Category talk:Drops unique

It is useful because it gives people a place to look for bosses that drop uniques. It appears that people want to argue that something is not useful or needed based solely on the idea that it isn't in use yet. People have no problem with other categories of NPCs drop items like ambers and sapphires to use 2 examples I have seen. The end result for this has got to be a lot less than the category for some of the things people have put out for drop items. Those seem to have no problem still being in existence. 42 - talk 04:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would someone want to look for bosses that drop uniques, any unique? Wouldn't you want to know exactly which unique you want, so you'd go to unique item and pick one of those lists for what unique you want? It just seems like an arrangement of information that has much less utility than currently existing lists. --JonTheMon 04:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous argument, saying that it isn't that useful. What about the people who might be interested in bosses or NPCs that drop unique items? Would you rather have to look through ALL of the NPCs rather than just the ones that do to find out which one or ones drop uniques if you didn't know the proper name of the unique you wanted? Why don't you use this argument on Category:Drops_hide? How useful is that? It isn't the only common crafting item that has it's own category either.

And the argument on the main page "seems like would be overly large", also a ridiculous one. See Category:Drops_hide and tell me that wouldn't be much larger and even more useless than this one if all of the NPCs who did were added to the same category. That category seems to have no problem being in existence. This seems to be more an argument against something being added because it isn't in use already, and trying to use another lame argument to justify it. Why don't people use the same excuse on it being "overly large" on the Category:All_guilds?

It seems that the new useful items or ideas have to be almost forced into use to have people accept change, and something that is useless or actually makes the guildwars wiki harder to navigate is kept around; the argument being "it is already somewhere else". It seems to be (while hidden under other non-applicable arguments) that something already in use is ok, but new ideas are not. 42 - talk 05:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

To address your points: Finding unique: search for unique name. Category drops hide: very specific, commonly accepted use for farming. Overly large: drops unique is not a very specific criteria, and without any way of organizing the data, hard to use. Category all guilds: that exists because all guilds need to be categorized, and that is the only thing that is enforced (through the {{guild}} tag on each page). New ideas: generally, new ideas are accepted based on how much work or disruption would be involved; things that affect a lot of pages are generally frowned upon without a compelling reason, status quo and all. --JonTheMon 05:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, if someone doesn't know the proper spelling of the unique's name, the "search" page isn't very useful to find misspellings, since it only looks for exactly what is typed; therefore, this would be useful. It seems that the argument is actually more against something new, and very little to do with actual usefulness or not. I have been pushing to get useful links and adjustments put in on various things, the meta wiki table help page for one. The justification that it causes work would be valid if it weren't actually useful, and in that case, people are willing to go through and do the work. Some people seem to think that everyone is just automatically going to see things the same exact way as them, and if they aren't then they are wrong.

These categories being automatically added would be a minimum of disruption to each page, as the templates I made would do that automatically. It seems more that people are unwilling to see the usefulness of a proposed change more because it would be a change, rather than honestly sit back and look at the possible benefits this idea would give. Otherwise, there would be more people saying, "I don't think this is useful this way, but maybe if this were done another way". Instead, it seems that the only argument is "this isn't useful because of X or Y" alone (insert any excuse given already here). 42 - talk 05:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Tbh, your templates aren't any more useful than just adding the category to the page. And if they don't know the proper spelling of the unique or the boss, or even what kind of item it was (look for unique axes in unique axes category), then i doubt this page would help that kind of person much. And generally, I make the evaluation of a change on usefulness+consistency:effort. And generally, something with a high effort value has to have a high usefulness value. --JonTheMon 05:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Uniques are already listed at Category:Unique items. This is just a reverse of it. Imo, this is probably a more confusing way to find a green item then by simply searching the item itself. -- Wandering Traveler 06:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Finding unique you can't spell: search the list of unique weapons, which includes weapon stats for comparison to what you're looking for, until you find it. (As opposed to blindly clicking through NPC names, clicking to the page of their unique drop, and navigating back if it's not the correct item.) The way you advocate these pages, it seems like you want change for the sake of change rather than to create a useful article. We can't sit back and look at the possible benefits because you haven't provided any. Perhaps you need to sit back and think about whether it's actually as useful as you seem to think, or provide a useful argument, instead of attacking us with claims of ignorance. --[ Kyoshi ]::[ Talk ] 06:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent)
"Perhaps you need to sit back and think about whether it's actually as useful as you seem to think, or provide a useful argument, instead of attacking us with claims of ignorance." Perhaps you should sit back and think that you presume that other people wouldn't find this information useful, just because you don't. And I did not attack with a claim of ignorance, it was more an implication of thickheadedness and use of lame excuses, when I suggested that there are people who might think differently than you, and to presume otherwise is stupid.

