New Category: Equipment
I am currently working toward a set of equipment/gear generators for various purposes. I think we should consider branching a new category off of Category:Item for equipment once we have a larger number of equipment generators. Current equipment generators include:
- Thieves Tools
- Lab Equipment
- Modern Equipment
- Dungeon Crawl Equipment
- Future Gear
- and possibly a subset of Assorted-Objects
Thought: Equipment is sometimes treasure, sometimes not, depending on if its equipment for a person(screwdriver, rope, grappling hook) or a place(car lift, lawnmower, lab instrument). --Dragonsdoom (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2014 (PDT)
- Category:Equipment needs a description, which should describe and prescribe the sorts of generators found within. Should, for example, Category:Weapons be a subcategory of equipment? ToB (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2014 (PDT)
- Several of the Shadowrun pages might be categorized as Equipment. I'll take a stab at a description for Equipment.
Special Page: Uncategorized Pages
Discussion with Tocky (on TOBS talk page)
yo i said some mean shit to you before, i dont know if you read it. please stop passively aggresively categorising my new generators into the weakest category you can think of. if you want to be the categories guy do the job. also youre the first guy/only guy who responds to the new stuff i post on here so like, stop being a dick about it. love, Tocky (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2015 (PST)
Hello Tocky, sorry if my attempts at categorisation have offended you. It is not intentional and I apologise. You are free to make changes, of course, and we'll talk about anything we disagree on. I'll respond further on your talk page, hopefully in a few days (but I am somewhat busy right now, so there might be a delay). ToB (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2015 (PST)
it's just weak categorization is all. most of my stuff could go in [gritty] [gonzo] and [grim]. if those categories dont exist tehy should. Tocky (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2015 (PST)
tocky argues with tob about categories on tockys talk page
Hi, I understand that I have categorised pages in a way you feel is passive-aggressive. I apologise for it; it was not intentional. I try to categorise things according to the guidelines over here: Help:Categorisation, with variable success rate. In particular, when I see a new generator with no categories, I try to assign it at least one. If the generator is hard for me to understand, then I will use a higher-level category rather than making a mistake with too specific and unsuitable one. Please do use more accurate categories when you see an opportunity to do so!
If you would like me to act in a different way, then please let me know what precisely do you feel is passive-aggressive in my behaviour, or suggest another method of categorisation. I would like to know which part of my behaviour seems hostile so that I can change it. ToB (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2015 (PST) -- if you dont understand a generator do not be the guy to put it in a category. putting it in a top level generic category is a good way to assure nobody ever finds it. actually read the generator you're categorising. put things in lots of categories not just one. Tocky (talk)
Also: At this point, I would like to categorise the category Category:DOG WIZARDS, but I am hesitant to do so. Is it specific to a setting, rules system, or is it only for your own use? Do the generators in the category belong to some genre or several? ToB (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2015 (PST) -- you can treat DOG WIZARDS as an author and a as publisher, DOG WIZARDS is both of those.
Also: Would Category:Mission Generator be suitable for DOG WIZARDS ADVENTURE? Maybe fantasy or gonzo or something else as a genre category, unless the Category:DOG WIZARDS already covers that? ToB (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2015 (PST) -- yeah, good pick. sorry ToB, i don't mean to be hurtful. just you gotta do the job. be the categories guy, make the articles easy to find. Tocky (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2015 (PST)
Since you seem interested and active, why don't you be the categories guy? I disagree with some of the choice you have made, but I don't have the time or the energy to argue about them right now. I might start messing up your categories and talking about it at a later point, once I can commit more to it.
One request, though; please don't categorise categories with Category:Portal, which has previously been used for user-curated portal pages (see the pages in the category for examples). The reason is that otherwise one would have to place the portal category on almost every category, which defeats its purpose. Let portal pages and categories remain parallel systems, developed by whoever is interested in either. ToB (talk) 05:51, 1 March 2015 (PST)
i am the one true categories guy, been doing it long time. but it takes a long time, you can't just do it the quickest way. try to give a shit. i'll categorise my own generators at least. but i'll do it while i have the time and not while im still writing the page. okay, i'll stay away from portals (though they are useful to us.) consider forms, forms are impotant. [quick] and [weird] and [confusing] are forms, they are not-exactly-settings and not-exactly-genres. we dont eally need all this meta stuff thugh, we already have categories. categories are just tags under another name. they work for any kind. they work for any form. if oyur categories dont associate similar geneators with one another. they are not categories. nowaddays i cna at least find scrap princess' generators because they are [gonzo]. this is better than before, where i had to creep on peoles userpages and contributions pages, which means i have to remember everyones username. Tocky (talk) 11:18, 1 March 2015 (PST)