User talk:Rexert

From PathfinderWiki

Welcome to PathfinderWiki! We hope you will contribute as much as you are able and that you find the community welcoming and helpful.

If you have any questions, please:

If you want a place to start contributing, check our ongoing projects.

PathfinderWiki has a number of policies and guidelines to help editors maintain the wiki's high level of quality. For style and formatting guidelines, please see our manual of style. Also, please note that PathfinderWiki might contain spoilers for the Pathfinder campaign setting. Finally, please don't directly copy-and-paste from Paizo publications, as this is simply not allowed: PathfinderWiki:Plagiarism.

Again, welcome and have fun! — Fleanetha (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Great start, Rexert, and thanks especially for adding a brand new page to the wiki with Tamily Tanderveil. It's clear you know what you're doing. I have just reviewed the page and just made some changes to align it with our standards, so please take a look and let us know if something is not clear. I noticed you'd not used the latest template, so here's a link to them: Help:Templates. Also, are you aware of our article spawners that help a lot with creating new pages and should pull in the latest template, suggestions, and page structure to help you? If you open a red link the spawners should be offered in the pull-down box top right. If you cannot see them, you may have disabled them in your personal preferences - under Gadgets and then under Editing gadgets - uncheck the box. Finally, I had to tweak one sentence with a whole phrase cut and paste form the Paizo text, as we cannot do that: PathfinderWiki:Plagiarism. --Fleanetha (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

January 2025 questions

Use of pipe symbols

Q: Why does the automatically created category, and sometimes categories edited by admins, end with a pipe symbol followed by an empty space?Does it provide different functionality, act as a placeholder, or serve any other purpose?

You, of course, ask the least technical of the admin team, but I do know the answer if not the deep technical reasons here. The '|' pipe symbol is often added to categories simply for sorting purposes and it is certainly not an admin-only capability. To help understand it, let's use the images categories, which are written Category:Images of something. So, in the category to which these are all collected, usually Category:Artwork by subject, if we were to make no changes, everything would be alphabetized under 'I' for 'Images'. A pipe can be used to alter how the category is sorted, so instead, we could write [[Category:Images of something|something]], which would now file the category under 'S', which is more useful. I have used images purely as an example for how a pipe could be used; for this category tree, we actually use DEFAULTSORT to handle sorting, as there can be many categories in an image category and DEFAULTSORT handles them all neatly, for instance like this for Category:Images of jabberwocks: 

{{Main|Jabberwock}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Jabberwock}}
[[Category:Artwork by subject]]
[[Category:Images of dragons]]

Both methods are achieving the same desired result.

One of the perennial jobs of the admin team is to regularly correct what has been accidentally sorted wrongly in the category tree and, as I look now, I can see six under 'I' in Category:Artwork by subject in the wrong place between Ilverani and Imara that I can tidy shortly:

  • Images of Ilverani (2 F)
  • Images of champions (mythic path) (6 F)
  • Images of insects‎ (14 C)
  • Images of lumber‎ (4 F)
  • Images of religious symbols in use‎ (14 F)
  • Images of Sakuachi‎ (2 F)
  • Images of Sewer Dragons‎ (4 C, 6 F)
  • Images of Imara‎ ‎ (2 F)

What about 'pipe and a space'? This allows us to pull elements out of a list to the front and out of the alphabetical subcategories. Take a look at Category:Taldor. Here, everything not under 'T' in the subcategories section has been sorted using '| '. You can see this defined in Help:Creating category pages.

For a more complex situation and likely better description, take a look here: PathfinderWiki:Sorting the years.

I hope this helps. --Fleanetha (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

So the reason Taldor isn't under letter T in Category:Taldor is because this category in the Taldor page ends with '| ', pulling it out of the default alphabetical sorting system of categories and bringing it to the top of the elements within the category. Got it, thanks. --Rexert (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Correct and that is the usual sorting for self-categorization of a page, so the main page is more easily seen in a potentially long list. Again, the work is never done and I can see Category:Taldor needs modernizing to align with Help:Creating category pages, as it's not been touched since 2009. --Fleanetha (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Summary pages

Q: I've noticed some pages, like Poisons of Golarion, list a large number of items that could have their own pages. Should I be doing the same with items like talismans instead of creating an individual page for each item? Or should the items from pages containing such lengthy lists be slowly transferred to their own individual pages?