As with the other category (Category:NPCs with elite skill) I proposed, people are forgetting one important thing. The purpose of the wiki is to document the game. (I personally still think it is there to be helpful to the people who use it to help them with information about the game.) This is one additional documentation of that game. Also another thing people are forgetting, this is a category issue, if you happen to use it for a search engine, that is up to you. You do not look in an index of a book and make use of all the information presented there. That doesn't mean that someone else shouldn't be able to look up something they need or want to, just because it is something you do not think is needed. And actually, Jon, had something like this been done from the beginning, for both categories, the end result would have been lots of savings. Claiming that you do not find this a useful change implies that no one else might have a use for it. Adding this category to the relevant pages by hand over using the template to do so, much time spent. Which is easier to type {{unique}} or [[Category:Drops unique]]? Typing {{unique}} takes 10 keystrokes, typing [[Category:Drops unique]] takes 25 keystrokes, well over twice as much. Wandering, this isn't a list of green items, this is a list of NPCs that drop them. You are going under the false idea that a category page is a search engine, when it isn't. It is a category. 42 - talk 04:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Copy-paste says hi. And why add a template that only adds a category? Extra layer of work for same output. And comparing this category to an index is somewhat of a fallacy. You use an index to find the location of what you're looking for (e.g. page 29); on this wiki, what you're looking for (a particular boss that drops an elite) is at the same place as what you're looking for (Byzzr Wingmender is at Byzzr Wingmender). And implementing this from the beginning (apparently all those people didn't find it useful enough to think of it), would have savings how? --JonTheMon 06:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The fallacy is presuming that everyone thinks the same way, and should be presumed to be wrong if they happen to look up information differently than someone else.

The only way that the category example isn't exactly the same as an index in a book is in the wiki here, you click the index entry and it takes you to the page directly. An electronic book does the same thing, as does a link on a web page, which can link to sections within itself, and will bring you to that point immediately. That in concept is no different than an index or a table of contents. A table of contents is in sequential order within that book, an index (as the category is) is alphabetical sorting, and is usually a lot more detailed than a TOC.

The savings if used from the beginning: Figure out however many keystrokes it took to make the template, those would be spent once. How many pages could those two templates be used on? You figure it out. The savings are a properly categorized page, and 2 less keystrokes typed after each spot on each page the template would be used at, plus not also having to type the category entry for each page.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the template used 50 keystrokes. Each page this template is used on is used once. Two keystrokes for the template being places itself, plus not having to type [[Category:Drops unique]] on each page it applies to means another 25 keystrokes saved. The use of the template would "pay" for itself in very few usages. This applies even more to the {{elite}} template I have created as well. Typing [[NPCs with elite skill]] on all of the pages this would be used on would save even more. Some NPCs have multiple elite skills as well, so that would be another 2 saved each time the template was used.

Over the course of how many pages that applies to, you figure it out if you are so inclined. That is how much savings if used from the beginning. Plus, all the keystrokes used trying to point out something that many people apparently refuse to see. They even try arguing both sides, and when someone points out from that side, they move to the other side of the same point.

The point is, as Wyn is fond of pointing out, the purpose of this wiki is to document the game. This is another documentation point. 42 - talk 02:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to lecture me on why you think templates would save keystrokes. I know the math. I'm just saying the cost savings (again, copy+paste says hi) doesn't outweigh the extra level of abstraction you're adding. And I'm done dealing with your walls of text. Consensus is currently for deleting this category. --JonTheMon 02:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"We cannot sit back and look at potential benefits" because you and many others refuse to see anything other than your viewpoint. I have posted potential benefits; people refusing to see them is not my fault. If it is something that is not technically feasible because of the physical limitations of the wiki, that is a different story. Not one person has apparently considered that since I was the one that presented the idea, and started the work, that I might be willing to take on the project of making it happen. An extra layer of work for the same output, not true, as it adds the category to the page it is used on. I agree that not everyone will find it useful, possibly even myself. I am not doing this just for me.

BTW, how is 3 people posting opposing viewpoints a consensus again? 42 - talk 06:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The facts that a. their arguments make a fuckton more sense than yours, b. they are arguing for how the thing was originally constructed, and c. they're just three representatives. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 09:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Since I got directed to this talk page, I'll join in, if only to trump Jon's supposition of a 3-vs-1 "consensus". I support the existence of this category but I disagree with the use of the template. The template, as others have noted, is a relatively useless overhead. If anything, I'd rather you take a look at Template:NPC infobox and think about adding the unique there, possibly as an additional condition branching off of the "boss" attribute.

