FANDOM


Forums: Helping Hand > Consensus on "blanket" or "catch-all" categories

Use the following template for a nicely presented post:

{{Forum post|Write your message here!|~~~~}}


Daranios and I were having a discussion about the merits or otherwise of categories that hold articles of more than one type. Ever since TOR's substantial modifications and overhaul of the category system on this wiki, and up until this point, categories have contained one type of article. For example, there exists Category:Inhabitants of Waterdeep and also Category:Locations in Waterdeep. The benefit of this is that because the category contains only one type of article, it is concise and easy to find articles that are similar. It also allows containment of subcategories on similar topics, so Category:Inhabitants of Northwest Faerûn contains Category:Inhabitants of Waterdeep and Category:Inhabitants of the Silver Marches. The downside to this approach is that you have to know the name of the category and the place, not just the place. For example, an inexperienced user might try looking in Category:Places in Waterdeep which does not exist. However, it is possible to overcome this by navigating through the category tree (starting at the "root" Category:Categories if necessary, and as an additional measure, the articles themselves are equipped with templates that can provide easy links to these "standard" categories (see the bottom of the right-sided template on the Waterdeep article as an example). Further to this, with the use of the {{Category jump}} template, it is possible to navigate between, for example, organizations, locations, inhabitants and settlements for one place.

It would be equally possible to simply have one called Category:Waterdeep and put everything relating to Waterdeep in this category. The downside of this is that anyone browsing this category would encounter a potentially large number of types of article. There could be articles on people, places, organizations and a multitude of other things. I feel that this diminishes the usefulness of categories because they would not be specific enough. For any article, is it usually possible to say whether it is about an event, a person, a race, an organization, etc, and it is therefore possible to categorize them more specifically.

Daranios has begun to categorize everything to do with specific campaign settings in categories like Category:Al-Qadim. My approach would have been to categorize them by article type first, such as Category:Prestige classes in the Al-Qadim setting or Category:Al-Qadim sourcebooks so that a blanket category can be avoided. I'd appreciate any input on the direction we want to take on this, because decent categorization is pretty important to let people find anything.

Fw190a8 23:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The more I think about it the more I am convinced that most problems could be solved with an extended Category jump, as all (sub)categories I was thinking about when I created the mentioned categories are also distinct geographical regions. Apart from having to know what category names look like I still see two cosmetic problems:
  • When I try to find out "What's out there about Al-Qadim?" by navigating through the category tree, I will find e. g. Category:Locations in Zakhara (and can then get on by using category jump) only when I already know a little bit about the setting. This could be solved by allowing a Category:Al-Qadim, but only as a category in categories, but not in articles. This violates the principle that every category should only contain one type of article, but any article would still be of a distinct type.
  • Disallowing such blanket categories will lead to (sub)categories containing just one or few articles in a number of cases. But I guess that is an acceptable price for having clear-cut categorization
Daranios 09:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Extending the {{Category jump}} template is definitely an option and it's something I have thought about in the past. In a way, it is the binding between several categories on a particular subject, such as Category:Locations in Northwest Faerûn, Category:Settlements in Northwest Faerûn and Category:Inhabitants of Northwest Faerûn.

I honestly hadn't given much thought to attempting to find, say, Al-Qadim information by browsing the category tree. I assumed that anyone looking for something about Al-Qadim would type that into the search box and would probably end up at the Al-Qadim article, which would most likely branch off to all related articles or categories.

Fw190a8 14:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


Hmmm, okay, so everyone pretty much knows I like organization, especially with regard to the categories :) I have a few questions to ask: 1) Which map should we use for the location categories, page 30 from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting 3rd edition, page 7 of Player's Guide to Faerûn, or the 4e map... or should we just use all the maps, for example Baldur's Gate is in the Western Heartlands based on 3e and in the Sword Coast based on 2e; 2) Underdark realms... are they just in the Underdark then Toril or are they also on Faerûn, for example, Menzoberranzan is in the Northdark, but is it also in northwest Faerûn; 3) Seas... are they a part of Faerûn or not, example, the Sea of Swords... is it just a part of Toril or also west Faerûn; 4) Admin Cronje and High admin BadCat and I have been placing the categories into order from specific to broad on individual pages, is this something we want to continue to do; 5) The category jump... should we leave "red" uncreated categories, such as "Food and drink in Easthaven" or just leave it off the cat jump for the Easthaven category jump... or as I have seen Admin Movie doing... create the page, such as his "hex" categories, like Category:At-will hexes... while empty, they look nice and I can see those categories filling up with hexes in the future... so I guess my question is: Do we leave "red" links or create the category for future (within reason and whether there will be future pages) pages. 6) Final question... classes... should Drizzt Do'Urden be included in Category:16th level rangers, even though in 3rd edition he became part of the Category:5th level rangers. Basically, I like how this wiki has become a community, so I would like to know what other editors and admins thoughts are before I go all "category med-evil" :)
Darkwynters (talk) 17:25, July 7, 2013 (UTC)


