Category talk:Titles

Deja vu

I get a Category:Locations deja vu when I see this category. Do we want all titles to be in Category:Titles as well as being in their own sub-category? Or can I remove them? (As for Category:Locations, I'll be working on that when I continue Moria locations and had a last good thought about it.) --Ravanel (15:55, 6 September 2010)

Sorry for the late response. I concur. Nothing should be in a top-category but sub-categories, with just a few exceptions maybe and the inevitable articles about those top-level subjects.

-- Zimoon 18:57, 4 November 2011 (EDT)

Revamp

I was going to add a title but got sidetracked by looking trough this category.
As a result i would like to revamp the category structure, the Titles page and maybe create a Help:Titles page.

Titles page

The page is including many subcategories and as a result is a very long page, it is hard to find information on it. I would suggest to remove all the subcategory information from this page, and move it into the proper subcategories, so the table would serve as a crossroad (Currently it links directly to the categories which hold no special information other than the pages it contains).
This however impose the question, should this be moved directly into the category pages or 'header' pages should be created to hold this information. This is something that is not very clear to me on the whole wiki. As sometimes the category page has content too, sometimes there is page with the same name as the category that holds the content.

Are you talking about, for example, Category:Crafting Titles vs. Crafting Titles? I would call the first one the "category page" or "header page". The second would be the "main article". The first might transclude from the second. Or, the second might redirect to the first. --Thurallor (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I called it a header page because when you look at what is the page actually used for, it is just the header to the Category page (nothing links to it). Does not matter what we call it, my question is what is the correct way to do it, seeing both ways are used. And i would argue pages like [Hobby Titles] are redundant. They have no content just transclude the category page, and imho, they should be categorized under the category. So than my question is if it is actually ok, for the category page to hold content and display it to the user - which would happen if we use redirects. Or if we create the "main articles", than those should hold the content - and could be linked to from the table.--Drono (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, my personal preference is that information should be put directly in Category:Hobby Titles, with a simple redirect to there from Hobby Titles. --Thurallor (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry for the confusion about content on article pages vs category pages. In the past (before 2014 crew) we decided and were all in agreement that article pages is where information belonged and categories were JUST for the "file" structure system for editors to find and access pages quickly. Transcribing information from category pages to article pages is something that happened while the old schoolers were away and the 2014 crew decided to do. But to be honest it wasn't implemented fully and in my opinion it takes away from the point of the wiki and what we wanted to provide - which is clean, well written information, tables, and galleries for people to view. Now it just makes for confusion but I would love to see what you are talking about implemented. Things do need cleaned up, article pages created where necessary and not transcribed from other category or article pages as I like to K.I.S.S - and most people these days like shorter pages anyway. So, to answer your question No, to me it is not ok to have content on category pages because that's really not what they are meant to function as... again - I see them as a file system for us to navigate. Any content for readers and the like should be on article pages or "header pages" as you called them. Rogue (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I actually hate having content on the category pages because I'm old-school BUT it is easier to put the content on the category page than make a second page so I think I may have fallen prey to laziness. *shame* Putting the generic icon tables on the category pages is probably where it started, so the most people would see them. I found one icon category where the generic icon table was on the Category talk page---and there were duplicates because no one saw it. I moved it to the main category page and cleaned it up, but that does prove that putting content on category pages is good for visibility; however I would argue that a 'main article' would have been sufficient for visibility as well. When I first came back to the wiki, I actually missed the subcategories at the bottom of a category page because of all the text above, which is completely defeating the point. So bottom line, I agree with Rogue, we should leave category pages to their original purpose and transclude from separate, main articles. To make this consistent across the wiki someone that makes bots might want to make one for this purpose, since it's not efficient to try to do it ourselves, yes? --Ruby (talk) 06:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I actually like the headings on icon categories, even though the tables then get too long and the actual category content pushed back. I am also not sure where pages like that would be categorized in the current category tree, but I guess we can make something for them, similar to the index pages. The content on a category page seems normal on several other occasions too. For example in the quest template, the quest chains are taken from the category page. I think it is actually nice if the category page has at least some content - e.g. a very short description of what the category is supposed to hold can, in some cases, help a lot. Or just link (not transclusion) to the 'header' page. I am actually kinda OK with deciding either way, but would also like for the final decision to be written in the help pages, as this discussion will eventually get lost - especially since this topic was probably not the best to start discussing here, oops. I think I have the required knowledge to make the bot for correcting what Ruby proposes, however it would take me some time to write the script and test properly. --Drono (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Category structure

The [Racial Titles] sub-tree structure does not contain any actual titles. All the titles are in [Heritage Titles‎]. However the Racial pages link to appropriate Racial Titles category. I would like to rework this somehow too, for example make the racial categories sub-categories of the Heritage, or even better solution in my opinion would be making an page with all the Heritage titles - and instead of linking to the racial category page the links would point to the appropriate Heading on the Heritage page.

Go for this, I like the idea of tying racial categories as sub-categories of the Heritage category as this seems to be how the game developed. Heritage wasn't around when Racial titles were created if I am correct. Rogue (talk)

Agreed with both points here. --Ruby (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

In the table [Faction 'Reputation' Deed Titles] says: Awarded when enough reputation points are gained (Ally, Friend, Known, etc.)... and links to [Category:Reputation Deed Titles] but in this category it says: "The Titles here do not have factions associated with them. Titles associated with Factions are found with their specific factions at: [Category: Regional Reputations]". Looking trough history is seems the factions were removed from this category by Magill. I do not know the reason for it, if someone know, please let me know. It seems to me that there are two different approaches to the categorization for the reputation titles and others - for example [Explorer Deed Titles]. As both are subcategories in the [Regional Titles] tree, but reputation does not have its own tree.

