Help talk:Names/Archived

From Lotro-Wiki.com
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Disambiguagion

See historical discussions: User_talk:Starbursty#Items and User_talk:Starbursty#Creature_and_NPC_names_.2F_locations

It would appear that there is quite a bit of work yet to be done to replace the Category:Disambiguation Pages -- sigh. Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

Doing a bit more research, it appears that we are favoring the use of "Disambiguation links" over "Disambiguation Pages"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disambiguation_page#Disambiguation ... especially the section:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disambiguation_page#Disambiguation_page_or_disambiguation_links.3F Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

The research I did implied that we would use {{other}} for up to two other pages. When the amount of pages for same-name surpasses three we should use disambiguation pages. I might be wrong in my searching though. On the other hand, having too many "other" links on top of a page is maybe more confusing than linking to a disambiguation page which gathers all lookalikes, would it?
Let's hear what the wise men say and perhaps your example with Halbarad is not the best as it has four pages already. Furthermore, the {{other}} template does not yield such a nice table as you gave, but a long list in italics for them all. Unless on do as you did ;) Good job though. -- Zimoon 06:01, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
PS. About Wiki-style of disambiguation. They use both styles intermixed. For some of their examples we rather use a Redirect page link, certainly for special characters; these are not disambiguate as Wiki sees it, but spelling variations. For convenience, a quote from the link:
"If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article."
"If the hatnote would extend well over one line on a standard page, then it is better to create a disambiguation page and refer only to that."
This conforms 100% with the "more than 3" rule in the Help:Names article. -- Zimoon 06:44, 28 October 2011 (EDT)

Having Same Character at Several Pages?

I have not worked so much with character pages, yet, but wanted to ask why we make several pages for the same character. Why do we do that?

For me, and I guess for several else, it would make more sense to have them all at the same page but in different sections. Probably these sections would be sorted by level, that is in the order the players approach them by following quests, etc. So is done, in a way, for the Gandalf the Grey. But it is done for Halbarad whereof all of those additional pages are STUBS (except the orginal) and list just two or three quests for that location.

If there is no real and valid cause for it I suggest that same-character always has one article, not several. With separate sections for the different locations or encounters, each with their own peculiarities. Only if there is a major reason to do otherwise, maybe after counselling via the talk page, another article is created.

One article that reads that this guy shows up at different locations is imho way more informative than several badly made that just links to each other. I guess most visitors, and editors, wants to find out about quests by that NPC, for a certain level and/or location, or about lore. All of these fit very well at one page, properly split in sections, would it not?

Personally I look for lore, seldom quests, and having it chopped up over several articles for the same character is not fun :(

The above is about content and less confusion.
The following is about the technical aspect.

We want to properly add the NPC to the NPC location categories and maybe to role-categories if it differs from place to place.

We need to think of an informative layout so that the location sections do not confuse more than they inform.

As today the lore is topmost, as much as needed. It might have to ordered somehow, either chronological, or geographical, or both, but understandable and good looking.

Tentatively...
The NPC-info-box is about the "first accounter" with the NPC, say the first expected encounter as players may decide different ways.. It could simply be based on lowest quest level the NPC hands out.

Location bound items goes into their sections, that is quests and possibly other stuff.

We manually add categories for NPC-location and role, whatever is needed beyond what the NPC-template does.

Comments and objections? -- Zimoon 07:21, 28 October 2011 (EDT)

I would concur on this idea ... Halbarad (example in the Help:Names article, appears in at least two, maybe 3 locations in the ROI update... following the old pattern,
For Halbarad, while he is in Esteldín, see Halbarad. 
For Halbarad in Rivendell, see Halbarad#Halbarad (Rivendell). 
For Halbarad in Eregion, see Halbarad#Halbarad (Eregion). 
For Halbarad as he moves to Lhanuch, see Halbarad#Halbarad (Enedwaith). 
He should be:
For Halbarad as he moves to Galtrev, see Halbarad#Halbarad (Dunland). 
Volume III Book 4:
* Depending on which path you chose
And then:
Therefore, I would offer-up Halbarad (Collective) as a "consolidation" type entry... note that one can easily reference the individual sections directly:
Halbarad (Collective)#Halbarad (Dunland) Note that as with standard HTML, if you jump to a section which fills less than a page, "Apache" will display enough material to fill the page. This is different than a transclusion, but simpler. Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
A Collective page would perhaps do, and it is possible to link to its sections.
But then the original question is "why do we make several pages for the same character?"
Personally I do not see the point in that other than causing extra work and troubles.
I have now come across a number of quests that link to the wrong same-character NPC, differing in location. That leaves the visitor in an ugly situation, he ends up at a page which seems to speak about the correct character but no information makes sense.
Why do we split same-character over several pages in the first place? THAT is the real question. -- Zimoon 06:49, 30 October 2011 (EDT)
PS. Actually, to be technical, by splitting same-character NPC over several pages we are creating ambiguity which forces us to use disambiguation links. It should be the other way around, the disambiguation should be used for same-name stuff that is different from each other. A character is not always statically located but may roam, why do we treat him as he has several lookalikes? :) DS. -- Zimoon 06:55, 30 October 2011 (EDT)
PSS. And sorry Magill, I did not realize you had made a Harbarad (Collective), nice job, exactly how I envisioned such a page :) -- Zimoon 07:14, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

