To the Defias Wiki Moderators

Greetings,

I'd like to get in touch with the people administering the Defias Wiki to discuss some options on the wiki. I found no clear contact information through the wiki itself, but I did find a link to this forum on it.

Who can I bug?

Cheers,
JP

I think you're looking for Rasonal in that case

Helsythe wrote:I think you're looking for Rasonal in that case

That be true. There is another Lass from the Allaince side who helped me run it, not sure if she is still active though.

Well, here's the deal-a-yoyo.. (gayest term ever)

The new DoL website ( http://www.disciplesoflight.eu/ ) is also using a wiki for its content. It's practical, looks nice, invites members to make more content easily etc.

Now, on one hand I'm having the time of my life by having my own wiki, but on the other I think our wiki could obtain pages that might be sensible to have on the Defias Wiki as well as pages it shouldn't.
I can imagine our Mexican Hat page isn't of much use to the Defias Wiki (while it is crucial to ours), but we also have character pages being built that might be of interest as well as a library section with IC books.

Luckily, wiki's can work well together... but I'm not sure to what extent there is support for such things on the Defias WIKI. I was wondering if you would be interested in setting up a sort of sync between the two. I'll submit a list of "interesting" pages (I swear I won't include the mexican hats), which your wiki could then import. This -should- be technically feasible with some ease between wiki's depending on the support by your host.
Also the artwork on our site is at your disposal.

On our end this would allow a more fine grained control of who can do what and have a nice website in our own style.

Jeanpierre wrote:Well, here's the deal-a-yoyo.. (gayest term ever)

The new DoL website ( http://www.disciplesoflight.eu/ ) is also using a wiki for its content. It's practical, looks nice, invites members to make more content easily etc.

Now, on one hand I'm having the time of my life by having my own wiki, but on the other I think our wiki could obtain pages that might be sensible to have on the Defias Wiki as well as pages it shouldn't.
I can imagine our Mexican Hat page isn't of much use to the Defias Wiki (while it is crucial to ours), but we also have character pages being built that might be of interest as well as a library section with IC books.

Luckily, wiki's can work well together... but I'm not sure to what extent there is support for such things on the Defias WIKI. I was wondering if you would be interested in setting up a sort of sync between the two. I'll submit a list of "interesting" pages (I swear I won't include the mexican hats), which your wiki could then import. This -should- be technically feasible with some ease between wiki's depending on the support by your host.
Also the artwork on our site is at your disposal.

On our end this would allow a more fine grained control of who can do what and have a nice website in our own style.

I have no idea, at all, how to do it. But I would be more than glad to do it! If you can guide me through the steps, sure, it won't be a problem. Heck, we can even use the mexican hat page...

I see. Right-o. Will check out the details. There's an import function on the mediawiki, but I think there is a way to automate it. I'll check it in details during the week.

Meanwhile, I do have this question..

What categories did you guys build or have on the current wiki? It might be interesting to think of a mapping from one to another.

Rasonal Dranger wrote:

Helsythe wrote:I think you're looking for Rasonal in that case

That be true. There is another Lass from the Allaince side who helped me run it, not sure if she is still active though.

That would be me, but sadly I vanished for a few months.


Like Rasonal, I'm not exactly that well-versed on the deep mechanics of the Wiki (HTML and programming and such, I just know how to do Wikia formatting for the most part), but if you write down what you need I can try and look for the tools for it and see what I can do.


As far as Categories go...

I did, for Wikia's 'main' links at the top, the following:

Characters (Alliance | Horde | Males | Females | Characters by class | Characters by race | Deceased characters)
Guilds (Alliance | Horde | Criminal | Military | Religious)

Then there are sub-categories in each of those for things like race and class and so on.

I see. While I think the defias wiki is a brilliant thing, perhaps there is room for expansion?

For example, our guild offers categories for:
- Characters, much like the Defias Wiki. The only catch is that we have it based on the character's in game name. I both like and resent that choice. It avoids duplicates but it limits people a bit. I can, for example, imagine Celadazar who uses the same char/name to play different characters.

- Library, a place to post books, recorded speeches, lectures, etc. It might be nice to add this to the DefiasWiki. This could, sort of, count as our 'in character' library of Stormwind/Ironforge/Whatever.

- History pages, with descriptions of events (still under construction really). But basically it keeps track of what happened and when with a short recount of it by our guild. If we would have something like this on the Defias Wiki, we could build our own timeline and people could write their own involvement in subsections or subpages.


