Talk:Angel Pajaro - Revision history

Gonzoron at 01:13, 16 April 2010

2010-04-16T01:13:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:13, 15 April 2010
Line 12:		Line 12:

	Beyond all that, yes, stuff like this needs to be drag to some central location. Or better, ultimately, shouldn't we give ourselves some central location for discussions that are not specific to a given topic, and then simply divide up that space by issue as new issues arise, permitting the revisiting as necessary of old ones? Any crushing conclusions that emerge can then be published in some one other central location.[[User:Cure\|Cure]] 03:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)		Beyond all that, yes, stuff like this needs to be drag to some central location. Or better, ultimately, shouldn't we give ourselves some central location for discussions that are not specific to a given topic, and then simply divide up that space by issue as new issues arise, permitting the revisiting as necessary of old ones? Any crushing conclusions that emerge can then be published in some one other central location.[[User:Cure\|Cure]] 03:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

			OK, rewind a bit. I forgot that on [[Category_talk:Construct]] I talked myself out of the "Van Richten" Category idea. There I proposed going all the way up to "creature type" level. And I think that's OK, for the reasons I gave there. So Angel keeps shapechanger and gains a few others.

			As for dragging this to a central location, see [[Mistipedia:Guidelines]], and feel free to comment on [[Mistipedia_Talk:Guidelines]]. -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 01:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Cure at 03:39, 8 April 2010

2010-04-08T03:39:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:39, 7 April 2010
Line 2:		Line 2:

	The proposal I put forth under [[Talk:Elsepeth]] was that NPCs should have all categories up to their "Van Richten Category". Unless someone has a counter-proposal, I'm happy with keeping lycanthrope. That way, if anyone wants a list of Lycanthrope NPC's, it's right there on the [[:Category:Lycanthrope]] page. Shapechanger doesn't fit the proposal, so I say remove it. Unless someone thinks a list of Shapechanger NPC's is useful, in which case we need to change the guidelines. Personally, I think that's a bit too broad of a category to be useful but I'm willing to be convinced. (Obviously, burying guidelines on a random NPC's talk page is not the best way to publicize them. Eventually, I'll move them to a help page of some sort where we can discuss and refine them.) -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 03:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)		The proposal I put forth under [[Talk:Elsepeth]] was that NPCs should have all categories up to their "Van Richten Category". Unless someone has a counter-proposal, I'm happy with keeping lycanthrope. That way, if anyone wants a list of Lycanthrope NPC's, it's right there on the [[:Category:Lycanthrope]] page. Shapechanger doesn't fit the proposal, so I say remove it. Unless someone thinks a list of Shapechanger NPC's is useful, in which case we need to change the guidelines. Personally, I think that's a bit too broad of a category to be useful but I'm willing to be convinced. (Obviously, burying guidelines on a random NPC's talk page is not the best way to publicize them. Eventually, I'll move them to a help page of some sort where we can discuss and refine them.) -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 03:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

			I can't say that I violently disagree, but to appreciate such proposals I typically need to either see an example or see them at work. I have seen this one at work. So my thoughts follow:

			*The first problem with "Van Richten Categories" is even if one immediately and fully grasps the sense of it, it doesn't categorise everything. So it leaves lots of holes to fill by extrapolation, which is not the best thing especially if one doesn't fully grasp the sense of it in the first place. For example, there is no guide to wolfweres and it is in fact of some consequence that they are animals, well actually, magical beasts.

			*Second, won't this proposal imply that we don't categorise the type of humanoid that a given lycanthrope is? So rather than categorising Azrel under dwarf and Jaqueline under human, they only appear under lycanthrope and the type of lycanthrope? Ditto for undead.

			*Third, a shapechanger list actually has some value. Not much. But some. There are magical weapons keyed to shapechangers. There are magic items that pick them out. And there might even be obscure prestige classes applicable to them.

			Beyond all that, yes, stuff like this needs to be drag to some central location. Or better, ultimately, shouldn't we give ourselves some central location for discussions that are not specific to a given topic, and then simply divide up that space by issue as new issues arise, permitting the revisiting as necessary of old ones? Any crushing conclusions that emerge can then be published in some one other central location.[[User:Cure\|Cure]] 03:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Gonzoron at 03:10, 8 April 2010

2010-04-08T03:10:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:10, 7 April 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Insofar as all werefoxes are lycanthropes and shapechangers, can't these be removed from the categories of Angel and Karino? [[User:DeepShadow\|DeepShadow]] 00:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)		Insofar as all werefoxes are lycanthropes and shapechangers, can't these be removed from the categories of Angel and Karino? [[User:DeepShadow\|DeepShadow]] 00:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

			The proposal I put forth under [[Talk:Elsepeth]] was that NPCs should have all categories up to their "Van Richten Category". Unless someone has a counter-proposal, I'm happy with keeping lycanthrope. That way, if anyone wants a list of Lycanthrope NPC's, it's right there on the [[:Category:Lycanthrope]] page. Shapechanger doesn't fit the proposal, so I say remove it. Unless someone thinks a list of Shapechanger NPC's is useful, in which case we need to change the guidelines. Personally, I think that's a bit too broad of a category to be useful but I'm willing to be convinced. (Obviously, burying guidelines on a random NPC's talk page is not the best way to publicize them. Eventually, I'll move them to a help page of some sort where we can discuss and refine them.) -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 03:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

DeepShadow: Created page with 'Insofar as all werefoxes are lycanthropes and shapechangers, can't these be removed from the categories of Angel and Karino? ~~~~'

2010-04-08T00:46:07Z

Created page with 'Insofar as all werefoxes are lycanthropes and shapechangers, can't these be removed from the categories of Angel and Karino? ~~~~'

New page

Insofar as all werefoxes are lycanthropes and shapechangers, can't these be removed from the categories of Angel and Karino? [[User:DeepShadow|DeepShadow]] 00:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)