But it's not a huge breach of etiquette, it just avoids more work if the decision is made not to change names, that's all. Another user you may wish to contact is Pendrako - he was doing a lot of work with organising the Bestiary for a long while, though he's been less active lately. I'll watch this page. Night all :) ~ Revoran | talk 14:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Something else to add to the discussion for consideration: When viewing the bestiary category, it currently displays a similar structure to the TOK with Beastiary->Type->SubType->Creature. The way wiki articles are displayed in these category pages is alphabetical, so using the beastmen creatures as an example, having them all listed under 'B' as in the TOK, makes quite a bit more sense than them spread over G, U, and B. Keep in mind that these articles are creature categorisations, not references to specific characters. For this reason, I feel the example of Karl Franz is outside of this context, as this is a character, not a creature categorisation, which warrants the article being named "Karl Franz".
Dwarfs would be another good example. Whilst articles like "Slayer" and "Runepriest" exist, I feel that "Dwarf, Runepriest" and "Dwarf, Slayer" (as in the TOK) are more appropriate for the above reason because Runepriest and Slayer are categorisations, not characters, and thus should be subject to an indexing structure as mentioned. Hpwever, I do think that there should be redirect entries for the common terms of these categories simply for search purposes. --Moccy 17:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, using the Category system to establish a ToK-like structure seems inefficient at best. It would seem to be much easier to simply do so through the use of regular articles and subpages where appropraite. For example, the article<nowik>Bestiary</nowiki> would lead to the article [[Bestiary/humanoids]], which would in turn lead to [[Bestiary/humanoids/beastmen]] (though beyond this I feel continued subarticles would make the titles too complex; even three levels is pushing it in my opinion). On this final page would be the individual creature articles, [[Gor]], [[X]], [[Y]], [[Z]], etc. -- Heaven's Agent 19:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
After thinking about it a bit, we could probably eliminate the type articles altogether. There's not much we could add to those pages that wouldn't be more appropriate elsewhere, and it would leave us with a structure of [[Bestiary]] > [[Bestiary/beastmen]] > [[Gor]]. This solves the sorting issue Moccy identified if we were to use category pages for such information, allows us to maintain the more straightforward naming convention we had before, as well as allowing us to stick to the simple naming conventions maintained elsewhere in this and similar gaming wikis. -- Heaven's Agent 00:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The only difference being, that [[Category:Bestiary]] also lists every NPC type in the game at the root level too because the bestiarybox template includes each bestiary page in the bestiary category as well as in the appropriate sub-category. The article naming convention for NPC types i've put forward becomes very useful here, because it groups memebers of the same type together, i.e. beastmen, dwarfs, chaos, empire etc while leaving stuff like giant spiders and giant scorpions seperate as you would expect in an indexing system. On the downside however, when specific NPC named characters start getting added to it, it might be a little strange looking - perhaps some sub-bestiary template thingy might be in order for those? On the actual Bestiary article, links and structure can be tailored to look like anything we want i.e. we can have the link say simply [[Beastman,Gor|Gor]] under the "Beastman" heading, which looks appropriate, whereas the category pages always display the page title as a link, so we have no control over what alphabetical heading the NPC appears on the [[Category:Bestiary]] page. Bear in mind that the bestiary catgory link is on every single bestiary page. and will probably see just as much traffic as the bestiary article. --Moccy 15:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(Resetting Indent)I see what you mean now by pages linking directly to Category page from Bestiary. I strongly believe this is a bad move, and I think we should readjust immediatly. Categories should never be used in place of actual articles. The are many reasons for this, but the primary one is that Categories function very differently than regular articles in both design and execution. And as Revoran and I have noticed in a few places, using categories as a general table of contents, as seems to be the use you're wanting to do, is buggy at best. For unknown reasons, articles will disappear from categories they've been assigned, for example. While Categories are a useful indexing tool, they are not intended to be used as a general table of contents and with this in mind I feel general article indexing on this site needs to be done through the use of regular articles.

As for having no control of how articles are listed in a Category page, you are mistaken. When we assign an article to a Category, it is possible to assign it an alternate title as well, that will remain hidden but be used for the sole purpose of organizing articles on the Category page. For example, if we return the article to the original naming of [[Gor]], for the purpose of sorting articles on the category page we can assign it the title [[beastman, Gor]], if we decide to.