As for the cooperation between our wiki's, there should be an import and export option that can aid us. I could add a script that auto selects the pages to be exported. But I'll check if there is no way to automate it. I might have to experiment tho, so I'll be setting up a test environment. This might take some time.

Jeanpierre wrote:I see. While I think the defias wiki is a brilliant thing, perhaps there is room for expansion?

For example, our guild offers categories for:
- Characters, much like the Defias Wiki. The only catch is that we have it based on the character's in game name. I both like and resent that choice. It avoids duplicates but it limits people a bit. I can, for example, imagine Celadazar who uses the same char/name to play different characters.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say is different here? Are you saying Celadazar can't make a new article for his alternate character?

- Library, a place to post books, recorded speeches, lectures, etc. It might be nice to add this to the DefiasWiki. This could, sort of, count as our 'in character' library of Stormwind/Ironforge/Whatever.

Well, a Wiki isn't really an in-character resources (at best it's a neutral, timeless overview of a certain person/place/event/thing/etc). Any articles on books/speeches/etc should primarily be about the book/speech/etc, with a transcript being a bonus rather than the main goal.

Either way, that is certainly possible and could fit, I just didn't make a category for it because there wasn't any on the wiki at the time. Anyone on the wiki can make categories as they wish, it's not just up to the moderators to do that. So if someone wanted to post such an article, they could easily make the category for it themselves, too.

- History pages, with descriptions of events (still under construction really). But basically it keeps track of what happened and when with a short recount of it by our guild. If we would have something like this on the Defias Wiki, we could build our own timeline and people could write their own involvement in subsections or subpages.

DefiasWiki does have a Realm History category. It has only been used once so far.

As for the cooperation between our wiki's, there should be an import and export option that can aid us. I could add a script that auto selects the pages to be exported. But I'll check if there is no way to automate it. I might have to experiment tho, so I'll be setting up a test environment. This might take some time.

Alrighty.

Drustai wrote:

Jeanpierre wrote:I see. While I think the defias wiki is a brilliant thing, perhaps there is room for expansion?

For example, our guild offers categories for:
- Characters, much like the Defias Wiki. The only catch is that we have it based on the character's in game name. I both like and resent that choice. It avoids duplicates but it limits people a bit. I can, for example, imagine Celadazar who uses the same char/name to play different characters.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say is different here? Are you saying Celadazar can't make a new article for his alternate character?

Well, what I mean is that our wiki currently uses the character's game name as page title. So, for me that would be "Jeanpierre", whereas on your wiki it would be "Jean-Pierre d'Armagnac". For players like Celadazar (just as example) it might be a problem to use our system since he uses the same char to roleplay, say, "John Redmond" but also some other character "John Doe" with the same ingame name. In my system this would conflict.

It's not that hard to import and export pages, but it becomes tricky when you have to name change in a non uniform manner. (Adding first names or surnames would fall under that). Nothing to worry about really... I'll just switch our system and voila!

Well, a Wiki isn't really an in-character resources (at best it's a neutral, timeless overview of a certain person/place/event/thing/etc). Any articles on books/speeches/etc should primarily be about the book/speech/etc, with a transcript being a bonus rather than the main goal.

Point taken but much like a forum has IC and OOC parts, I think the benefits of using the wiki for an IC library outweighed the rule of keeping it strictly OOC. Generally our IC books are not larger than a Wiki article should be... And the moderated/self regulating structure of the wiki is a vast improvement over any forum based library.

DefiasWiki does have a Realm History category. It hasn't been used at all since the wiki has been created.

Such a pity. This should be just as important as the character pages.

Jeanpierre wrote:

Drustai wrote:

Jeanpierre wrote:I see. While I think the defias wiki is a brilliant thing, perhaps there is room for expansion?

For example, our guild offers categories for:
- Characters, much like the Defias Wiki. The only catch is that we have it based on the character's in game name. I both like and resent that choice. It avoids duplicates but it limits people a bit. I can, for example, imagine Celadazar who uses the same char/name to play different characters.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say is different here? Are you saying Celadazar can't make a new article for his alternate character?

Well, what I mean is that our wiki currently uses the character's game name as page title. So, for me that would be "Jeanpierre", whereas on your wiki it would be "Jean-Pierre d'Armagnac". For players like Celadazar (just as example) it might be a problem to use our system since he uses the same char to roleplay, say, "John Redmond" but also some other character "John Doe" with the same ingame name. In my system this would conflict.