Naming convention for items with the same name, but different stats

There is currently no general guideline on Help:Names on how to name items with the same name, but different stats. Currently, several methods are being used:

I think using the (item) level as suffix is generally preferred, but this is not possible in all situations. Which of the other methods are preferred above others and should therefore be used when creating new item pages? --RoyalKnight5 (talk) 11:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Using the minimum level (where possible) makes sense to me. I don't like using the item level very much, because it implies that the ilvl is the only difference between the items (and corresponding stats, of course). If that's the case, it handling the items as the same makes more sense to me. That's also the case with the 'crit' example: The items seem to be the same with the exception of ilvl. 'Crit' also seems like an arbitrary stat to pick.
Adding a stat specifier seems like an okay solution, but I'd prefer specifying a stat name to the Offensive/Defensive/Tank variants. There are upsides to using those, but in cases where an item has variants with 'Resistance', 'Physical Mitigation' and 'Tactical Mitigation', for example, simply using Defensive or Tank will break down again.
To summarize: Specify minimum level where possible, pick a stat to add to the article name otherwise. Items with different item levels should be treated as the same item; item level should never appear in article names. --Fanchen (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
For clarification, would you mean merging pages like Item:Cruel Double Axe of Thorin and Item:Cruel Double Axe of Thorin (Crit), the standard and crit-success crafting results? Crafted items in particular complicate things- Ironfold crafted melee weapons for example have four variants with the same name, offensive/defensive and crit-success versions of both. Right now there's Name, Name (crit), Name (tank), and Name (tank crit). If we're treating the standard and crit-success versions as the same item, would it then be limited to Name and Name (tank), merging the information for ilvl 370 and ilvl 374 version to the same page? (Or, to use a stat instead of just 'tank', Name and Name (tactical mitigation)?)
Whatever the final preference ends up being, I do think we should be consistent on the naming for crit-success crafted items, using either Name (crit) or Name (ilvl), assuming they remain separate pages. Right now we've got both Item:Cruel Double Axe of Thorin / Item:Cruel Double Axe of Thorin (Crit) and Item:Officer's Axe of Minas Ithil (Item Level 407) / Item:Officer's Axe of Minas Ithil (Item Level 409) going on. I would be inclined to keep the crit-success/standard crafted items on separate pages and use Name (crit) to differentiate. It isn't quite the same situation as items like Item:Sharp Sword of the Adventurer, where it comes with a wide range of ilvl and stat values, but two distinct items with different set stat values.
For naming priority, I do like minimum level > name (stat specifier) > name (crit) > name (stat specifier crit) [where applicable], starting at minimum level Thalion (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
My two cents: Pick the most prominent difference between the items (whether it be iLevel, a single stat, offensive/defensive, trank/dps role) and parenthesize that. —Thurallor (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
There is a naming convention for NPCs with kind of the same problem. Follow that as far as possible. Next I believe level is a good one. But beyond that I agree with Thalion. And as a last resort, use common sense, what users would intuitive look for. Ambiguous-pages if nothing else. — Zimoon 22:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Figured I'd chime in since I'm the one who brought it up last night. I tend to follow on crafted/crit items the (Item Level) as that was what I saw most frequently practiced over the years. However what brought it up last night specifically was the items in the various valar packages. They all have same name in each package (105,120,130) so typically we would fall to using level or item level to differentiate but in this case within that level there are multiple versions all same name all same level. Only stat's are different. 2 swords in 105 box, 3 in 120 box and 3 in 130 box. So I was trying to determine if it was too much to do something like Item:Hero's Sword (Might 120) which as Zimoon mentioned would be what I think users might use as part of searching. Item Level in this case might be more confusing as not all would know Item lvl 282 would equal a 105 item etc.Eldalleth (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


Disambiguation and Other

Based on several months of house-keeping I decided to "up" the threshold for when we should use disambiguation pages. The reason is a try to avoid erratic links, pages that link to the disambiguation page rather than the intended page which has a specifier. Even if it is possible to click oneself out of the disambig-page a visitor should never end up there by an editor's mistake. Remember, this is a proven problem -- while house-keeping I find such erratic links at a daily basis (intentional plural) -- it is not imagined ;)

The less disambig-pages we have the smaller the risk will become, and it will also become easier to regularly walk over those pages and verify correctness by using the what-links-here on each of them. Thus...

  • Use disambiguation pages only when more than 3 same-name pages exist.
Exception may occur if the resulting sentences become horribly hard to read whatever tricks we use to shorten or clarify them.
  • Use as dense text as possible in the Other-template.
Remember that page names in themselves are informative enough, plus that the other-links in themselves carry across information on location, level, etc. However, duplicated texts carry negligible value but they just make the sentences much harder to read.

Zimoon 06:36, 12 November 2012 (EST)

Retrieved from "https://lotro-wiki.com/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Names/Archived&oldid=1702872"