Finally, we should be removing automatic categorization in the near future due to some issues it causes with other templates. This being said, I don't believe articles such as this go into [[Category:Bestiary]] at all. This would only result in a category too large to be of use in finding specific articles. Instead, I propose this Category be composed of sub-Categories, such as [[Category:Beastiary/beastmen]], [[Category:Beastiary/dwarfs]], etc. Each of these sub-Categories would in turn be where the articles would be assigned to. -- Heaven's Agent 17:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is starting to make a bit more sense, and sounds like a plan to me. Should be a simple case of tweaking the bestiarybox template to exclude the articles from the root Bestiary category and if you say that we can tailor the category entry names (tell me how! :D), then I see no reason to simply mimic the TOK structure in this case. Best of both worlds imo. So taking our Gor, we'd have the article called "Gor", categorised on our Bestiary article as it currently is (in the humanoids table under a beastman heading, called Gor) and have it category-tagged under Bestiary\Humanoids\Beastmen\Beastman, Gor. That way, when viewing the category structure, it matches the TOK, which is the whole reason I've pushed this in the first place. The same can then be applied to all the other things like dwarfs, chaos, empire etc by simply changing their category tag's display title. Thoughts? --Moccy 01:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I also think it would be worthwhile to create categories now for each creature type, in preparation to populate them with mob articles, both named and general. The structure I'm thinking of for the categorizes would be as follows; it's roughly a mirror of what's in the bestiary article now, but rather than having a framework structured as a mix of articles and categories, the framework is all categories:
  • [[Category:Bestiary]]
    • [[Category:Bestiary/Beastmen]]
      • [[Category:Gor]]
      • [[Category:Ungor]]
      • Gor
      • Ungor
      • etc.
    • [[Category:Bestiary/Dwarfs]]
    • [[Category:Bestiary/Chaos]]
    • [[Category:Bestiary/etc.]]]
I eliminated categories for humanoids, animals, plants, etc., because at the moment I feel they're an unnecessary extra step in the category structure. Doing so would mean 30 different sub-Categories under [[Category:Bestiary]], but since the titles of them would be straightforward and matching the Tome, and they would be listed alphabetically, I think it would be manageable. Please let me know if you feel differently; I could definitely settle for having three-tiered Categories in this case, if you think they're worth including.
As for adding sorting tags to categorizations, I believe the format is [[Category:Category name|tag]]. That said, it's been a while since I've had cause to do this, so I'll need to double check. -- Heaven's Agent 02:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I think we should stick with a TOK mirror structure for categories. So an example structure (assuming the category tagging you mentioned format to be correct):
  • [[Category:Bestiary]]
    • [[Category:Humanoids]]
      • [[Category:Beastmen]]
        • Bray Shaman -category-tagged as [[Category:Beastmen|Beastman, Bray Shaman]] as per TOK
        • Gor -category-tagged as [[Category:Beastmen|Beastman, Gor]] as per TOK
        • Ungor -category-tagged as [[Category:Beastmen|Beastman, Ungor]] as per TOK
      • [[Category:Dwarfs]]
        • Slayer category-tagged as [[Category:Beastmen|Dwarfs, Slayer]] as per TOK
      • [[Category:Humans]]
        • Bright Wizard -category-tagged as [[Category:Humans|Empire, Bright Wizard]] as per TOK
        • Plague Victim -category-tagged as-is as per TOK