It's not that hard to import and export pages, but it becomes tricky when you have to name change in a non uniform manner. (Adding first names or surnames would fall under that). Nothing to worry about really... I'll just switch our system and voila!

Well, that could still be gotten around by making a new Wikia account for the other character.

Either way though, that strikes me as inefficient. IMO, usernames and article names should remain separate.

Well, a Wiki isn't really an in-character resources (at best it's a neutral, timeless overview of a certain person/place/event/thing/etc). Any articles on books/speeches/etc should primarily be about the book/speech/etc, with a transcript being a bonus rather than the main goal.

Point taken but much like a forum has IC and OOC parts, I think the benefits of using the wiki for an IC library outweighed the rule of keeping it strictly OOC. Generally our IC books are not larger than a Wiki article should be... And the moderated/self regulating structure of the wiki is a vast improvement over any forum based library.

The wiki in this case isn't strictly OOC (actually articles should be IC, IMO, other than 'Behind the scenes' sections or articles clearly labelled/categorized as OOC), it's mostly IC it's just done as an archive rather than a resource that our characters could ICly access. (Hence why I also prefer articles to be in past tense rather than the slew of present tense articles, since it should be written from a neutral point in the future).

As long as it's treated as an archive then that's fine.

I mean, it's not very hard to add a brief description of the book/speech/etc before adding it in beneath the overview in a quote box.

DefiasWiki does have a Realm History category. It hasn't been used at all since the wiki has been created.

Such a pity. This should be just as important as the character pages.

Can't really force people to make them, though.

Drustai wrote:
The wiki in this case isn't strictly OOC (actually articles should be IC, IMO, other than 'Behind the scenes' sections or articles clearly labelled/categorized as OOC), it's mostly IC it's just done as an archive rather than a resource that our characters could ICly access. (Hence why I also prefer articles to be in past tense rather than the slew of present tense articles, since it should be written from a neutral point in the future).

As long as it's treated as an archive then that's fine.

I mean, it's not very hard to add a brief description of the book/speech/etc before adding it in beneath the overview in a quote box.

This still confuses me. Let me add an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Alchemist_(novel)
This is a Wiki article on a book. It's cool and all, but let's see what doesn't apply (generally) to a wow book:
- Reception and influence
- File sharing
- Adaptations
- Endless references
- The introductions reference to guiness world record and classification of the book's writing style.

Now we consider this an IC book:
http://www.disciplesoflight.eu/The_Three_Virtues
If we would force this in an article format like you mentioned, we would have to add 1 paragraph consisting 2-3 lines of text and then have 95% of the page in a quote box?

It would seem more interesting to me to reverse that.

Jeanpierre wrote:

Drustai wrote:
The wiki in this case isn't strictly OOC (actually articles should be IC, IMO, other than 'Behind the scenes' sections or articles clearly labelled/categorized as OOC), it's mostly IC it's just done as an archive rather than a resource that our characters could ICly access. (Hence why I also prefer articles to be in past tense rather than the slew of present tense articles, since it should be written from a neutral point in the future).

As long as it's treated as an archive then that's fine.

I mean, it's not very hard to add a brief description of the book/speech/etc before adding it in beneath the overview in a quote box.

This still confuses me. Let me add an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Alchemist_(novel)
This is a Wiki article on a book. It's cool and all, but let's see what doesn't apply (generally) to a wow book:
- Reception and influence
- File sharing
- Adaptations
- Endless references
- The introductions reference to guiness world record and classification of the book's writing style.

Now we consider this an IC book:
http://www.disciplesoflight.eu/The_Three_Virtues
If we would force this in an article format like you mentioned, we would have to add 1 paragraph consisting 2-3 lines of text and then have 95% of the page in a quote box?

It would seem more interesting to me to reverse that.

That's what most articles already are. A couple sentences summary followed by the actual article itself.

I was thinking of something more like this.

Basically, you summarize the text, provide any history or other important details about the piece, then provide the full text for those who want to read the whole thing. Most people aren't going to read the whole thing, so having a summary at the top is a good thing.


For example, on your Three Virtues, I personally would put in an Overview above the Contents which summarizes the whole article, followed by a History section describing how it was founded/how widespread it is etc, followed by perhaps a 'Followers and adherents' section describing the kind of people who follow those tenants, and so on, before the full text in a quote box.