Some of these pages, Rexert, are quite old now, and long, but well-established: poisons, curses, books, etc, but they may not be the best examples of what to do, as some of them need a good spring clean. Furthermore, there are no hard-and-fast rulings about this, but it is touched upon here: PathfinderWiki:Scope of the project. So, take the following as my opinion rather than a definitive ruling please.

In a perfect world, everything would have its own categorized wiki page, plus there is still value in these summary pages to discuss the concept in general and act as a useful 'nexus' page for the subject to link to all the associated pages. So, the talisman page could have a list of all the talismans known, each with a quick description, so it's not a raw list. Additionally, a navbox collecting everything together would be useful and could be added to any individual talisman pages. Any significant talismans, where we have more information, could have their own page, but be linked from the summary page using the {{Main}} template, while the individual page itself would contain the navbox.

Preferably, any element on the summary page that has no page itself should have a REDIRECT page fully categorized instead. That redirect page can then be later made up to a full page if Paizo were to produce more info. --Fleanetha (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Sisyphus

Q: Each new page seems to require many additional pages to be updated or created, such as categories, redirects, navboxes, the documentation for the navboxes, other related pages, as well as finding external images from Paizo and links from AoN. Should I be tracking and handling all of these changes myself, or can I leave that in the hands of admins? Feels like I'm creating a lot of extra work for others.

That's often correct, Rexert - that's a good checklist, and you could add updating pages for 2E and ORC too. Anything you can do to help is very much appreciated, but we don't expect someone whose been on the wiki one month to do all of this. If you just want to edit and add pages, that is valuable. However, please consider how people edit your work and subsequently amend the wiki, try to understand why, (by all means question when it is Stub idiocy), and follow suit if you can. That will be helpful please. Your use of the article spawners saves a lot of work, as pages conform to standards straight away, for instance. We have a number of help pages that guide you through some common tasks like categorization or moving pages, so following these will also help. --Fleanetha (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirects

Thanks for tackling adding redirects for articles. Here's some unsolicited advice on that effort:

  • Every new redirect creates a potential future maintenance burden to administrators and editors. Every page move, consolidation, split, or rename involving a redirect target requires manual updates to every redirect that points to the original title. This work is rarely automated, even if it can be, due to a lack of knowledge, time, or availability to implement it.
If this seems unlikely to apply to long-standing canon subjects, mind that Paizo can retroactively change the name of any canon subject at any time, for any reason. We've repeatedly experienced that with, for instance, the renaming of half-orc to dromaar, half-elf to aiuvarin, azer to munsahir, all of the Remaster changes around genies, etc. -Oznogon (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
It sounds like there should really be some way to link all redirects to the page they redirect to, as well as a way to bulk-edit redirects to the same page, if these don't exist already. --Rexert (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Redirects can be updated using MediaWiki bots, but running a bot with edit privileges and no rate-limiting factors can require special permissions, and most MediaWiki bot software requires a level of technical expertise that not all editors possess or are willing to learn. You can request a bot run from a bot's administrator (likely best asked on the Discord), but they don't always have capacity to run requested jobs, which often makes it faster to perform most redirect-related jobs manually.
If you're familiar with MediaWiki bots, you can request permission to run one yourself from a PFW admin. -Oznogon (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
  • We don't need redirects for most basic plural forms that are simple suffixes to the end of an article name, thanks to a wikitext feature that automatically extends a link to the end of a word.
For example, MediaWiki renders [[alloy orb]]s as alloy orbs. A redirect from [[alloy orbs]] to [[alloy orb]] is therefore unnecessary.
There are many cases where redirects between singular and plural forms are useful. For example, elves and deities are useful such redirects because they have plural forms that change the end of the word, and hounds of Tindalos is useful because the plural form is applied inside of the link rather than the end. -Oznogon (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
This could be expanded on further and more clearly on the Help:Redirect page, and rather than listed as often unnecessary, enforced as against PathfinderWiki rules. --Rexert (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
That's a great idea. You should raise it to an administrator or propose a new policy. -Oznogon (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Please do not create singular/plural redirects for items that are inherently one or the other, such as inseparable sets of objects that constitute a magic item, or plural forms of unique items. There is only one Amber Chronograph; in addition to my advice about unnecessary redirects for simple plural forms, a plural redirect of any type for a unique item is unnecessary. Conversely, the Fangs of Kazavon are inseparable; there can never be just one Fang of Kazavon that remains referred to formally as such, so a singular redirect is unnecessary.
My Amber Chronograph plural redirect was based on the assumed minor artifact type, as minor artifacts are not unique. That assumption appears to be incorrect. --Rexert (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Strict applications of mechanical definitions can sometimes be irrelevant to a wiki written from an in-universe point of view, but in the case of the Amber Chronograph, a previous incorrect assumption led to yours.
The minor artifact designation was an erroneous presumption based on an outdated source. I've updated the article with a newer, more specific, higher-tier source, added unincorporated sources and flagged it as a stub, removed its magic item infobox and mechanical categorization to reclassify it as a location, and created or expanded several supporting articles, including countdown clock. -Oznogon (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Please do not create redirects for potential typos, such as missing apostrophes. This is an established policy.
I've clarified the guidance around creating redirects for forms without punctuation, which was intended to encourage the creation of redirects for alternative usages that appear in canon works (such as in the example, a formal name of a person that appears with and without an apostrophe in published works). That was not intended to be as a blanket suggestion to create new redirects for every article title that contains punctuation, such as the titles of articles where removing an apostrophe from a possessive makes the resulting title incorrect, ambiguous, or a non-canon usage, such as pointing Eagles Ring to Eagle's Ring.
A blanket suggestion for titles with punctuation is exactly what I assumed it to mean, it appears that the redirect usage section needs significantly more information. --Rexert (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. -04:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Crunch and point of view

