This Forum has been archived

Visit Discussions
Forums: Index > Wiki Discussion > Categories, part two
Note: This topic has been unedited for 3280 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not continue it unless it really needs a response.

This is going to be a bit long. Because of that, they're separated by sections to make reading easier. --D. (talk · contr) 05:19, February 22, 2011 (UTC)


When to categorize

Yes Decategorize when not needed for nationality (or race) for game-specific categories, e.g. Fereldans will not appear in "Dragon Age II characters".

Recategorize for better navigation for game-specific pages, mostly for gameplay articles (see next section—both are related), such as "Dragon Age: Origins random encounters" instead of just "World map encounters". --D. (talk · contr) 17:42, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Just how many categories should we add to a page? I don't see a problem with listing a character like Anders on Category:Characters and subsequent games because they're not necessarily "restricted" to one game, but the parent category Category:Items may be a little different, and possibly anything that isn't lore (downloadable content, talents, spells, quests, weapons, armor, runes, etc... I think you get the idea). For example, I don't oppose to Category:Towns still existing, but I'm questionning if Category:World map encounter should actually be split to the game it is specific to, e.g. "Dragon Age: Origins random encounters" (instead of "world map encounter"). The main category would be renamed to Random encounters (this is due to the main articles regarding these encounters, e.g. List of random encounters in Dragon Age: Origins).

For Category:Items, items include anything that goes in your character's inventory. With Dragon Age II's release, the category is probably going to be populated by over 1000 pages, because not all items are categorized in "Items". Pieces of equipment are sometimes listed, but it's not consistent. The infobox for items could possibly automatically categorize them under "items", although I think the category should simply list main item pages (such as "Runes", "Weapons", etc.) A specific item, such as Health Poultice shouldn't.

Also, should categories like a nationality such as Category:Fereldans be categorized under Category:Dragon Age II characters? I personally do not think it should, simply because of the way the categories work: lots of characters under "Fereldans" may not appear in Dragon Age II (i.e., Fereldans aren't restricted to Dragon Age II, or Dragon Age: Origins), but tagging the subcategory under the Dragon Age II may suggest as such. The game category should generally be used for the "by appearance", and for the parent game category (e.g., Category:Dragon Age II). --D. (talk · contr) 05:19, February 22, 2011 (UTC)


Personally I don’t see an issue in number of categories per page. Does the higher number of categories affect the readability, clarity or structure of the page? I think not. So I am in favor of categories such as Category:Items, where I believe we should not ignore such categorizations.

Regarding Ds’ suggestion Category:World map encounter; I highly support that idea.

If I understand correctly, what D’s suggesting that there should not be any actual items under the Category:Items. Instead it should only contain “Sub Categories” such as “Runes”, “Weapons”, and “Potions” etc. If that is the case, I like that idea where I like to suggest that we should change the names of those sub categories as “Runes (Origins)”, “Runes (Dragon Age II)” etc. Because if not, when the DA3 comes out then these cub categories also will fill with a lot of pages.

I also support Ds’ idea regarding Category:Fereldans should not be a child of Category:Dragon Age II characters. Actually, let us establish a general rule regarding this rather than taking this as an individual item. As per my understanding there is no direct relationship between “nationality” and “characters”. So what do you think, if I say that “We should not insert any nationality-category as sub categories under any character-category”? Also I think Ds’ argument regarding “by appearance” is a valid one. -- Snfonseka (Talk) 12:53, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the number of categories, it was more of an introduction to what followed, in particular the items category and the game categories (e.g., the Lion of Orlais case). I do not oppose to pages to be categorized in a lot of categories if they apply (this is completely fine), but duplicate categories (by that, I mean parent and child categories like adding "Shields" and "Dragon Age II shields"). In that case, less is more.
But yes, you understood my point completely. --D. (talk · contr) 23:54, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Order list

This is something that I'm never sure of. I'm not really talking about the category sort, but the order they are listed on the page, e.g. Creation spells (Dragon Age II) is listed as Category:Spells first, then a Category:Dragon Age II spells, then in Category:Gameplay (and should be in Category:Dragon Age II gameplay—to be honest, I feel this is a bit overkill, and should only be listed under DA II talents and DA II gameplay, per my suggestion under the "When to categorize" section). If "Dragon Age II gameplay" exists, "Dragon Age: Origins" should be added. Another example: we have Lion of Orlais Shield, which is listed as Category:Dragon Age II shields, Category:Shields, Category:Downloadable content, then Category:Dragon Age II downloadable content.