  1. Use all the maps so someone can find a location from whichever edition they are coming from. Note map discrepancies in the Appendix of articles that are in more than one category if there is confusion.
  2. Treat regions like Underdark as separate continents or islands because it is possible for there to be entrances to these regions in faraway places. Make an "Entrances to the Underdark" article/category if there is confusion.
  3. The Sea of Fallen Stars is part of Faerûn because it is land-locked. If not completely surrounded by land, a sea is a separate location.
  4. Order is good. Readers will pick up on the hierarchy and learn as long as we are consistent.
  5. If you want to gently "encourage" a particular organization of categories, then I would create them now even if they are initially empty—less likelihood someone messes up your beautiful organization efforts ;). It is also less work for future editors when the category already exists and shows up when they start typing a cat name. (It's hard enough to get people to even do that.) Maybe make a {{stub-cat}} template to assist finding empty cats and encourage editors to add something.
  6. That's a tough one. If someone is a 15th level bard, it implies they were also 1st through 14th at some point in history. I lean toward keeping major characters in each of the published level categories and making sure there is a cited reference on that character's page to back it up.

My two niftens.

Moviesign (talk) 18:04, July 7, 2013 (UTC)


  1. Regions: We can just put a place in both regional categories. If it ever applied to both of them, we should expect to find it in both. Categories should be quite generally applicable.
  2. Underdark: No opinion at this stage.
  3. Seas: It's a bit hard to define where a sea ends. The Trackless Sea isn't a part of Faerun, but the Sea of Swords is right next to it. Not sure.
  4. Category order: I like the categories to be ordered, it makes them easier to find, especially in a long collection of them. Specific to broad is also a sensible way of doing it: you see and read the most relevant of them first. I'd care that an NPC is human and an inhabitant of Calaunt before that he was an inhabitant of Toril (duh).
  5. Empty categories: I'd prefer to avoid creating empty categories. A user would click on them, expect to see something, and just be disappointed. Though not pretty, leaving red-links to them is fine, as it shows that it can be expanded upon. This may depend on the topic: an old obscure village is unlikely to be revisited in such detail and doesn't need a unused or redlink category, while a big city very well could be revisited or have more lore out there, so a ready category is handy.
  6. Class levels: Unfortunately, the existing "Xth level" category system is based around 3rd/3.5 edition classes. The power levels are different for 1st, 2nd, 4th, and soon 5th/Next edition classes. Putting a 16th-level 2nd-edition Ranger in with a 16th-level 4th-edition Ranger is a bit wonky. To clear this up, we'd need similar categories for every edition: 16th-level 2nd-edition Ranger, 16th-level 3rd-edition Ranger, 16th-level 4th-edition Ranger, etc. That'd be a big, complicated mess to sort out, and I think it's just too crunchy for us. Who needs to know all the 16th-level Rangers in the setting anyway? There's not likely to be many. I'd sooner get rid of these, and I've been halfhearted about using these categories. At the least, we could broaden the categories: low-level, mid-level, high-level, epic, the 4e stages, or whatever.
— BadCatMan (talk) 02:10, July 8, 2013 (UTC)


@BadCatMan:

  1. I think we agree on this.
  2. I don't feel strongly about it. The Underdark map just borders other countries in the third dimension.
  3. Yeah, that's why I'd call them separate locations. Practically every location is defined by adjacent locations, so it will be clear where the sea is, IMHO.
  4. Yep.
  5. I agree with your "depends on the topic" clause.
  6. Yikes, if we cannot use the categories to compare characters, then I'd be in favor of dropping them also. I was going to suggest we use ranges instead (0–5, 6–10, etc.) but that does not address the fundamental shift in what "level" means.

Another two niftens.

Moviesign (talk) 02:40, July 8, 2013 (UTC)


Wow... I opened a can of something :)

  1. Agreed... if a location is stated in multiple location... place in both.
  2. Personally, I think the Underdark is like another continent... so it should be attached to Toril but not Faerûn, in general.
  3. Excellent. Seas are their own locations attached to Toril, unless land locked :)
  4. I love having some cat order.
  5. Will leave "red" links as opposed to empty cats, unless as stated above.
  6. Hmmm... wow, this is a big one... hmmm... so are you suggesting we categorize the classes by edition... for example, place Drizzt in a 2nd edition rangers category and a 3rd level rangers... and forget about class levels, except in the infoboxes (I really like those edition sections)... hmmm... no more actual level cats... maybe we should also get rid of the challenge rating cats, too...
Darkwynters (talk) 03:00, July 8, 2013 (UTC)


Seas & Oceans: Broadly, I think wholly or mostly land-locked large bodies of water would be a part of the continent. So the Inner Sea, the Shining Sea, the Great Ice Sea, and to some extent the Sea of Swords (which is bordered by a lot of islands could all be considered Faerûnian. The Trackless Sea, Great Sea and others are wholly or mostly unbounded, and wouldn't be considered Faerûnian. Does Toril have any oceans? I think this would be a matter of case-by-case judgement.