I've reworded some of your contributions where the language includes mechanical rules language that can be avoided in context, such as "melee attack" (i.e. "attempt a melee attack"), "damage", and "effect" (i.e. "fear effect"). We prefer to avoid such usage per Project:No crunch and PathfinderWiki:Point of view. Thanks. -Oznogon (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Formatting and case

Please format magic item names with italics, such as ghost dust talisman.

Please mind the usage of case in article titles. Paizo often uses title or upper case in headings and statblocks, but they also consistently use sentence case in body text. This can make certain subjects look like they have formal names when they do not. In this case, eye of apprehension is obscurely styled as EYE OF APPREHENSION on GM Core 264 with no body usage to compare against, but it uses informal sentence case on GM Core 324—in addition to its sentence-case usage in Core Rulebook and several other works.

Thanks. -Oznogon (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice, thanks. --Rexert (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
On talismans, and magic items in general, the manual of style suggests following Paizo's italicization. "Talisman" isn't italicized in source works as a standalone term referring to the broad type of magic item, or in generic usage. But it is italicized when referencing a specific type of talisman, such as the usage of both on Seven Dooms for Sandpoint 92:
The shelves also display ... a basilisk eye talisman (Advanced Player's Guide 256) inside of a bottle containing a dose of truth potion that must be smashed in order to get the talisman out.
This is consistent with other similar usages in past and current works around wands, staves, and magical weapons and armor. -Oznogon (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
That explains a lot, I had not previously seen it used that way, thanks. --Rexert (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Avoid overcategorizing images of NPCs

Because so much artwork is of iconics and other frequently recurring NPCs, fully categorizing every image of each of them with the same common categories will make the categories themselves less useful. This exception is specifically called out in Help:Categorizing artwork:

When there is more than one artwork for an NPC, for instance, in the case of the iconics, descriptive categories, such as Category:Images of humans, can quickly become cluttered. To avoid this, it is preferable to have just one image of that person to represent them in parent categories—their primary artwork—with the rest of their images categorized only in that person's individual category. Thus, Category:Images of Valeros is vast but Category:Images of iconics, Category:Images of fighters, Category:Images of humans, and Category:Images of Chelaxians only have one image of Valeros. Additionally, they also all include Category:Images of Valeros as a subcategory for people wanting more Valeros.