Or, since it actually looks more like a summary article itself rather than a proper book or something, I'd probably do something like:

The Three Virtues are blah blah blah article summary.

History
The Three Virtues were founded at blah blah when blah and so on.

Followers and adherents
Several major groups follow the Three Virtues, particularly among the Alliance, and so on and so forth.

The Virtues
Discuss in depth the virtues as a whole, in summary, then add the rest in sub-categories which describe each tenant more specifically.
*Respect
[Paragraph]
*Tenacity
[Paragraph]
*Compassion
[Paragraph]

Yeah, but there you have a confusion between the content and the book itself. It's not my purpose to invent a new wiki with self made topics. I could have a book on alchemy or medical procedures, but it doesn't make sense to cut into an article format where I describe the procedures as if they are actual facts. Nor does it make sense to cut a fairy tale in such a format.

As for the Light in particular, it would make sense to have an article on it if you want an "article", but I'm looking for a way that would permit the dozens of books on it. We can hardly fit 5 books onto a single page named "The Three Virtues". What if one made a variation on the title? "The Virtues in a farmer's life", for example. How would we structure that in an article format?

The further you dig in such structuring, the further you are moving away from the IC concept of a book. In other words: the adherence to the article concept breaks the IC concepts.

The book itself exists as a whole and I think it's a damn shame we don't use a more convenient system to gather them and provide overviews.

Just thinking out loud here, but where I don't mind an overview on some things I don't think we should break the concept of a book either, and it would be a shame if we strip our books of their formatting options because we placed it in a blockquote. Working with subpages would, however, be a clear violation of the wiki principle.

Jeanpierre wrote:Yeah, but there you have a confusion between the content and the book itself. It's not my purpose to invent a new wiki with self made topics. I could have a book on alchemy or medical procedures, but it doesn't make sense to cut into an article format where I describe the procedures as if they are actual facts. Nor does it make sense to cut a fairy tale in such a format.

The article format assumes they are actual facts. It's an article. It'd be like writing a book report. You don't even have to put the full text anywhere in the article, that's just a bonus.

An article summarizes the information for the reader, because that reader is most likely not going to read the whole thing.

As for the Light in particular, it would make sense to have an article on it if you want an "article", but I'm looking for a way that would permit the dozens of books on it. We can hardly fit 5 books onto a single page named "The Three Virtues".

Then you'd give each book its own article, with its own summary and so on. And put all of them in a Three Virtues category if they all have relevance to that subject.

IE:

Category: Holy books (or whatever)
|
v
Article 1: Overview/Summary | Any important information | Full text
Article 2: Overview/Summary | Any important information | Full text
Article 3: Overview/Summary | Any important information | Full text

And so on, for each book.

If none of the books have much detail (or full text), then you could put them all on one page with short summaries of each provided they all relate to each other in some way.

What if one made a variation on the title? "The Virtues in a farmer's life", for example. How would we structure that in an article format?

Depends on what you mean. If "The Virtues in a Farmer's Life" is the name of a book, then that'd be a fine title for an article.

The further you dig in such structuring, the further you are moving away from the IC concept of a book. In other words: the adherence to the article concept breaks the IC concepts.

See, for Wiki's, which I view as an archive, I consider adherence to the article concept to be proper. As said, the full text of a book is not necessary, and, in fact, for proper-sized books (as in the several hundred page kind), it would be stupid to include the full text. You'd want to write an overview/summarizing article and then provide an external link to the full text (if one exists).

The book itself exists as a whole and I think it's a damn shame we don't use a more convenient system to gather them and provide overviews.

Just thinking out loud here, but where I don't mind an overview on some things I don't think we should break the concept of a book either, and it would be a shame if we strip our books of their formatting options because we placed it in a blockquote. Working with subpages would, however, be a clear violation of the wiki principle.

I just don't think Wiki should serve the purpose you think they should. For me, a Wiki is an archive that summarizes a lot of different things. It provides quotes when and where it can, but ultimately those are merely "supporting statements" for the article itself. A full text, if short enough, can be provided, but otherwise it would need be linked somewhere off-site, because being a library isn't a Wiki's job, IMO. Now obviously, I don't expect anyone to write IC books that long, so full text can be provided on every article, but the point stands that the text is supposed to support the descriptions made in the article (again, much like using quotes in a book report), not the other way around.