No, I'd rather we not use edition-specific class or level categories at all. It's too crunch-based and complicated when our focus should be lore. (I also dislike the whole "who's most powerful?" contest some fans have between NPC stats.) The flavour of the Ranger remains the same across editions, even if the mechanics or powers change with every edition. Keeping up would just be too unwieldy to my mind.

CR categories: Yeah, I don't like them either. If a DM wants an appropriate monster challenge, then they're looking in their Monster Manual, not here.

I don't mind this stuff tucked away in an infobox, mind you, I just don't think we need to go to the effort of categorising pages by crunch aspects.

— BadCatMan (talk) 06:56, July 8, 2013 (UTC)


Hmmm, I'll weigh in on the class level discussion with only one consideration. If we're removing levels then we may well be creating more Blanket categories (for example Category:Wizards is already very unwieldy) and undoing some of the category scaling we've been striving for. Clicking through those pages is not a very easy way of navigating so I suggest we either leave the levels as they are or find another means of adding granularity.

That said, I agree with removing the CR category as that is very edition specific...unlike levels.

--Eli the Tanner (talk) 07:09, July 9, 2013 (UTC)


Well, I have removed "level" categories from a few of my original creation pages, such as Thoyana Jorgadaul and Agatha... thoughts? I completely agreed... no more CR categories... As for Eli's statement... how could we organize the classes differently?

-Darkwynters (talk) 17:42, July 9, 2013 (UTC)


Good point, Eli. I'm not sure how this can be handled best. On one hand, there's huge, unwieldy blanket class categories that span editions. On the other, lots of fiddly little categories for every class, edition, and level. We might find a happy medium with level ranges, though how to define those ranges is another question. This would also lead to some lengthy category names: "Category:4th-level 3rd-edition Wizards", say, "Category:3rd-edition Wizards of 1st–5th level", or maybe at its briefest "Category:Wizards (1st–5th-level) (2E)". (4th edition is probably best for this, with its Heroic, Paragon, and Epic tiers already defined.)

It would be a vast task, requiring manual checking and adjustment of every Inhabitant page. (Too fiddly for a bot.)

Removing the CR categories is something that my bot could do though.

— BadCatMan (talk) 12:07, July 10, 2013 (UTC)


Fiddly is my middle name... I have no problem with manually taking on the task of fixing the categories :) I just want us to have a defined method for organization... hmmm... well, many of the categories have prestige classes, such as 4th level Harper scout... maybe it would be easier to just keep the Level first format... and go with your 4th level 3rd edition wizards category because most of the prestige classes were 3rd edition... I guess there would have to be a 3rd edition wizards category as well linked to the Wizards category (this would lead to more organization)... although having a combined category would be simple too, such as 1st-5th level 3rd edition wizards... Overall, your ideas are good, because Drizzt could be placed in multiple categories, because he has 1st through 3rd edition levels (though I know, BadCat, you want to deviate from editions)... really anything it cool with me, as long as the wiki as a community decides... then I will act :)

(Housekeeping... updated ideas below)

-Darkwynters (talk) 17:33, July 10, 2013 (UTC)


I would vote for choice 4. But I have to admit this is purely a personal bias choice. I can never see myself searching for a wizard by level.

--Ijkay (talk) 19:13, July 10, 2013 (UTC)


My instinct was to go for the first option but it seems rather clunky like Darkwynters and BadCatMan pointed out...but maybe I could suggest we go for an additional 'tier' of categories rather than more specific categories. In this instance we simply add a Category:Wizards by edition and/or Category:Inhabitants by edition top category and follow the same hierarchy format we use in our other endeavours like Category:Inhabitants by location. For example Elminster/Drizzt would add multiple edition categories the same way they have multiple location categories i.e. Category:3rd-edition inhabitants and Category:2nd-edition inhabitants

Hopefully this way we can avoid too much fiddliness and perhaps even gain more utility in the form of helping people locate characters from specific editions/timeperiods for use in their games (something I've found hard to discern at times).

If that doesn't seem like a good idea then I'm happy to go with option 1. What do you guys reckon?