On the subject of sub-categories on a per-creature basis, I'm in two minds about it. While one per creature would be more accurate, it may be simpler to maintain a single (or perhaps 2, one for generic mobs, one for characters) sub-category per creature category called "CreatureType Characters" and simply category-tag tailor the articles with the type as a prefix. So say we have a named Gor called "Contribugor" (hur hur), a named Bray Shaman called "Veribray" (hoo hoo) and a generic Gor mob called "Gashthorn Gor", they would be in the following structures:
  • [[Category:Bestiary]]
    • [[Category:Humanoids]]
      • [[Category:Beastmen]]
        • [[Category:Beastmen Characters]]
          • [[Contribugor]] -category-tagged as [[Category:Beastmen Characters|Gor, Contribugor]]
          • [[Vertibay]] -category-tagged as [[Category:Beastmen Characters|Bray Shaman, Contribugor]]
        • [[Category:Beastmen Mobs]]
          • [[Gahsthorn Gor]] -category-tagged as [[Category:Beastmen Mobs|Gor, Gahsthorn Gor]]
        • [[Bray Shaman]]
        • [[Gor]]
        • [[Ungor]]
        • [[etc.]]
At least we're making progess ;) --Moccy 06:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should have categories by Creature Type. This would soon be massive and not very useful. In addition, the game doesn't identify a creature as a beastman as its basic designation; each kill is attributed by individual creature, as a Gor, Ungor, Bray Shaman, etc., and these counts are simply added together for the purpose of calculating a total beastman count. In addition, since the tome unlocks are on a individual creature basis, we can group all mobs that contribute to these unlocks into a single category:
  • [[Category:Bestiary]]
    • [[Category:Bestiary/humanoids]]
      • [[Category:Bestiary/humanoids/beastmen]]
        • [[Category:Bray Shaman]]
        • [[Category:Gor]]
          • Gor
          • [[Named Gor mobs]]
          • [[Unnamed Gor mobs]]
            • Note: All mobs that contibute to Gor Unlocks are grouped together.
        • [[Category:Ungor]]
        • [[Category:etc]]
        • Gor
        • Ungor
        • etc.
As a final note, with any of these structure we won't need to use sorting tags. Any creatures that are beastmen will be in a category specifically for beastmen anyway; the sorting should match the ToK, even with just the article titles. -- Heaven's Agent 19:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
That's not entirely accurate, the category 'Humans' contains mobs that would certainly benefit from sorting tags, i.e Empire & Chaos as per TOK. Same when it comes to beasts, Giant Bat should be indexed as Bat, Giant as per TOK. We may as well be consistent and tag beastmen as such (Again, i'd be happy to do all the grunt work for all this) --Moccy 22:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Argh, sorry I didn't have time to get back to this (reeaaal busy), but it seems you guys are doing fine without me. This version would also leave categories such as free for lore information under which is fairly large in it's own right, and which I was organising a few months before you guys arrived, as I feel a per-race basis is the best way to organise lore - so this would work well with that layout, and I wouldn't have to restructure the lore categories. Hope you guys are having fun :). ~ Revoran | talk 00:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Does the ToK list all humans together? I thought the creature types were divided into sections such as Empire and Chaos anyway, in which case they would get individual Categories. Though you make a good point with regard to Giant Bat; we won't need to use sorting tags in most cases, but there are times where we could benefit from them. I don't see much reason to add tags when they're not needed, though; they're invisible and only used for sorting articles. No one would see them unless they were activly editing that part of an article. And I imagine once they're finished, these articles won't be edited very fequently. -- Heaven's Agent 01:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Indent reset.. Yes, chaos and empire both fall under the bestaiary/humanoids/humans category in the TOK. So that said, are we're agreed that the bestiary use the category & article structure, whereby the index names in the TOK that differ from the aricle names be category-tagged as such across the board:

  • [[Category:Bestiary]]
    • [[Category:Humanoids]]
      • [[Category:Beastmen]]
        • Gor -category-tagged as [[Category:Beastmen|Beastman, Gor]] as per TOK
      • [[Category:Humans]]
        • Bright Wizard -category-tagged as [[Category:Humans|Empire, Bright Wizard]] as per TOK
        • Plague Victim -category-tagged as [[Category:Humans]] which matches TOK anyway

The todo list for this would be something like:

  • removal of automatic application of [[Category:Bestiary]] to articles that contain Template:Bestiarybox
  • either modifying the bestiarybox so it automatically adds the article to correct category under the correct index name (i.e. "Bat, Giant" instead of "Giant Bat" as it does currently) - maybe the "name" parameter can be tweaked for this. The other option is removing this automatic categorisation altogether and applying category tags to each bestiary page manually
  • moving the articles I tweaked back to the original names
  • add appropriate category tags to each bestiary article
  • tidying up any broken link issues (of which there shouldn't be many at this stage)

