Category talk:Kits

(2e) in category names?
In several instances we have categories for kits both with and without the addition of "(2e)", e. g. Category:Farisan and Category:Farisan (2e). Do we really need both? Actually, do we need the added "(2e)" at all, or should we have Category:Mamluks only instead of Category:Mamluks (2e)? As far as I know, kits only exist in 2nd Edition. (Category:Sorcerers (2e) is an exception, as sorcerer was the name of a kit in 2nd Edition, but Sorcerer is a class in 3rd and higher edition.) Daranios (talk) 19:06, May 23, 2015 (UTC)


 * Those categories are supposed to be automatically generated by the Class table template, and yes, they should have the edition in the name. If they don't, then something is wrong. Apparently, the problem with "Farisan" is that the kit/class is called "Faris" and the plural is not "Fariss", (see Khalil al-Assad al-Zahir where it generated Category:Fariss (2e)). This is easily fixed, I just didn't notice it had happened and nobody brought it to my attention until now.
 * We are treating 2nd edition kits as analogous to 3rd edition prestige classes and 4th edition paragon paths. There should be a non-edition specific article and category (e.g., Morninglord and Category:Morninglords) and an edition-specific class category (e.g., Category:Morninglords (3e), Category:Morninglords (4e)) for every class. Individuals are placed in these as they apply and also a level-based category, if known (e.g., Category:Morninglords of 3rd level (3e)). The edition-specific categories should always be generated by Class table (if possible). Does that help? &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 19:50, May 23, 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, someone with the proper references will probably have to do this, or at least answer some questions. Is Farisan a title or a kit/class, or both? We have to be careful when distinguishing titles and occupations from PC classes. Are they Fighter kits or Warrior kits? It makes a difference for category purposes. Likewise, are they Priests kits or Cleric kits? Rogue, Thief, or Bard kits? When all is said and done, Category:Kits should look just like Category:Prestige classes in content and have subcategories that are analogous. Category:Corsairs (2e) looks right, except for maybe the Warrior/Fighter question. When you get down to the level-based categories, there should be only two categories, and it should be sorted by the level number, like 08 or 14 as in Category:Corsairs of 8th level (2e) and Category:Corsairs of 14th level (2e).


 * According to Arabian Adventures, the faris is a kit (with a well-defined role). It might be used as a title, too, but the source does not clearly say so.
 * All warrior kits from Arabian Adventures really are for warriors, not only fighters. The "priest kits" there (so far we have the ethoists and pragmatists) are really all cleric kits only (except the outland priest). How is this done? Should there be a sub-category Category:Cleric kits within Category:Priest kits? (Actually, are priest kits out there in the sense that they are available for clerics, druids and specialty priests, all?) The situation for rogues is mixed. Barbers may be thieves or bards. So do we need Category:Rogue kits here, or do we just add Category:Bard kits to Category:Barbers (2e)? Daranios (talk) 20:13, May 25, 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we should just make a decision to categorize them by Priest, Warrior, Wizard, and Rogue kits and not use Thief, Bard, Cleric, or Fighter, etc. Kits are variations on a theme and I don't think we need to quibble about where to draw the line between a Thief and a Bard, or a Fighter and a Ranger, let's just go with the broader categories. There are plenty of other kits that could be documented, like from The Complete Priest's Handbook and others from that series. I am trying to model the Category:Kits category tree after what we've done for Category:Prestige classes with the addition that we put Category:Mamluks (2e) as a subclass of Category:Warriors (2e), for example. If 5th edition brings back the concept of kits, then we won't have to rearrange our categories, we'll just add (5e) cats to Category:Kits. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 13:41, May 26, 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Daranios (talk) 19:36, May 26, 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed! - Darkwynters (talk) 22:37, May 26, 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I have to state something... all the Land of Fate character statblocks have an inhabitants' class, such as Nasir el-Mamadin is a fighter... and while it does say he is a mamluk... I feel it is more important that he is a fighter for our category system... a kit feels more like the 5e archetypes... or our occupation line in the Person infobox... 3e Prestige classes are an actual separate class, while kits are just flavor... I propose we add a Kit/Archetype/Background line to the Person infobox... and just make Class level categories... of course, keep the kit categories, like Category:Mamluks, but do not have levels... So Nasir is a 10th level Fighter who would also have the mamluk category... a good example is in 5e, a fighter can be a Champion or Battlemaster... we should not have Battlemasters of 12th level, because these archetypes really only add flair to the Fighter class... my two cents :) - Darkwynters (talk) 23:21, May 26, 2015 (UTC)


 * So you want to take "Mamluk" et. al. out of the Class table and replace it with the basic class? That's okay with me, but they did go to the trouble of making three-letter abbreviations for some of these kits, treating them like a class, didn't they? Oh well, I think it would be better to use Fighter for the class, just for sorting and listing purposes if nothing else. I'm not sure what to call the additional field for the Person template. The archetype of Mamluk would be Fighter, right? Any suggestions on what to call it that would work across editions? How about "Flavor", "Variation", or "Variant"? Maybe "Subclass"? I think "Build" has a different meaning to 4th edition players (?) Thoughts anyone? &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 13:19, May 27, 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey guys, I'm late to the party but just noticed this talk page. All of these kits I'm adding are for Al-Qadim, which was 2E only I believe. So if there aren't any Corsairs for 3E,4E, etc then maybe removing the 2E from the kit title/cat is a viable option. Personally I'd prefere to have all these Zakharan characters classified by their kit and just treat it a their class. Jayani al-Jasir would be a corsair not a fighter and so on and so forth. Just let me know what you guys want to do and I'll adapt accordingly. ;) Artemas (talk) 13:33, May 27, 2015 (UTC)