I personally categorize the parent category, then its child categories, e.g. Gameplay, Spells, Dragon Age II spells for "Creation spells (Dragon Age II)". For Lion of Orlais Shield, this is a bit confusing, since neither share the same parent category (except Dragon Age II), so I usually relocate the DLC category last (I think I usually do? Not sure).

I understand the idea of relocating Gameplay last, since the "direct" category of the spell is "Dragon Age II spells", and I don't have a problem with that. I'm just wondering which way should we do it. This is not really the most important thing on the categories, but it's just a simple consistency issue that can be worked on. For example, characters can be first listed as characters, their game (or whatever media) appearance, their race, their group, then occupation, etc. --D. (talk · contr) 05:19, February 22, 2011 (UTC)


Very valid point and I also have my doubts regarding the current setup. If we take Lion of Orlais Shield as an example, it should only appear as a child of Category:Dragon Age II downloadable content and Category:Dragon Age II shields. There is no point of adding that same shield under Category:Shields and Category:Downloadable content (By doing so we are forgetting the purpose of having the sub categories under those primary categories) and it makes the primary category looks messy. Why do we need to categorize the same think repetitively?

If a category has one or more sub categories, we should avoid categorizing anything directly under that parent category. Instead anything (item, character etc.) should come under the sub categories of that parent category. There can be some exceptions regarding this, but generally I think this is the best structure we should follow.

Regarding the “relocating the categories”, I really don’t think this is an issue that makes a real impact. Anyway if others are interested in this, I think this is a matter we should handle in separate discussion. -- Snfonseka (Talk) 13:00, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the order, it is indeed not important, so it's not a priority. The only issue is a small consistency thing, but also to avoid possible vanity edits (if we can call them like that). Basically, some people may change the order because they don't like it that way, and another person can change it again later. If we have some sort of guidelines, then great; otherwise, it's not the wiki's biggest concern. :] --D. (talk · contr) 23:54, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Game specific categories

Yes We're going for "less is more". If the page is already in a category of a category, they should be included in the subcategory, e.g. only in "Dragon Age II weapons", not "Weapons". This applies for gameplay pages only for now. --D. (talk · contr) 17:42, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure when it is okay to specify which games (or any other media) it belongs to. Some categories are fairly obvious (they have already been created like for Category:Dragon Age II characters), and there's those that I am not too sure, such as Category:Potions or Category:Gifts. They are supposed to be categorized to whatever game category they belong to (e.g., Category:Dragon Age: Origins items), but I don't know if we should further categorize them, e.g. "Dragon Age: Origins gifts" or "Dragon Age: Origins plot items". There are other categories for weapons and armor, but I'm not sure if we should create "Dragon Age: Origins longbows", as these may have too little pages to be a big category. There's already the subcategory "Dragon Age II weapons". This is case-by-case, so suggestions can be thrown here and there. --D. (talk · contr) 05:19, February 22, 2011 (UTC)


Let me explain what I have in my mind using an example. Let’s say we have a long bow in DA2 that has the name “XXXX”. Even though this is a weapon this is also a gift for certain companion. So as I believe in the page “XXXX” we should only have “Dragon Age II longbows” and “Dragon Age II gifts” categories (where “Dragon Age II longbows” is a child of “Dragon Age II weapons” category and “Dragon Age II gifts” is a child of “Dragon Age II items”). -- Snfonseka (Talk) 13:11, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