--Eli the Tanner (talk) 21:19, July 10, 2013 (UTC)


(Housekeeping... updated ideas below)

-Darkwynters (talk) 21:42, July 10, 2013 (UTC)


I like Eli's idea because it reduces the number of categories to a manageable number and is still useful. The "Main" article of the Category:3rd edition wizards could be an explaination of the differences betwen editions for the class, and an ordered list by level. Problem solved?

Moviesign (talk) 21:47, July 10, 2013 (UTC)


Yeah to clarify, as Moviesign noted, my idea still includes levels but would be covered by and made manageable by the new 'higher' category.
--Eli the Tanner (talk) 21:55, July 10, 2013 (UTC)


Ooo... so we create categories, such as 3rd edition wizards, and make a page called 3rd edition wizards... where the page is broken into each level... kind of like the dragon list page... but then NO actual "level" categories... correct? So Elminster Aumar would be a part of the 3rd edition wizards category and be listed under 20th level wizards on the 3rd edition wizards page... hmmm... not sure if BadCat will like having "edition" oriented pages...

UPDATED CATEGORY IDEAS

  1. 4th level 3rd edition wizards - long, but fits with other class cats (+2 vote: Eli, DW)
  2. 1st–5th level 3rd-edition wizards - less cats, but not as defined
  3. Wizards (1st–5th-level) (3e) - short, but too many parentheses
  4. No level categories - no edition base, but as Eli stated, no simplified organization (+2 vote: IJ, DW)
  5. 3rd edition wizards - no level categories (+3 vote: Eli, DW, Movie)
-Darkwynters (talk) 22:15, July 10, 2013 (UTC)


Yes, I'd like to eliminate the individual level categories and just classify persons as "3rd edition wizard", "4th edition wizard", "2nd edition ranger" etc. as needed. They would show up in the appropriate category and the Main article for the category would contain an ordered list of members, for those that are interested in comparing all 3rd edition wizards by their level. Eli did not actually vote for the "no levels" stipulation.

Moviesign (talk) 22:25, July 10, 2013 (UTC)


Okay... so after much discussion, I believe these three ideas are the ones editors like:

FINAL ROUND CATEGORY IDEAS

  1. 4th level 3rd edition wizards - combines "level" crunch & edition-based
  2. 3rd edition wizards - eliminates "level" crunch, keeps edition-based
  3. No level categories - eliminates "level" crunch & edition based

P.S. Should we remove all the prestige class (basically 3rd edition) levels...

Darkwynters (talk) 05:10, July 12, 2013 (UTC)


I vote for #2, with each category having a page that lists the members by level (and any other info that pertains to that edition's class description. Maybe stuff from The Complete Wizard's Handbook?). Dunno about prestige classes. I suppose we'll have to decide how to handle those and specialty priests and specialist wizards. Or not.

Moviesign (talk) 13:14, July 12, 2013 (UTC)


I'm still rather lost as to what might be the best way to handle this sort of thing. I don't think I'll vote, since I'm not really attracted to the idea in the first place, except to give up and get rid of it all. Abstain, for now.

I don't mind a page that lists things for organization purposes. But such a page that lists all wizards of a certain class and level would need to be manually updated on a regular basis, either by users as they create articles (easily forgotten) or admins managing them (more work!).

Moviesign's work on the spell templates to automatically create categories based on contents of the infobox could be useful here. Say if "class2e =" is filled, then it generates a category with class, level, and edition. Maybe that could help speed up the process? Moviesign, does that sound feasible?

PS: Can't make forum template work today.

— BadCatMan (talk) 13:59, July 12, 2013 (UTC)


You can't use equal signs in forum posts. I fixed it for ya.

Yes, I think we could add logic to the Person template that added categories based on one or more parameters...once we decide on how granular we want our categories to be, lol.

Moviesign (talk) 14:38, July 12, 2013 (UTC)


Lobbing it back in your court, if I can automatically categorize them, can you make a bot that generates the listing pages? :D

Moviesign (talk) 14:47, July 12, 2013 (UTC)


Just playing around... please check out my 2nd edition fighters page... thoughts?

Darkwynters (talk) 17:24, July 12, 2013 (UTC)


That looks pretty nice DW. For the levels list, I was thinking of a straight table with a number by each name rather than individual sections, but it could work that way too.

Moviesign (talk) 19:24, July 12, 2013 (UTC)


Okay... I played around with Thoyana Jorgadaul... and created Category:2nd edition fighters and Category:Fighters by edition... hmmm... man, I think it would still be easier just to have cats... I see where BadCat is coming from with pages becoming edition specific (but not categories)... thought: Categories - 2nd edition fighters of 8th level (instead of 8th level 2nd edition fighters) to 2nd edition fighters linked to Fighters which link to the Fighter page, where we just have all the edition information, like Movie has been completing with his spells... I have no problem with fixing all the cats... or BadCat's bot could change the categories... this way the cats are just references and source material accurate. Or... we just keep everything the way it is... with 8th level fighters and when a person clicks on Thoyana Jorgadaul, they can see in her infobox... she is both a 2nd edition and 3rd edition 8th fighter...