Character pages for example provide quotes and screenshots, but their job isn't to display the character in all their glory like a video. It's to describe and summarize the character. The quotes and screenshots are supporting statements for the article itself. Same with an article about an event. It'd be easy to fraps the event, stick it on youtube, and then put that on an article page and call it a day. But that's not the point of a Wiki. You're supposed to take that event (or that video), and cut it down and summarize it for the people that weren't there or don't want to watch a video. Same with a book.

Again, consider it like writing a book report. The book still exists. It's still real (especially in the case of non-fiction books). And in a book report, you summarize and describe the book for someone who hasn't (and most likely won't) read it. You don't just hand them the book itself and say, "Here, read this."

This is where I think we conflict in what the wiki should serve. True, when looking at a Wikipedia where the purpose is the collection of world wide facts, then such strong adherence to article formats is necessary.

However, we are speaking of a very domain specific usage. Even at work, wiki's are often built-in in development frameworks because of their practical use, not because we intend to write "articles" per se.

I wouldn't mind using another system.. But.. why on earth use yet another website for something that offers the exact same functionality?
A forum system requires too much manual moderation to keep things together. A wiki system barely requires anything but the sharp eye of the moderator.

Admitted, I wouldn't mind having both a ferrari and a 10Ton Truck depending on whether I'm moving myself, or anything heavier than 2 books but if a simple bus ticket will do, it might be best to go with the simple answer.
Is it worth blowing up the infrastructure with yet another account system to just to have a library? Come to think of it... The best php based framework that comes to mind to emulate a library would be... A wiki!
http://www.wikibooks.org/

But why create another one just for that? :S

Well like I said, most IC texts aren't going to be that long. So it's easy to do the full text and the article in the same thing. You just have the article first, which summarizes everything for the people who don't want to read the full text, then you have the full text after.

The summary both provides people easy-to-digest information quickly as well as a 'hook' to the full text.

I don't see why an article should have just the text on it. That strikes me as lazy, personally. Even published books have short summaries on the back cover (albeit those are more like teasers since they don't give away much of the story).

The article can easily have both, which solves the problem, IMO.

I can agree to a page having both. I'm just thinking of how it could be formatted properly then. Some texts might benefit from generated table of contents. But without clear separation from the article it would look more confusing than anything.

Hmpf. I'll study the books we have now and see what options are actually required before digging too deeply in what could be done.

Well, the library thing might get a very different solution. I've been speaking with some mysterious people (dun dun dun) and a different project might be set up for it. That would remove this aspect of our discussion

As for the characters... I will be switching the pages to the full character name so they should integrate more or less seamlessly.

There could be a conflict of categories however. We simply use Category:Characters for all character sheets. There has not been any reason so far to expand this. Which ones would be mandatory on your wiki (exact name please) to make them work?

I'm willing to bet my money on it this will not get automated by a script. Instead it will transfer character sheets, category stuff included, as-is. So we'll have to merge the systems somehow or change ours. Depending on what that change implies I can work with that

One more thing... Jeesh... my head hurts

We have a ton of pictures. These could be uploaded as well, but... Some of these are subject to copyrights or acknowledgements. I can imagine screenies, for example, should come with a message that the content is property, or intellectual property of Blizzard. We also have an artist with her own copyright, so... Could those be added to the list?

Jeanpierre wrote:Well, the library thing might get a very different solution. I've been speaking with some mysterious people (dun dun dun) and a different project might be set up for it. That would remove this aspect of our discussion

As for the characters... I will be switching the pages to the full character name so they should integrate more or less seamlessly.

There could be a conflict of categories however. We simply use Category:Characters for all character sheets. There has not been any reason so far to expand this. Which ones would be mandatory on your wiki (exact name please) to make them work?

I'm willing to bet my money on it this will not get automated by a script. Instead it will transfer character sheets, category stuff included, as-is. So we'll have to merge the systems somehow or change ours. Depending on what that change implies I can work with that

Category: Characters is fine. I just spent all day doing changing about 200 categories on people's pages, so I can do that again, lol.