I have no opposition to that; I personally think that this is the way to go. Like I said however, it may depend on how small the category is, or we can disregard that guideline. --D. (talk · contr) 23:54, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
This proposal makes sense to me. By making the "Dragon Age II longbows" a child of "Dragon Age II weapons" which in itself is a child of "Weapons" and "Dragon Age II", we will inherently use the structure of the Wiki to include the weapon XXXX in every one of those categories. I like this idea. -- tierrie talk contr 01:38, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Small categories

When should we consider a category to be too small to be created? I can list at least Category:Prophets (which was questioned by Loleil a week ago), Category:Spirits (this may be because it has yet to be populated? Not too sure about that one), and Category:Denerim City map encounter.

There's Category:Quest Givers which is listed under Category:Quests (and Category:Origins Quests). Should "Quest Givers" actually still exist? Should it actually be more specific than that, given that this is really game related?

There's also all the tracings subcategories which only have six pages or so for each. I feel that they do not need to be that specific, and just be listed under "Tracings" (or "Rune tracings"). The categories currently have a table listing them, but I'm not sure if the categories are supposed to have content (there's no "standard" regarding that, it depends on each wiki). I don't remember if there's an actual list of all tracings. --D. (talk · contr) 05:19, February 22, 2011 (UTC)


Can we come up with a number for this? For example, to make a category there should be at least 5 pages available that can be categorized under that category. -- Snfonseka (Talk) 13:14, February 23, 2011 (UTC)


Yes Lowercase it is. --D. (talk · contr) 17:42, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

I know the naming convention is to lowercase when appropriate, but I'm wondering if categories like "Plot items" should still be in lowercase. The in-game category for the inventory is "Plot Items". This is the same for "Poison-Making", as opposed to "Poison making" (the skill is called "Poison-Making"). --D. (talk · contr) 05:19, February 22, 2011 (UTC)


I personally prefer the “lowercasing” in categorization. It is easy to remember and less confusing. For example, if an editor creates a category such as “Poison making”, he/ she shouldn’t be worried whether in-game it shows as “Poison making” or “Poison-making” or “Poison Making” or “Poison-Making”. -- Snfonseka (Talk) 13:18, February 23, 2011 (UTC)


Yes Image categories is now ongoing (both proposals). Anyone is free to make the categories and recategorize (I do it with my bot).

The naming for character specific is "Images of character". This is for major characters, mostly companions, although other characters may have their own category if warranted. --D. (talk · contr) 17:42, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Awakening and DLCs image categories

I also haven't made categories specifically for Awakening although I'm thinking that may be a good ideas. DLCs will probably have a generic category in that case. If no one objects, I'll probably go ahead and make them. It's a bit trickier to categorize a character who makes an appearance in both games (such as Alistair), so this is going to be a guessing game. --D. (talk · contr) 05:19, February 22, 2011 (UTC)


I support Ds’ idea. Regarding characters similar to Alistair, if that character has a slightest opportunity to present in Awakening that character should be categorized under Awakening. -- Snfonseka (Talk) 13:22, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Character categories

Basically, this is like Category:Alistair, except it would be renamed to something else to specifically note to note that they are pictures of Alistair. "Alistair images" sound a little weird, so the naming could be changed to "Images of Alistair". All companions get a category, but I'm not sure about other characters (they probably will be relocated to "Dragon Age: Origins character images"). Yes, no? D. (talk · contr) 05:19, February 22, 2011 (UTC)


I actually don’t mind either “Alistair images” or “Alistair (images) or “Images of Alistair”, as long as the reader gets the idea and not only the companions, all the major characters also should get an image category. For others we can categorize them generally as D has suggested above. -- Snfonseka (Talk) 13:24, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Either making it part of Category:Alistair or Images of Alistair or the variants work for me. The only important thing is that the image's category is not transcluded. Otherwise pages tend to get really messy. -- tierrie talk contr 01:40, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.