Darkwynters (talk) 20:36, July 12, 2013 (UTC)


I have checked out a few other wikis... Star Wars, Dragonlance, Pathfinder... and while many of these wikis either disregard levels... the ones who do... use them as a reference... I suggest... we forget about the last few days... leave the cats as they are and just update the infoboxes... as for Drizzt... personally, I would make him a part of: 10th level rangers (1e), 16th level rangers (2e), and 5th level rangers (3e)... as for edition, just check out his infobox... now for the cool edition notes... we just add them to the class page... thoughts?

Darkwynters (talk) 22:21, July 12, 2013 (UTC)


I concur with this. Putting the edition notes in the Fighter class page itself would be best. I also checked out the drizzt update and the additional categories seem like a good idea to me....probably least problematic and simplest way to handle it after all. Levels are a useful barometer for any DM looking for NPC's and Ed still uses them a lot when detailing characters (one of the few statistical stuff he supplies, as it is generally always edition-friendly). I'm interested to hear more about Moviesign's automated infobox categorization though...that sounds very handy.

--Eli the Tanner (talk) 23:06, July 12, 2013 (UTC)


Thanks, Movie. It seems just about everything breaks these templates. :(

I'm afraid the bot program I'm using can't automatically create pages. Someone would have to create the category pages by hand. The bot could fill them with text and further categories though. That would likely be something I'd have to click through, watch and change numbers, which is a fair bit easier than doing it through the website (no loading the next page, opening edit, filling in summary, etc).

I realised we have a pre-existing way we can handle level sorting without creating level-specific categories: the category sorting system. For example, a 4th-level Fighter could be categorised as [[Category:Fighters by level|4]], and so on. Then, on "Category:Fighters by level", all the characters would be sorted by level, with 4th-level Fighters listed under "4". These could be made edition-specific with, say, [[Category:Fighters by level (3E)|4]], etc.

Another thing we could consider is total level. Multiclass characters have lower individual levels, but higher total levels. A Wizard 10 / Red Wizard 10 is a fair bit more powerful than a Wizard 10. Perhaps [[Category:Characters by level|20]] and [[Category:Characters by level|10]] could be used as a simpler method of arranging by level? This would of course merge all the classes.

Prestige classes and the like are probably unnecessary to categorise or sort by level, or even categorise at all. The famous ones (Red Wizard, Harper Scout) will only have a handful of NPCs with that PrC, while most will only have a simple example NPC. These are easiest to list on the class page itself.

One point about how we write the categories. When typing them out in the editing window or in search, Wikia will (usually) pop-up a list of suggested completions. We should choose an arrangement of class name, level, and edition that makes this simplest. I'd rather start with the class name then get a list of suggested editions and/or levels, rather than have to type out the whole edition and/or level sequence before auto-suggest kicks in with anything relevant.

— BadCatMan (talk) 02:25, July 13, 2013 (UTC)


BadCat, are you suggesting we change the categories to Fighters of 8th level, so the class is presented first? Or that we create a category, Fighters by level and then just add an 8 to the sort line? Wait, now I get it... that is what you mean... we only need one subcat... oooo... let me test this...

-Darkwynters (talk) 16:49, July 13, 2013 (UTC)


I have tested BadCat's cat ideas on Thoyana Jorgadaul... tell me what you think?

-Darkwynters (talk) 17:41, July 13, 2013 (UTC)


Oooh, that works quite nicely. That's kinda what I was hoping for earlier but couldn't quite think how to get the Categories to work that way. Editions and levels all bundled in!

--Eli the Tanner (talk) 19:45, July 13, 2013 (UTC)


Nice work you guys :) You could put Category:Fighters of 8th level (2e) as a subcat of Category:Fighters (2e), but it might look a little redundant. Up to you.

Moviesign (talk) 01:27, July 14, 2013 (UTC)


That's right. Sorting them by level means we won't need separate category pages for every level, one page instead of twenty-odd. Plus, a reader can compare, say, 4th- and 5th-level Fighters more easily from a single page. Of course, the category could get very big, as there are a lot of statted NPCs, but with edition-specific categories as well it shouldn't be so bad. A few clicks could get you through to the high levels. This should be a good balance between size of category and number of categories.

Of course, sorting by level means we can't sort by surname (unless you include "8, Jorgadaul, Thoyana"), but I think this is unnecessary. Very rarely will there be two characters with the same surname, level, and class.