With regards to the "usability" of this category, I would ask, why not? It's not like this wiki is devoid of "not very useful" categories - there are tonnes of useless categories that nobody ever searches. If the opponents of this category use the reason "nobody will use this", then I think they'd better go and suggest the removal of at least 50% of the categories in use on this wiki. Try checking their "view count" and how long they've existed.

The pros I see are that it's an additional data categorisation (what's wrong with that?) and that 42 has been so kindly being willing to contribute to this little project and did not request anyone to help. The cons? Err... it's one additional category page that won't kill the database needed to store it and two, it's one extra category link that takes up my screen space right at the bottom of NPC pages that I visit probably once a year, maybe never... Hmmm... what were you guys complaining about again? That nobody would ever use it? Well, there's plenty of things on this wiki that has people saying "nobody would ever use it". -- ab.er.rant 14:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, ab, by the time you chimed in, it was 4vs1, but that's beside the point. One thing you didn't do was address the size issue: this category is gonna be pretty huge. The only way I would consider leaving this alone would be if there were sufficient sub-categories proposed to address the size. (Most useful sub-category, imo, would be non-bosses/boss-like-foes who drop uniques). --JonTheMon 15:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Ab, I do support removing most of the categories, since the majority of them are useless except for cluttering up the bottoms of pages. If the main argument for adding a category is "why not?", that is not, imo, a good enough reason to go ahead. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 15:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Jon you were the one who brought up the question of "this would be savings how?" That was a direct response to that statement. It doesn't "only add a category", it also has the tag format that is in use already.

Armond, typial response in here is "delete it if it doesn't have a use for me" instead of suggesting improvements. What a surprise that you seem to be following the same mindset. See Aberrant's post on this (and on Category talk:NPCs with elite skill) before you try to add to a pile of points that have no basis in reality.

Definition of category from wiktionary definition of category "A group, often named or numbered, to which items are assigned based on similarity or defined criteria."

I think it is safe to say that one NPC that has an elite skill or drops a unique item is similar to another one that does the same thing. Sounds similar to me.

From the definition of categorization from wikipedia definition of categorization

" ... Ideally, a category illuminates a relationship between the subjects and objects of knowledge."

NPCs that drop a unique item or have an elite skill have a "relationship" in that they both do the same thing.

"A" You saying that their "arguements" make more sense is more because you are one of the ones refusing to see the reality behind your arguments, they are not valid. "They are not useful to me," I never said these categories would be useful to everyone. "They are too large," take a look at many of the other categories that are on that list Aberrant pointed out, and stop trying to "prove" another invalid point. They think the category page is something other than what it actually is, their refusal to see this doesn't make their point a valid one. "B" Take a look at the cateory list, and check the history for the "date of creation" of those categories. Many of the category pages on there have been here for literally YEARS now. Yet another "point" of yours proven to be invalid.
And "C", OK, on this one, you're right, they are just 3 representatives. Of one view point, stop assuming that is how everyone on the wiki thinks, or that makes your invalid points valid.

Aberrant, trying to argue the point with Jon about that will probably do no good. He probably thinks that links from words within a wiki page to another wiki page are OK, and should be done, because they link to some other information. And yet, he will sit here and argue against that exact same thing. He would refuse to see a valid point that he disagreed with if it was pointed out in one line or one paragraph.

I never said that this would be useful for everyone. Unlike MANY others, I am not going to sit here and argue, that because I don't find something useful means that it shouldn't be used on the wiki. Jon, go look at all of the "useful" categories in use on the wiki for years, and then come back and argue about the size of this category with me. You can't because that will prove that your argument for that has no valid point. The reason you don't want to deal with my wall of text is more likely because it has valid points in it. People refusing to see them doesn't make them invalid.

Armond, if you are using to justify the argument that the reason to "not have it" is that the size issue or that it clutters up your screen, then that is an issue that you winning or losing this argument won't solve, in my opinion. Jon, the "cost savings" are not the point of making this category, (which, as I said on elite skills, already actually is a category, even if not having a specific page and tags linking it). If you are going to discuss points, make them valid. I didn't ask for anyone else to help make this happen at any time, did I? Check back through all of the discussion pages, go ahead. I have time. The only things that I have asked for help on are things that I don't know how to do. The editing in the template box should show that I figured out how to do that myself, I figured out how to make it add to the category myself. Whose "cost savings" are you worried about? 42 - talk 04:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So, instead of merely pasting the same text at the bottom of each page, you have to go into the middle of the page and replace text with your template. Extra step and, imo, extra layer of complexity that isn't helpful. And I'm actually willing to listen to Ab because he can argue persuasively and succinctly. Wall-of-texting over and over again just isn't very effective. If you noticed above, I gave up some ground by giving the criteria whereas I would "accept" this category. So, don't try to vilify me because I'm willing to oppose some of your ideas. --JonTheMon 04:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

On some of the pages (now most that people have found them) that would be the case. That is why I pointed out that had this been done before, it wouldn't be an issue, and also, the categorization would be completed better. Once again, Jon, thanks for saying that it isn't helpful to you, I understand that. People refusing to see someone's point doesn't make that point any less valid.