Otherwise, the things you can add are things like:

Category: Gender (Male/Female)
Category: Class (as in, Category: Priests, and so on. Make sure it's plural. Priests, Mages, Warriors, etc)
Category: Disciples of Light (since your wiki is for characters from DoL, yes?)
Category: Alliance Characters
Category: Alliance
Category: Tradeskill (as in Category: Herbalists and so on. Make sure it's plural and the noun version. Herbalists, Alchemists, Engineers, etc)

Jeanpierre wrote:One more thing... Jeesh... my head hurts

We have a ton of pictures. These could be uploaded as well, but... Some of these are subject to copyrights or acknowledgements. I can imagine screenies, for example, should come with a message that the content is property, or intellectual property of Blizzard. We also have an artist with her own copyright, so... Could those be added to the list?

TBH.

Pretty much no image on DefiasWiki comes with copyrights and other acknowledgments. Most people don't even think about uploading with that in mind. I don't really think that screenshots need a copyright/intellectual property of Blizzard BS, because, frankly, they're not going to care nor do anything about it. As for artists with their own copyright, then you can use the 'More Options' option when uploading an image, and select a different Licensing (I usually use "I took the photo myself" for artwork I've done, as that's the only option that attributes it to yourself). If you absolutely must, you can use one of the other Licensing options for screenshots as well, as there's a few options there that would work.

Drustai wrote:
Category: Characters is fine. I just spent all day doing changing about 200 categories on people's pages, so I can do that again, lol.

But do you even use this? I mean, if we can avoid the work in the first place, that would be preferable


A few questions.

Drustai wrote:
Otherwise, the things you can add are things like:

Category: Gender (Male/Female)
You.. actually use genders? No offense, I don't mind.. But, out of curiosity, why? Why the trouble?

Category: Class (Priests, Mages, Warriors, etc)
You got it. But.. What about chars who changed OOC class?

Category: Disciples of Light (since your wiki is for characters from DoL, yes?)
We have our own category? Are we permitted to use it for other things than characters? Yes, we'll focus on DoL characters, but some characters might have left DoL, died, or some might be included out of general interest.

Category: Alliance Characters
Sure thing!

Category: Alliance
What's the difference with the above one?

Category: Tradeskill (as in Category: Herbalists and so on. Make sure it's plural and the noun version. Herbalists, Alchemists, Engineers, etc)
Sure thing!

Jeanpierre wrote:

Drustai wrote:
Category: Characters is fine. I just spent all day doing changing about 200 categories on people's pages, so I can do that again, lol.

But do you even use this? I mean, if we can avoid the work in the first place, that would be preferable

Yes it would.

Drustai wrote:
Otherwise, the things you can add are things like:

Category: Gender (Male/Female)
You.. actually use genders? No offense, I don't mind.. But, out of curiosity, why? Why the trouble?

I believe in categorizing every trait that is categorizable. This broadens the options for searches.

Category: Class (Priests, Mages, Warriors, etc)
You got it. But.. What about chars who changed OOC class?

Every class a character has been ICly should, IMO, be listed. For instance, my own character is categorized in 4 in-game classes (and several out-of-game ones), because she's been each of those classes at one point ICly. On the other hand, if a character was only a class OOCly, and not ICly, then IMO they shouldn't be categorized under it.

So basically, categorize every IC class the character is/has been.

Category: Disciples of Light (since your wiki is for characters from DoL, yes?)
We have our own category? Are we permitted to use it for other things than characters? Yes, we'll focus on DoL characters, but some characters might have left DoL, died, or some might be included out of general interest.

Yes, you do. Quite a few guilds do.

Anything related to DoL can be placed under its own category, yes. Things that are just 'written' by DoL members shouldn't be placed in it if they have no other relation, but if the subject matter of the article relates to DoL in some way, then yes it may be categorized under it.

Category: Alliance Characters
Sure thing!

Category: Alliance
What's the difference with the above one?

Because the latter is an 'overall' Alliance category listing everything in the Alliance (characters, races, guilds, organizations, etc), while Alliance Characters specifically lists Alliance characters. Basically, Alliance is the broad category, while Alliance characters is a more specific one.

Ahh, well... Doesn't Wiki offer a way to search for articles that belong to both categories "Alliance" and "Characters", for example?
If it does, then that should, in theory, give the same resultset right?

Drustai wrote:

Jeanpierre wrote:

Drustai wrote:
Category: Characters is fine. I just spent all day doing changing about 200 categories on people's pages, so I can do that again, lol.

But do you even use this? I mean, if we can avoid the work in the first place, that would be preferable

Yes it would.

This doesn't tell me whether or not I should use "Category:Characters"
Yes or no?

Thanks for your putting up with my endless questioning <3