So, what are we looking at here? For Thoyana Jorgadaul:

  • [[Category:Fighters]]
  • [[Category:Fighters (2e)]]
  • [[Category:Fighters (3e)]]
  • [[Category:Fighters by level (2e)|8]]
  • [[Category:Fighters by level (3e)|8]]
  • [[Category:Inhabitants by level (2e)|8]]
  • [[Category:Inhabitants by level (3e)|8]]

Is this too many? Categorisation will become even more of an effort, and the category block at the bottom will be huge on some NPCs. Can we cut this back? If Fighters are sorted by level and edition, then can we do away with "Category:Fighters", "Category:Fighters (2e)", and "Category:Fighters (3e)"?

— BadCatMan (talk) 01:46, July 14, 2013 (UTC)


How about...

  • [[Category:Fighters (2e)|8]]
  • [[Category:Fighters (3e)|8]]
  • [[Category:Inhabitants (2e)|8]]
  • [[Category:Inhabitants (3e)|8]]

So we will have a list of ALL fighters... then we will have lists of fighters by level, by edition... and we can have Inhabitants by level and edition... wait, most characters already have the Inhabitant category... why not make it edition based... I think I will test this... but maybe we can delete the regular Fighters category, since most characters are edition based... say from when a novel was written or when a sourcebook was published... okay... testing... I will used my Sandbox this time :)

Darkwynters (talk) 04:36, July 14, 2013 (UTC)


My Sandbox: Okay... check it out... what do you guys think... Maybe if a class is only edition specific... such as assassin it does not need a edition ref, but on the other hand what would happen if 5e creates assassin 5e, hehe

Darkwynters (talk) 05:23, July 14, 2013 (UTC)


Hmm. I think I prefer the "by level" be included — it makes it clear from the name what the category will contain (a sorting by level), and it matches our other categories (such as "Inhabitants by alignment").

I'd also prefer to keep a raw "Inhabitants" category that isn't specific to edition. Quite a lot of characters are not statted or levelled at all: characters from novels, history, NPCs not important enough to give levels and alignment to. We can't assume an edition for them. Our categorisation of statted characters should be kept separate from the standard categorisation of characters.

Actually, 1st edition had an Assassin class, and it's bound to appear in 4e and 5e in some form.

— BadCatMan (talk) 05:58, July 14, 2013 (UTC)


That looks nice, DW. I think I'd rather have the class tables over on the right side of the info box tho. That should be easy to fix. So, how would you like a special version of the {{class table}} that automatically generates these:

  • [[Category:Fighters]]
  • [[Category:Fighters (2e)]]
  • [[Category:Fighters (3e)]]
  • [[Category:Fighters by level (2e)|8]]
  • [[Category:Fighters by level (3e)|8]]

That shouldn't be to hard to whip up. Let me know what you think, and if you have any better ideas.

Moviesign (talk) 06:33, July 14, 2013 (UTC)


Yes, BadCat... I'm old... I remember the 1e assassin class... ye snarky high admin... hehe... okay... I have used both BadCat and Movie's ideas... making a category tree out of the design above... Fighters (Master list & Alpha order) leads to edition specific fighters (Alpha order) leads to fighters by level (Level order)... I wish we could work with the categories which are already created, such as 8th level fighters, but as BadCat states, having the class first does help with organization... so check out my Sandbox and let me know what you think :)

Darkwynters (talk) 17:11, July 14, 2013 (UTC)


What's the difference between Category:Fighters (2e) and Category:Fighters by level (2e)? They both have numerical headings showing the level. Is Fighters (2e) sorted by last name? I'm just confused.

Moviesign (talk) 17:36, July 14, 2013 (UTC)


Sorry, Movie, I forgot to make the changes on the Thoyana Jorgadaul and Adalwulf Longfang... so yes... fighters (2e) is edition-based and alphabetized... and Fighters by level (2e) is level based...

Darkwynters (talk) 17:43, July 14, 2013 (UTC)


Ah, it makes sense now. Brilliant! If this scheme is finalized, how can I help make these categories mostly automatic for you? If all the information is in the {{class table}} then I tell me the format of the categories you want generated. I'm thinking something like {{cat-class table|edition=2e|[[Fighter]]|8}} should generate [[Category:Fighters (2e)]] and [[Category:Fighters by level (2e)|8]], is that right? Anything else?