Besides, did I ask anyone else to help on making this change? And it has nothing to do with you opposing some of my ideas, it has to do with repeatedly using an argument that has been disproven. If I was like that, I would be having an issue with your comments about my norn dialogue template. You added a valid point to the discussion. 42 - talk 01:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You refusing to see that people are saying your actions aren't helpful at all as opposed to not helpful to them doesn't make them more helpful. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 01:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Armond, them saying they aren't helpful at all doesn't make it true. It only says what I already acknowledged, it isn't useful or helpful to THEM. You can keep spouting a lie, but doing so doesn't make it true.

They are not the only ones who use this wiki. Go take a close, sorry, a VERY close look at the Main Page of this wiki, the top statement.

The "main argument" for adding this category is to follow the intent of this wiki, according to that statement. Tell me what comprehensive means, because apparently it means something different here than in the rest of the world. 42 - talk 07:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Part of using a wiki is making value judgments about what to retain or not. The "value judgment" of this category has been shown to be pretty low, especially compared to the related articles and categories. And again, comprehensive does not mean every arrangement of every piece of data. --JonTheMon 08:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

True. I find it easier to argue for this one than for the elite skill category because I just had a thought that it might be interesting to just have a "Category:Non-bosses that drop unique" (or something like that). To make this category more acceptable to others, we could make this "Category:Drops unique" into a parent category and then maybe create "Category:Drops unique swords", etc.? Still a large category, but it does help trim it down with a bit more focus to its purpose, no? -- ab.er.rant 06:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that "Category:Non-bosses that drop uniques" would be a valid and useful category. --JonTheMon 11:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Jon, you need to go and re-learn exactly what comprehensive means.

Aberrant, the problem with suggesting new ideas is that people's (most, not all) first reaction is to delete it, then they look at it, and see if it is useful to them, and if not, delete it because if it isn't useful to them, then no one else should ever find it useful, and then far down the list, suggest ways something new might be improved to be more useful. 42 - talk 04:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

42 You need to re-learn what consensus means. In general if one person finds it delete worthy then most of us think it should be deleted as it serves little to no purpose. You need to learn that we are not wikipedia so we can not label everything or remove every little last bit of confusion before it becomes too basic to be useful. --Dominator Matrix 04:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) This isn't just one person saying we should delete this. Heck, if theres a useful way to apply this, I'm all for keeping it. However, I, like a lot of people here, am finding it redundant; its pretty much already used in another form. -- Wandering Traveler 04:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The bigger problem is that people like claiming guideline issues, until that is proven wrong, then they pull out the consensus card. I know what consensus means, and I don't have a problem with that. Too many people automatically go for the delete instead of an honest "how can we improve this" or "how can this be more useful before we decide to trash it." 42 - talk 05:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You must be mistaken because we haven't been claiming guideline issues, only "does this have enough value?" And you should take a look at Ab's posts because he is able to come to a compromise and explain his POV better than you can. One thing his last post pointed out was the greatest potential value of part of this category, so you can see that he's also making value judgments (but has a different threshold for simple retention). --JonTheMon 14:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh....We pull the consensus card in every discussion because thats what this wiki runs off of. -- Wandering Traveler 18:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Jon, not this specific instance, but many of the ideas I suggest people do that to. Me explaining my ideas any better or not is just an excuse for many people to claim so that they can ignore valid points made. Wandering, not at first, people try to use the "this violates guidelines," until I prove, by using those guidelines they claim I am violating, I'm not, THEN they pull out the consensus card. 42 - talk 03:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This whole argument was kind of dumb. The fact is, for all the claims about too much work, you all spent FAR longer debating insignificant crap than it would have taken to create, delete, and re-create this category page.

And for the record, I think, whatever the outcome, those arguing so strenuously for deletion of this category were absolutely wrong about its lack of usefulness, but pretty much right about it being unnecessary. Each time I've wished for such a category (among others I've wished existed) I've realized that I COULD find the information myself with a little more digging. But I also imagine others might have found it frustrating. But this is about what goes on the wiki, not what might be useful to anyone who might ever play the game. And if the people who put in the work to maintain this wiki truly and honestly believed that such an article would detract from the site as a whole...well, everybody's a little ridiculous sometimes. 173.161.168.49 21:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)