-Oznogon (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks. I have been considering the same topic, but regarding more than just iconics. I think it would make a lot of sense to only use the most specific categorization available for any given object or character within an image at all times.
For example, if an image contains a bow, it should have the bow keyword, but never the weapon keyword. If an image contains a helm, it should have the helm keyword, but never the armor keyword. If an image contains a dog, it should have the dog keyword, but never the animal keyword. If an image contains Cressida Kroft, it should have the Cressida Kroft keyword, but never the human, Varisian, fighter and aristocrat keywords.
The guidance in Help:Categorizing artwork suggests only tagging one image of any given iconic with anything beyond their name. However, it can then be difficult to find if one image has in fact been tagged, especially if it's not the one being used on their article page. If multiple images of Valeros are accidentally tagged as human, finding the duplicates in a sea of images of humans can be a massive chore. Personally, for the sake of consistency, I would prefer avoiding such one-image-exceptions and using broader categories like human, animal, armor, weapon as subcategory collections exclusively. --Rexert (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
The help page guidance could always be clearer, but you're on the same track as the intent, at least from my point of view.
  • If the image is a useful illustration of a specific subject, like "bow", it should be categorized for that subject.
  • If the image is the most useful illustration of a specific subject, it should also be categorized in the parent category of that subject, like "weapon", such that the parent category then contains the most representative images of that subject.
More granular categorization is useful until it isn't, and there aren't and likely shouldn't be hard-and-fast rules on limiting levels of specificity because the exceptions would fill them full of holes. If we have multiple pictures of bows that can be distinguished as shortbows, Category:Images of shortbows is useful, and the most representative image of shortbows should be categorized in Category:Images of bows. If we have multiple images of a unique named shortbow, etc.
> If multiple images of Valeros are accidentally tagged as human, finding the duplicates in a sea of images of humans can be a massive chore.
Here is a dynamically generated list of all Category:Images of Valeros that are also in Category:Images of humans:
{{#dpl:
|category=Images of Valeros
|category=Images of humans
}}
-Oznogon (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
That certainly helps with finding excessive uses of the same keyword, but repeating this process for every item, for every category it may be under more than once, is still a chore. Then there is the question of which image is the most representative for a topic—which can be highly subjective—and whether any image in a category already has been selected and categorized accordingly. Then there is the never-ending task of moving the additional keywords from one image to another if a better representation is found among existing images or uploaded at a later date.
I like the idea of being able to view one illustration that best represents any given subject of a subcategory within its main category, but the current process seems convoluted and flawed. Perhaps the representative file could be distinguished from the rest at a glance through some form of highlight or border that makes it stand out within any given category, or through some other solution. Unless something that simplifies this process is implemented, I would rather avoid representative images entirely. --Rexert (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
As with all subjective decisions, be bold; if the decision is contentious, the change might at worst be reverted, and a conversation can be opened on the subject's talk page. Consensus from editors can inform the decision. This will take time and effort.
You are correct in noting that this is a laborious process. I am sorry that you find it unsuitable. I am not sure a technological solution would be less effort; it would likely only shift the effort to User:Virenerus to create and maintain it. -Oznogon (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Personally, I do think a technological solution would take less effort. It would likely use a special parameter or keyword that could be manually assigned like other parameters when editing a file's source page, which would then slightly alter the appearance of that file within the categories it appears in. I picture the Abadar.jpg file in Category:Images of Abadar having a red box surround it instead of the white one it currently has, for example.
This would mean if a specific category has no red boxes or more than one, there is a categorization issue. And if any main category like Category:Images of deities has a file with a white box, there is a categorization issue. --Rexert (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
You should raise such suggestions to User:Virenerus, who can gauge the feasibility of implementing and maintaining such a feature. -Oznogon (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

1E categories

Hi Rexert, in performing some maintenance tasks, I came across a few categories where you'd stripped off the 1E categories when adding in the 2E ones. That's not correct, as we serve both versions of the game and can quite happily have both 1E and 2E categories assigned to any page. For clarity, you could add an invisible comment to indicate this, such as at Category:Images of hounds of Tindalos. If I accidentally found just couple of mistakes, fine, but if this was purposefully done on a number of pages, could you please add back the 1E categories? That will help. --Fleanetha (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

My bad, I must have missed it. --Rexert (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://pathfinderwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rexert&oldid=571108"