Moviesign (talk) 18:54, July 14, 2013 (UTC)


Technically written before Movie's last post:
"Movie... how does your infobox cat creator work? For example, under Thoyana Jorgadaul, she is both a class2e and a class3e character: Fighter 8th level... what would the categories look like... or do you put the parameters in the infobox document? Would it create Fighters of 8th level (2e) or 8th level fighters (2e)... Are we going to make all the spells edition specific? hmmm... Henry David Thoreau, "Simplicity, simplicity"... our infoboxes give edition notes... the spells are organized by number, example 8th level spells, maybe the classes should stay the same, 8th level fighters... so a reader can look up a Thoyana based on being a fighter or her level of fighter, but will see she is 2nd edition and 3rd edition based on her infobox... just like a person can look up Karsus's avatar and see it is a 12th level spell and is only 2nd edition... it makes sense to have edition based sourcebooks, but trying to balance level, class, and edition through the categories seems to be getting complicated... thoughts :)"

Recent: Hehe... okay... I guess you like the edition-based categories :) hmmm, parameters... let's see what BadCat thinks about the new arrangement.

Darkwynters (talk) 19:15, July 14, 2013 (UTC)


I just want to make your categorizing life easier :) You tell me the format and I'll see if I can get it working. If you change your mind later, we only have to change the template and voila, everything moves to new categories.

Moviesign (talk) 20:19, July 14, 2013 (UTC)


Okay... well, I am glad I did that... please check out my Sandbox... okay the sort appears to only go from 0 to 9 (and is glitchy)... I was wondering why the challenge ratings were not giving numbers, plus a few of the spell cats are not sorting by numbers... If someone knows how to make the sort go higher, please let me know... but I DO like this set up... if the sort cannot go above 9, maybe create cats like: Rangers leads to Rangers (3e) leads to Rangers of 5th level (3e)... this would change the cats to class first as BadCat stated and would give both edition and level... because I really like how Category:Classes by edition looks... again, if someone can fix the sort... then what do you think about my sandbox... otherwise, this is my next test :)

  • [[Category:Rangers]]
  • [[Category:Rangers (2e)]]
  • [[Category:Rangers (3e)]]
  • [[Category:Rangers of 16th level (2e)]]
  • [[Category:Rangers of 5th level (3e)]]

P.S. I will clean up my recent created pages if the sort cannot be fixed... hehe this is why experimenting is important :)

-Darkwynters (talk) 04:41, July 15, 2013 (UTC)


Well, I have tried my idea... classes + editions + levels... please check out Drizzt Sandbox... the sort function actually worked for organizing Category:Inhabitants by level... but see Category:Wizards (2e) and Category:Classes by edition as examples... I know it seems like a lot of work, but after I created the first few... the categories were very easy to use... still, tell me what you think :)

-Darkwynters (talk) 18:17, July 15, 2013 (UTC)


I am more than happy with this Darkwynters, seems like it does everything we wanted. I like the how the new Category:Classes by edition has turned out and Category:Inhabitants by level fits nicely among the other subcats of Category:Inhabitants. I guess we'll just need to retweak Category:Inhabitants by class too though to fit with the new Name-first and added edition formats.
--Eli the Tanner (talk) 22:17, July 15, 2013 (UTC)


Sigh. I didn't think about the numerical sorting system when I proposed sorting by level. :( I'll look around and fiddle with the system, and see if I can't make it work above 9.
— BadCatMan (talk) 13:52, July 16, 2013 (UTC)


That's okay, BadCat... your sorting idea has helped with my Category:Classes by edition page and Category:Inhabitants by level :) I think I might just combine the 3rd edition and 3.5... like Movie's spells... yes rangers were changed, but having 1e through... 5e should be enough... anyone disagree?

Darkwynters (talk) 17:53, July 16, 2013 (UTC)


What do you think about the cat-class template idea described above? Would it make your life easier, or not? Let me know if you want me to create it for you. It probably wouldn't take long. I'm going on vacation next week, but I hope to keep in touch and do a little editing here and there.

Moviesign (talk) 00:25, July 17, 2013 (UTC)


And another thing. I noticed you have a Category:Priests (2e) category. As I understand it, Priests in 2nd edition were either Clerics, Druids, or Specialty Priests of a specific mythoi. Are you grouping them all together under this category, or will they get their own subcategory? Warriors are in a similar situation, and Rogues. This would make a difference in how a cat-class template would need to work. Just curious.

Moviesign (talk) 00:37, July 17, 2013 (UTC)


I've looked at options given for handling sorting in categories, and there seems no standard way of changing the way pages are sorted: it works only off the first letter/digit/symbol in the sort key, so number won't sort properly above 9. One suggested way was to use letters and provide a key on the category page: A — 1, B — 2, so on. That would make sorting by level very tricky: by hand, people won't remember what 20 corresponds to, and it would make a coded solution much more difficult. So I guess that's out. :(

Category:Priests (2e) was just for me testing out category sorting.

Yes, I've been calling the 2e cleric-types "Priests" because I see the stat lines in the sourcebooks saying "(LG hf P16)" and thought that P stood for Priest. Is that right or am I mistaken? I don't actually know the core rules in 2e. If not, then "Priests" would be better serving as an occupation category rather than a class category.