Yey or Nay people :D --Moccy 02:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. We'll likely remove the automatic categorization all together, and go with manually adding articles to Categories. I will stress using the sub-Category structure for most of the Category titles; [[Category:Beastiary/humanoids]], for example, would not only be associated with the parent Category, but also links back to [[Category:Beastiary]] at the top of the page.
I'm not going to be able to do much to help with this until Sunday night at the earliest, but once I get home and get my homework turned in I'll give a hand with the re-organization. -- Heaven's Agent 03:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Organization of it looks great to me Silenas-n-Jynnx 04:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I removed the automatic categorization from the template, as well as went ahead and moved Ungor and established the category structure for it. Feel free to take a look and comment if there are any concerns, or if not feel free to start doing the same thing with the other articles. -- Heaven's Agent 04:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks fine, apart from lowercasing the category sub-categories. "Bestiary/Humanoids/Beastmen" looks better than "Bestiary/humanoids/beastmen" imo :). I've got lots of time over the next few days, so i dont mind doing the grunt stuff :) --Moccy 04:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The only reason I listed them as lower case is because it's part of an established wiki policy: article titles are lower-case unless there is signifigant reason to do otherwise, such as a specific name, title, etc. I'd have bestiary be lower-case as well, but the first letter after the colon defaults as a capital letter. ;D -- Heaven's Agent 04:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I dunno... having a category called "Giant Bats" with capitalisation as you've created is the same as having a category called "Animals". Bit of a lack of consistency here, so which is it? I've already created the root lowercase ones, but before I start on the rest, are we going with capitalisation or not (I'd prefer we do, just about every other aricle relating to these on the wiki is captalised) --Moccy 05:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Another note: Seems you may have been wrong about the category tagging thing. It doesnt actually change the way the article is listed at all, it just adds a sort key. What I wanted was category pages that showed the following:

  • B
    • Bandit
  • E
    • Empire
    • Empire, Bright Wizard
    • Empire, Warrior Priest
    • etc.

But what we have due to that mistake is:

  • B
    • Bandit
  • E
    • Bright Wizard
    • Warrior Priest

Looks stupid and importantly, doesnt match TOK, which is why it made sense to me to run with it in the first place. So, we're back to not having much TOK consistency at all..... not impressed. --Moccy 05:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Finally, just as another nail in the bat... www.thewarwiki.com lists the creatures as I had originally proposed... fancey that :p --Moccy 05:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Bah, I should have gone with Giant bats; my bad there. And I'm sorry there was a misunderstanding regarding the sorting tags. The tags are just that, and nothing more; I don't know any way to change the title that's displayed on a Category page. Though to be honest, I still fail to see this as a real problem. The category structure makes it so most articles are sorted correctly, as indicated in the ToK. This only fails when a few articles are applied to the Category. And I don't imagine you're recommend we rename our class articles (they are the primary articles that experience this). Is it that vital that our Category structure match the ToK exactly? Even if we were going to strive to do so, it would make more sense to do so as part of regular articles.
And comparing this site to the WarWiki isn't the best way to support a point. Now don't get me wrong, we don't fiercly oppose them, but due to some ... less then friendly actions they decided to enact after they announced their wiki, there's not much love between the two projects in the minds of a few contributers. -- Heaven's Agent 06:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well in that case, im afraid im going to have to revert to advocating using the "Beastman, Gor" naming convention for TOK bestiary articles again then, because while we've figured out a half-decent category structure for the bestiary, the indexing for TOK mobs was my whole reason for the discussion. As far as main articles for playable classes like Bright Wizard, they "technically" dont actually belong in the bestiary as such anyway, but rather should simply have a TOK bestiary entry "Empire, Bright Wizard" with a link on the page saying "see Bright Wizard for more info". An yes, I do believe it is rather important that the bestiary on the wiki match the TOK, since thats what it's for.

I've created all the categories up to the Bestiary/type/sub-type level for all the TOK entries using the lowercase thingy... although I still think it looks wierd seeing things like "nurgle", "khorne" and "greenskins" etc in lowercase. Anyone else want to weigh in on this before I start adding all of the bestiary articles to them? On another point, I was thinking of adding the {{TOK|stub=no|Bestiary}} template to em as part of the process (see below for example - perhaps first removing the auto-category thing from it beforehand though), everyone happy with this?

Image:Bestiary.png

This is a Bestiary article from the Tome of Knowledge.


