Category talk:Stuff
106 sub "stuff" categories? Why? Why are we creating hundreds of empty categories? Why do we need to tag "stuff" as far as I'm concerened stuff == junk and junk == useless. Why waste time filling in useless information? --Mel 11:50, 13 February 2006 (EST)
I can't say that I agree that it's useless junk. I guess I just figured that (1) "gear" meant, by definition, things that people wear (lights, armor, weapons, and ammo), that (2) other useful items like containers, wands, potions, boats, rogue tools, and so forth (with a few item-by-item exceptions) weren't exactly gear, and that (3) these objects deserved a category of their own rather than being lumped together with Gear In This Area. I also figured that Stuff, while rather vague, sounded a bit less unwieldy than something like Non-Gear Objects. I dunno. Also, you're quite correct that I have created lots of empty categories for mobs and gear and so forth. I hope that most of these will not remain empty over time. I just thought of it as reducing work for others. I've noticed that some folks seem happy to "stock shelves" (like adding the very first gear page for a particular area) but don't seem to want to bother "building" any that don't exist yet (like making a new Gear In Area category to go with it). So, I gave such people less to have to bother with--they can now make pages to their heart's content and *poof* the structure is already in place ready and waiting to hold them. Badabing, badaboom. So far, yes, I've been much more focused (and perhaps overly so) on making and shaping this Wiki's "trunks" and "branches" than on adding "leaves" to them, which has resulted in an awful lot of bare limbs for the moment; I hope that you'll forgive me for that. I can't see that it's doing any harm and, well, hopefully, it's even helping some. I dunno. Hmmm... --Dave Garber 18:03, 13 February 2006 (EST)
If you look gear up in the dictionary being able to wear it or "directly use it" doesn't fall into the requirements for classification. Containers, wands, potions etc. are ALL GEAR, and there just aren't all that many items in each area to require this sort of specialization. I think we can call anything that any player might ever want gear and not be using an incorrect definition. I understand why all the new categories exisit, I think that we're making the tree much too large though. It's going to die because it doesn't have enough leaves to make food to keep it alive. Obviously I'm not going to go through and delete all of these categories (I'd write a script to do it for me.) but I want to come to a consensus about how other regular contributors feel first.--Mel 19:17, 13 February 2006 (EST)
Ah, yup, quite right. I just checked with "Mr. Webster." He defines gear as: (1) (a) clothing; apparel; (b) originally, the clothing and equipment of a soldier, knight, etc. (2) apparatus or equipment for some particular task, such as a workman's tools, the rigging of a ship, a harness, etc., (3) etc. So, yeah, I guess that gear can have a broader definition that would include all of these other types of objects, too, and not just stuff that you wear. And, with that in mind, and considering your other comments above, I'm now wishing that I hadn't bothered to separate these two after all (d'oh!). Oh, well. Since I added these categories, I'd be quite happy to delete them, as well, if you like, so that you can focus on more important things. Or I can wait a bit and see what other contributors have to say first, if anything. Thanks very much for helping to set me straight! --Dave Garber 20:03, 13 February 2006 (EST)
And, by the way, are you serious about "the tree dying"? I think that may be carrying that analogy too far but I dunno. Hmmm. Oh, well. --Dave Garber 20:42, 13 February 2006 (EST)
Well, I got out my chainsaw, lopped off all of these (useless) branches, and grafted their leaves back on elsewhere. You can find my waste in its usual spot. Thanks! --Dave Garber 00:34, 14 February 2006 (EST)