Whatever is the most internally consistent, and consistent with the rest of the wiki, I am for. --Thurallor (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

In regards to Magill's changes - he was a grand picture thinker but since he is unfortunately no longer with us it is safe to say do what makes sense now in regards to either reverting what he was trying to accomplish to it's original state or we can discuss farther a newer more modern approach as the game changed - how it's worded in game vs back then too might give us a direction here? Rogue (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm still sad about Magill. I agree though, if it looks simplest to roll back his changes and restore those titles to that category then I'd go ahead. The tricky thing here, is, I 'think', that SSG has titles under the "Reputation" category in the titles UI that are not associated with specific reputation factions. That said, I honestly think it would be easiest if they were all located under Reputation Deed Titles and had a sub-category if necessary. --Ruby (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I did not want to revert these edits just because I do not understand why they were made, unfortunately can't ask the author, so was hoping maybe someone else could clarify. Looking at the in-game categorization of titles, it seems to have not much in common with the wiki one. Reputation titles are categorized under Quest there --Drono (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Gender dependent and other variation titles

See also: [Talk:Titles]
I think this was actually discussed on several pages already, therefore i would also like to create Help:Titles page as a result of this discussion, because i do not remember where it was discussed and what was the result.
If im not mistaken the most used solution at the moment is either redirecting the female version of the title to the male one, or creating both. I think we will all agree that all the version of the titles has to exist at least as redirect pages - so they will show in the search bar. The question is how to handle it. I do not like the approach of combined gender pages, however however it might be needed for other cases - "(Class) of Victory in Lórien". This page at the moment is quite hard to search for, and does not have the appropriate redirects - which i believe it should.

I wasn't privy to the previous discussion, but I would like to see both male and female versions on the same page. It doesn't matter whether the page is named for the male or female title, but there should be a redirect from the other. --Thurallor (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

For me I would like to see the male / female pages separate - I do not see where it hurts to have them be separate pages as their names are different and coming up with new names that would house both seems like more work. That's just my thought. I agree in the case of your "class of .." if redirects would be useful by all means please create them! Rogue (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I like the idea of the male and female versions on the same page. I think it displays the information in the most useful way---if I'm looking up the title I get from a deed, I can see what my male characters and female characters will get at the same time. Also---titles like "<gentry gendered title> of the Wings" have the hidden joke somewhat obscured with one of the gender versions---"Lord of the Wings" is obviously a joke but "Lady of the Wings" is not. Had a hilarious chicken run group where we were fighting about whether they should've used "Lady of the Wings" at all. /tangent If you have both titles on the same page, you can get the reference even if you're only curious about what title a female character will get or vice versa. There's also the matter of how arbitrary SSG is with using Hero or Heroine, if we had both on every title page it would be clear whether or not there was any differentiation at all for that title.

Classic convention is to use the male title as the page title and mention the female title in the text (and I'd like a redirect as well). If we wanted to be more progressive, we would switch off, which becomes arbitrary fast but I have no problem with it either as long as redirects are created. --Ruby (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, lets say we all agree on using only male version of titles. Currently some titles already have both versions and I saw somewhere a deed or quest transcluding both these versions. Removing the female titles would mean these deeds would show only the male title. The female version is currently just mentioned in the title details. I was thinking maybe we could create a field for the female version, and also either modify or add a transclusion parameter that would show both versions. This would probably mostly cover the gender differences, but I guess that also is most of the cases when titles vary. --Drono (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Proper capitalization

Did not find it in the Help:Names, but what is the proper capitalization of 'the' inside the titles (and other names). For example my main female character has the following titles 'Heroine of The Conquest', 'Heroine of the Floodfells'. Looking trough the titles i have, there is more of them with capital 'The' that have 'the' on the wiki. If that is how it should be, i would also like to mention it on the Help page, and if it is general rule, i think it should be mentioned on the Help:Names too.

Your English teacher would say: "The" should only be capitalized at the beginning of a title; not in the middle. The question is, what to do when the rule is violated in the game? I don't have a strong opinion either way. --Thurallor (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

--Drono (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

This one has always been a struggle for me as I have an English degree background. It was agreed though for the most part to be as true as we could be to how the game does it. Which has bitten us more times than I'd like to admit these past few years - really since the switch from Turbine... Which is why you see a lot more pages with a capital The instead of lower case the. Whichever we decide let's just keep it consistent. I always thought lower-case the is more proper (again English degree) but there ya have it. I was over-ruled during the time when that decision was being made. Rogue (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• SSG makes a lot of errors with grammar and spelling (e.g. Arm-gaurds). Seemingly none of them ever took English class seriously. I too cringe a little when I see "the", "and", etc. first letter capped in the middle of a title (seeing "The Legacy Of Durin And The Trials Of The Dwarves", yuk.) I don't think we should be catering to SSG's grammar/spelling errors (we can always create a redirect with the error syntax). Sagarmatha (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Our previous standard was to always follow what was in game, including errors (and then wait for them to hopefully fix them), which I'm still abiding by. However, as others have pointed out, 'the' should NEVER be capitalized unless it begins a sentence. I like Sagarmatha's suggestion of using proper grammar/spelling and creating an error redirect. I've also noticed that some titles are inconsistent with this, btw. --Ruby (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)