--Moccy 08:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


As proper names, things like "Khorne" and "Nurgle" should be capitalized as part of a Category title. I do want to stress again: we shouldn't attempt to force our category structure into a format that exactly mirrors the ToK. The Tome and a wiki Category system are two different beasts, and we shouldn't bend one to match another, especially when article pages are designed in a manner that allows this anyway. Categories are an indexing system, but they should not be the primary indexing system for this. That should be done on article pages, which allow us to mirror the ToK more completely. It also allows us to maintain the more intuitive naming structure that was established before you began moving articles. -- Heaven's Agent 18:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
You're implying a huge difference between the TOK and the wiki index system, which is complete rubbish. Having a category with capitalisation makes no difference whatsoever to how the wiki operates. Why are you so bent on inconsistency between the TOK and the wiki categories just to follow some general wiki category naming convention (which differs between wikis btw - so moot point) when its just as simple to make em mirror each other exactly? --Moccy 18:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind capitalizing the categories myself; that's not where my concern stems. It does vary between wikis, but the only reason I didn't use them here was because lower-case is part of a policy established by this project before I started contributing. I just don't care to suggest we change it at this time, so I'll abide by it. That said, if you think it's important enough to change feel free to bring it up.
My statements that the Tome and Category system where different where with regard to their structures themselves. -- Heaven's Agent 01:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I quote from HammerWiki:Use lower case: "The only exception is: If the game capitalizes a word, so does HammerWiki.". Applies to categories in the TOK, so should apply to categories on there that mirror it :) --Moccy 02:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Huh, so it does; I must have been thinking of another project I work on. Nevermind then, and my apologies. -- Heaven's Agent 02:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Joy, now i get to create the ones i already created all over again with capitalisation... oh well. at least it's sorted now and not after I started moving articles.
  • Just an FYI, the "auto category" that is in the TOK template is there because a lot of the little stubs I found for ToK stuff had absolutely 0 cats defined. Granted I haven't looked at very many of the Bestiary ones but of the handful I have preused, most of them did indeed have a category! Hooray! =) But, for "consistancy's sake" I figured it would be a "good idea™" to add atleast one at the template level so anything referencing it would atleast have some category defined. Certainly if that doesn't apply to all types of ToK "stuff" that behavior can be altered.. or filtered. For example. the template now does not include a category in a "Talk:" page. Wiki scripting is very powerful in what you can make it do at the template level so that those changes, styles, policies or whatever are copied, used, and enforced in every document that includes it. I mean, that is the whole point of a template.. is it not? ^_~
Either way, if you would a) like to discuss it further or b) propose/discuss changes to how it works and/or what kind of "category needs" Bestiary stuff (or any ToK stuff really) might need, just hop over to the ToK talk page and lemmie know. ¬_¬ Cinister (talk|contribs|files) 08:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As per the discussion, i've created all the new bestiary categories, cleaned out the old ones, and gone through all the articles in the old bestiary and added appropriate category tags to most of them, and added "Bestiary/Unsorted" category-tags for ones that we dont have anywhere to put yet. As for the old categories like "Dwarfs" and "Greenskins" i've left them populated, but placed them outside the bestiary category structure, as the articles in them dont all belong in the bestiary. --Moccy 08:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This looks pretty good, and I have a nasty feeling this is going to cause a fair bit of annoyance if you've done all the work already, - but I noticed the new bestiary categories aren't pluralised like standard categories, is this for consistency with the ToK, or another good reason, or just an oversight? ~ Revoran | talk 15:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: Without going into great detail, that is. ~ Revoran | talk 15:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Which categories in perticular arnt pluralised?, all the ones direct from the TOK are... Do you perhaps mean the mob-specific ones? If so, I didnt actually make any mob-level categories yet, i just included a couple that Heaven's Agent already made, but are probably up for revision :P --Moccy 18:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
That's my fault again. I need to be more careful doing wiki work when I'm away from home; I always rush myself. I was thinking the plural forms of Gor and Ungor were, in fact, Gor and Ungor. That said, while traveling home it occurred to me that the categories would be better titled as [[Category:Gor mobs]], [[Category:Ungor mobs]], etc. If there are no objections, I'll start on those this week; I want to begin adding Blighted Isle mobs to the wiki anyway, as part of the subzone work I do when I need a break from quests. -- Heaven's Agent 23:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. That may even be a better idea as there is likely a few Destruction-friendly Beastmen in the world. I'm 99.9% sure that the plural of Gor and Ungor is Gors and Ungors should the issue ever arise again. Best to check Games Workshop lore or how they are mentioned in the game though. On an unelated note, I noticed the list of quests page with Sunspots' table design. Very nice. ~ Revoran | talk 04:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
On another note, I'm wondering if it might be worth naming the mob groups in a similar fashion to the bestiary groups, i.e. something like NPCs/Ungors and then including this category in the Bestiary category Bestiary/Humanoids/Beastmen, again with the main mob article (i.e. Ungor added to the NPC/Ungors category as a point of reference. This may be a little too much, but it's just appeal of having all the NPC categories listed together. Thoughts? --Moccy 15:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(Resetting Indent)I think a general [[Category:Mobs]] is warranted. Because it's not a specialized category, and I don't think we'd need to populate it with direct sub-Categories. But there's no reason we can't assign the species categories, such as [[Category:High Elf mobs]], [[Category:Gor mobs]], etc., to a general mobs category as well as to the existing Bestiary hierarchy. -- Heaven's Agent 16:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, consider that using the above, there will be a category for every creature type in the bestiary that will have the word "mobs" in it, so direct sub-categories, while not a nessecity, would definatly keep it tidier. Also, I'm assuming that if this was the case, we would probably want break the listings up a bit, most likely by zone (inclusion of the category to the relevant bestiary category would provide adequate bestiary linking), so I was thinking something like Category:Mobs/Nordland/Empire might be appropriate. It could be done like Category:Mobs/Empire/Nordland as well of course. --Moccy 06:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit ahead of you on this one, and I believe we're thinking along he same lines. For instance, take a look at Category:High Elf mobs. I recognized how quickly this would become a problem if all High Elf mobs were to be listed in this one Category, and created Category:High Elf mobs/The Blighted Isle and Category:High Elf mobs/Chrace for the mob articles I had already created. I don't think a three-tiered sub-Category structure is needed in this case; sub-Categories based on individual zones should be enough, and we should probably avoid creating unpopulated Categories whenever possible. And besides, as a visitor to the site mentioned earlier today, a three-tiered structure is a bit tacky. It was warranted with the Bestiary, in order to establish a structure consistent with the ToK, but I think we should avoid it elsewhere in the wiki. In addition, each sub-Category is accompanied by a corresponding sortable table, as part of a sub-article of the zone page.
Do you mind if we break our current line of discussion into a separate section? What we're discussing is outside the realm of the Bestiary itself, and the discussion we had in getting the structure for that finalized is rather lengthy to begin with. There's not really any reason to tack this to the bottom of that monster. -- Heaven's Agent 13:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming Conventions / Tome of Knowledge / Structure and Organization

