Category talk:Items

I'd like to further subdivide this, so that it looks something like this (names are provisional and subject to change, suggestions welcome):


 * Category:Items
 * Category:Items by value
 * Category:Items by type
 * Category:Swords
 * Category:Gauntlets
 * Category:Items by origin or Category:Items by creator (which's better?)
 * Category:Elf items
 * Category:Drow items
 * Category:Dwarf items
 * Category:Items by material
 * Category:Adamantine items
 * Category:Dragonscale items (?)
 * Category:Adamantine items
 * Category:Dragonscale items (?)

What say you? :) --TOR 15:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Alot of these item pages will be hugely-stubby, as very little is known about most items, save a few like those possesed by Drizzt and the like (perhaps some items should be bunched in list pages?). Also alot of the items are not unique to the FR setting, and so seem a bit beyond the scope of the project? Zerak talk 16:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh I dunno... Think Crownblades, Blackstaff, Moonblade, Tel Kiira... :) There are quite a few unique items with extremely detailed info on them spread through various supplements and novels. Plus, remember that 'stub' does not mean 'short' - it just means that more can be written on the topic. I think that if we have a short article that's entirely exhaustive (just because there is no more information to include), that's fine and it's not a stub at all. --TOR 16:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that to exclude an item from the wiki because there is only a small amount of information on it would be a mistake. That said, it would be possible to create one article for many items, and put each item in its own subsection. The problem comes when trying to categorize, because you aim to categorize the article, and you can't really categorize a section of an article. The aim I had in mind was ease for DMs...


 * Suppose you're a DM writing a campaign, and you want to give your players a +2 magic item, but you're not sure what. You can just look in the Plus-2 items category and find something suitable! Or, if you wanted to reward your players with an item worth about 10000gp, you could look in the 8000-9999 gold pieces category or the 10000-14999 gold pieces category.


 * The logic behind my choices for the divisions in the Items by value category is to create categories with a sensible range of prices. For example, 8000-8499 would be too small, I thought, and 5000-9999 would be too large a range. All of this is open to discussion of course! Fw190a8 18:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and regarding TOR's excellent suggestion for subdividing the item category further, I think that we can have both creator and origin, for example, a dwarven item from mithral hall. This would be distinctly different from an elven item from mithral hall. I would like to suggest to TOR that you amend the items by type category to something like this:
 * Category:Items
 * Category:Items by type
 * Category:Weapons
 * Category:Swords
 * Category:Gauntlets
 * Category:Armor
 * Category:Chainmail
 * Category:Leather armor
 * ...more items


 * Does that make sense?! Fw190a8 18:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Perfectly. :) And there is one more problem with putting multiple items on one page - it's extremely hard to link to them. We could do it by way of anchors (e.g. Goblinbane ) but if somebody later changes the section header, the links would be broken with no easy way of finding out where they are.
 * Oh... One more thing. I'd advise creating categories as they're needed, rather than in advance. Clicking a category to find that it's empty is immensely frustrating. :P
 * TOR 18:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, ordinarily I would agree about not creating empty categories, but I felt that for the price ranges, it was important to lay them out beforehand, to ensure consistency in the divisions of pricing. Hurry up and create lots of item articles so we can fill them all! Fw190a8 22:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, one more thing that has entered my mind here. I am going to suggest "items by race" instead of "items by creator" since it is possible that an item is heavily associated with a certain race without them being responsible for its creation. Fw190a8 23:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)