 * I think I agree with Artemas. To me, kits are like wizard specializations in 3e. Everyone knows that a necromancer is a kind of wizard, but a lot of official products list them as Nec, not as Wiz. 2e sourcebooks did this too. Like Moviesign said, if there are abbreviations for these things, that indicates that they be treated like classes. We can script it so that all necromancers get categorized as wizards and so that all mamluks get categorized as fighters. ~ Lhynard (talk) 18:34, May 27, 2015 (UTC)


 * At the moment I rather tend towards Darkwynters' variant (whatever the solution in detail). E.g. Aban al-Hadhar is at the moment classified as a barber of 7th level, but that does not tell us if he is a thief or bard, which rulewise would probably have more consequences than the barber kit. It would be fine with me if we just added Category:Thieves (which he is), but I would prefer to put in thief of 7th level and somehow add that he is the barber variant of a thief. In the same vein we might run into trouble with the scripting suggested by Lhynard, as all mamluks are warriors, but might be paladins or rangers instead of fighters. Daranios (talk) 19:59, May 27, 2015 (UTC)


 * Is there a way to change the template lines so a person who is a 7th level thief of the barber kit would show up as "Thief (Barber) 7th Level?" Before I had Thief 7 and Barber 7 which made it look like the character actually had 14 levels. Artemas (talk) 20:09, May 27, 2015 (UTC)


 * No, we don't want to go changing the templates to handle special cases or create non-standard categories, we just need to decide on the way we want to handle kits. I want to keep the Category:Thieves of 7th level (2e) category so that Zakharan NPC don't get shunted off to their own corner of the category tree, and the Class table does that just fine. We just need to add one or two additional categories, like Category:Barbers and Category:Barbers (2e) and then you can find all the Barbers, if that's what you want, and you can use Category intersection to find all thieves who are 7th level and also barbers, etc. That's my idea, anyway. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 20:39, May 27, 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, I did not realize that a kit could apply to two (or more) classes like that. A Nec is always a Wiz, but if a barber can be a thief or a bard, that is a problem. In that case, I change my vote.


 * However, a new param for the infobox won't fix this, because the issue is within class table.


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 20:41, May 27, 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, in the game stats... these characters have a class and a kit... the sourcebook states Nasir el-Mamadin IS a fighter... personally, I think keep the class table as is... keep the class by level as is and just add a kit line like Lhyn's ethnic line or the occupation line in the Person infobox... then add a category, such as Mamluk... or Mamluk (kit) - Darkwynters (talk) 21:28, May 27, 2015 (UTC)


 * Would it be possible to add a named param to the Class table template such as, which would format the table such that the setting would appear in parentheses after the class? For example:




 * to give


 * EDIT: Hideous template code removed&mdash;Moviesign (talk)


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 21:55, May 27, 2015 (UTC)


 * Would Movie's auto categories be effected by this idea and become "Fighters (Mamluk) of 5th level"? - Darkwynters (talk) 22:43, May 27, 2015 (UTC)

As you can see if you edit this page, you don't need to add anything to the Class table template in order to do that. The categories are unchanged.&mdash;Moviesign (talk) 00:03, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

Oh, but you can't make Mamluk and Barber links, that will break things. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 00:24, May 28, 2015 (UTC)


 * Oooo, okay check out Nasir el-Mamadin now :) - Darkwynters (talk) 04:01, May 28, 2015 (UTC)


 * Cool, but the downsides are no ability to put in links and no auto-categories for the kits. That may be ok. In any case, I think we are moving toward a solution. ~ Lhynard (talk) 04:44, May 28, 2015 (UTC)


 * I really do not think we need auto-cats for kits or the "Kits by level" categories... a Mamluk of 7th level is the same as a Fighter of 7th level. - Darkwynters (talk) 05:17, May 28, 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, is Nasir el-Mamadin the example of the way we want to handle these kits? Shouldn't he also be put in Category:Fighters? I'd like to wrap this up so Art and Daranios can move forward. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 02:33, May 29, 2015 (UTC)


 * I wish the kit could be linked, but other than that, I think it looks good and works well. ~ Lhynard (talk) 02:58, May 29, 2015 (UTC)


 * I think Nasir is a good example on how we can use kits... also, do we want all kit categories to have the (2e) label, such as barbers (2e)? - Darkwynters (talk) 03:03, May 29, 2015 (UTC)


 * I can probably get the link to work, the code just won't be as elegant (IMHO) as it is now.


 * I would like to see both Category:Mamluks and Category:Mamluks (2e) added. If 5th edition brings back kits, then we'll just have to add Category:Mamluks (5e) and not have to go back and add "(2e)" to all the old ones. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 03:19, May 29, 2015 (UTC)

Sorting
Oh, I've been meaning to ask, how should names like Zaynal ibn Sabur and Dalilah al-Nakar be sorted? These newly created NPC pages don't have DEFAULTSORT: templates. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 03:19, May 29, 2015 (UTC)


 * My guess is that Zaynal ibn Sabur should sort as "Zaynal" and Dalilah al-Nakar as "Nakar, Dalilah". ~ Lhynard (talk) 03:46, May 29, 2015 (UTC)


 * Funny, I just posted about this on the talk page for the "Inhabitants of the Royal Harim of Huzuz" cat because they appeared to be all over the place. :) Artemas (talk) 14:32, May 29, 2015 (UTC)


 * &hellip;And I just replied over there. :) ~ Lhynard (talk) 14:40, May 29, 2015 (UTC)