There are a lot of conversations going on about this. I'm an advocate for structuring things like the Tome of Knowledge in game.

In the HUGE LONG above post, I wanted to quote it:

I think we should stick with a TOK mirror structure for categories. So an example structure (assuming the category tagging you mentioned format to be correct):
  • [[Category:Bestiary]]
    • [[Category:Humanoids]]
      • [[Category:Beastmen]]
        • Bray Shaman -category-tagged as [[Category:Beastmen|Beastman, Bray Shaman]] as per TOK
        • Gor -category-tagged as [[Category:Beastmen|Beastman, Gor]] as per TOK
        • Ungor -category-tagged as [[Category:Beastmen|Beastman, Ungor]] as per TOK
      • [[Category:Dwarfs]]
        • Slayer category-tagged as [[Category:Beastmen|Dwarfs, Slayer]] as per TOK
      • [[Category:Humans]]
        • Bright Wizard -category-tagged as [[Category:Humans|Empire, Bright Wizard]] as per TOK
        • Plague Victim -category-tagged as-is as per TOK

I like that - it follows the ToK structure. I dont know much about categories though Im saying I like the structure. Also, it allows for [[Gor]] to be found by search, or going to ToK, navigating to Bestiary, navigating to Humanoids, and then navigating to Beastmen.

I'd like opinions on getting the ToK set up. There are lots of posts in talk:chapter regarding this. The last post is more directed toward ToK organization. My goal is for the different sections of the ToK to have a symilar formatting theme. If you check out History & Lore you'll notice a lot of cool menus that are expandable - I think that would be great for the Bestiary too - especially unlocks. Also, any lore text can easily be added in that format, so if someone does not want to see it - they don't click the little 'show' button. If someone does, they can. Simple. Silenas-n-Jynnx 20:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No one's replied to this yet? Odd. ~ Revoran | talk 04:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
IMO, the bestiary unlocks having thier own mini-articles makes sense as people are likely to search for the task name. However, it might be quite nice to just make the show/hide thing just show and hide the unlock table on the creature article page itself, and when shown, the user can navigate to the specific unlock instruction article they desire. --Moccy 16:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://warhammeronline.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Beastman,_Gor"