— BadCatMan (talk) 01:36, July 17, 2013 (UTC)


As for sorting, BatCat... thanks for trying :) Actually the sort does work for making 1-20 for the class levels... I mean keeping then in order and for each edition... Yeah in 2e, Priest was the broad category... I was just copying BadCat's example and I have seen the same thing... so I created both a Category:Priests (2e) and Category:Clerics (2e)... I can combine them, if you like :) As for auto-cat creators... not sure if it will help... let me play around, create a few more and I'll get back with you, Movie, because I really am getting a hang of making these cats... as long as you guys like the look and organization of them :)

-Darkwynters (talk) 04:10, July 17, 2013 (UTC)


Oh yeah... 3.5? should I make Fighters (3.5), Fighters (35e), or Fighters (3.5e)... or just combine 3rd edition and 3.5 edition?

-Darkwynters (talk) 04:17, July 17, 2013 (UTC)


Touché DW, you got your post in before me this time :)

The Player's Handbook 2nd edition (revised) says the classes are Cleric and Druid, but both are a type of Priest and the spells are called priest spells. The Forgotten Realms Adventures book uses P for Priest, P(Sp) for Specialty Priest, and D for Druid—no C for Cleric. I would go with the categories in FRA (page 69), I guess, but that's confusing when they are called Clerics in 1st and 3rd editions, and not 2nd (don't have my 3.5 PHB with me at the moment to check that assertion). The average user of the wiki may be overwhelmed and confused by this flip-flopping. The addition of (2e), (3e) etc. to the end of the class names will help a lot I think. I defer to the 3rd/3.5 experts on combining the two. It's okay with me unless there are glaring differences between 3rd and 3.5.

Moviesign (talk) 04:23, July 17, 2013 (UTC)


Just to be clear DW, a cat-class table template would not create the categories, it would only put a particular Person in certain categories based on the info in the cat-class table. It just saves you or some other editor the effort of putting them in categories like [[Category:Fighters (2e)]] and [[Category:Fighters by level (2e)|8]] and perhaps forgetting one or two. It would not create a page like Category:Thieves_of_4th_level_(2e) with the text "A list of all 2nd edition thieves of 4th level." in it—a human would still (probably) have to make those.

Moviesign (talk) 04:45, July 17, 2013 (UTC)


Basically, the classes were upgraded from 3e to 3.5e... skills were combined and some of the classes were improved... personally, I think I will combine 3e and 3.5e... but I do have a little problem, some characters like Jezz the Lame and Elminster Aumar have 3e and 3.5e stats... hmmm
P.S. BadCat, what are your thoughts on Movie's idea to just combine Priest (2e) and Clerics (2e), because unlike 2e thieves and 3e rogues... 2nd edition had clerics.

-Darkwynters (talk) 19:26, July 17, 2013 (UTC)


Okay, if the class in 2e was actually called Cleric, then we should call it that. It's easier, consistent, and more accurate. "Priest" is too general a term, and changing to Priest for 2e would just be confusing. Category:Priests should become an occupational category.

Thieves and Rogues. Oy. "Category:Thieves" the occupation should be distinguished from "Category:Thieves" the class, somehow.

For categories, just merge 3.5 into "3e". The changes are all minor mechanical changes, and broadly the editions are directly compatible. For {{Person}}, let's leave the statblocks for 3e and 3.5 separate. The introduction of new Epic rules and new classes does change classes for some characters.

I'm going to leave the whole approval of this new system to Darkwynters and Moviesign, since you two are and will be doing most of the gruntwork on it. (I'm a bit overwhelmed by the two big technical overhauls going on concurrently.)

— BadCatMan (talk) 12:47, July 18, 2013 (UTC)


With regards to the 3e and 3.5 issue, I'll concur with BadCatMan. I think the edition categories should stick to the 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, and 5e format for simplicity and future precendent. In each category we'll be linking to either the edition page or a class page which should explain the differences in more detail. The infobox should probably keep the 3e/3.5 distinction though for the same reasons BadCatMan stated.

--Eli the Tanner (talk) 13:06, July 18, 2013 (UTC)


Sounds like a winner... thanks for the advice, friends :)
Thieves the occupation will not have a edition tag... I'll show ye!!!

-Darkwynters (talk) 17:28, July 18, 2013 (UTC)


I was also thinking about wizards by school... maybe I should just combine them... I mean basically a 2nd level wizard is similar to a 2nd level illusionist... what do you think?

-Darkwynters (talk) 19:43, July 18, 2013 (UTC)


Ah, here is the discussion that I remembered. I'm deleting the category Priests (2e) as discussed and leaving Category:Priests and all the "Priests of ..." as occupations.
Moviesign (talk) 13:21, June 16, 2014 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.