Forum:CT Archive/Weapon categorization revamp

Wookieepedia &gt; Consensus track &gt; 

Something needs to be done about the way weapons are categorized. The current system is confusing and unstandardized, making it hard to find specific weapon models using the category navigation. Therefore, I have drafted a proposal of changes. Please evaluate on a point-by-point basis in the Comments section.

Proposal

 * Distinction - Weapon models (that is, those to which the weapon template can apply) and weapon types (those to which the weapon template cannot apply, but can act as categories) should be distinct from one another. Weapon models should only be listed as members of a category, and weapon types should only be listed as categories or subcategories.  As a rule, models should be singular unless they are always used in the plural, and categories should be plural.
 * Cleanup - Anything remaining in a weapon category after Distinction should be removed or merged with an existing article. Pages like the List of weapons are redundant in that they attempt to list weapons without using the Category feature.  This is inefficient and outdated.  Any useful information stored in such an article (see Blaster) should be moved to a Technology category and linked by the See Also feature.
 * Multi-categorization - Specific weapon models should include all categories to which they pertain, not simply the most specific category. In other words, all weapon models would be listed under the Weapons category; all blaster models would be listed under the Blaster Weapons and Weapons categories; all blaster pistols would be listed under the Blaster Pistols, Blaster Weapons, and Weapons categories; and so on.  Subcategories of weapons would get increasingly more specific.  Presently, category lines are ambiguous (Grenades and Demolitions, for example), and most weapon models only list one.  Implementing this will require some planning, so I have come up with a rough outline:

Outline

 * Weapons
 * Biological weapons
 * Blaster weapons
 * Blaster cannons
 * Blaster pistols
 * Heavy blaster pistols
 * Hold-out blasters
 * Sporting blaster pistols
 * Blaster rifles
 * Blaster carbines
 * Light repeating blasters
 * Sporting blaster rifles
 * Heavy repeating blasters
 * Chemical weapons
 * Cultural weapons
 * Gungan weapons
 * Wookiee weapons
 * Yuuzhan Vong weapons
 * Demolitions
 * Mines
 * Disruptor weapons
 * Disruptor cannons
 * Disruptor pistols
 * Disruptor rifles
 * Emplacement weapons
 * Ground emplacements
 * Planetary emplacements
 * Space emplacements
 * Grenades
 * Adhesive grenades
 * Cold grenades
 * Concussion grenades
 * CryoBan grenades
 * EMP grenades
 * Flash-bang grenades
 * Fragmentation grenades
 * Gas grenades
 * Glop grenades
 * Plasma grenades
 * Proton grenades
 * Smoke grenades
 * Sonic grenades
 * Stun grenades
 * Thermal detonators
 * Incendiary weapons
 * Flame projectors
 * Ion weapons
 * Ion cannons
 * Ion pistols
 * Ion rifles
 * Laser weapons
 * Laser cannons
 * Laser pistols
 * Laser rifles
 * Turbolasers
 * Lightsabers
 * Melee weapons
 * Blunt weapons
 * Edged weapons
 * Pointed weapons
 * Pneumatic weapons
 * Concussive weapons
 * Personal weapons
 * Carbines
 * Personal heavy weapons
 * Personal melee weapons
 * Pistols
 * Rifles
 * Projectile weapons
 * Casters
 * Dart weapons
 * Flechette launchers
 * Grenade launchers
 * Rocket launchers
 * Slugthrowers
 * Slugthrower pistols
 * Slugthrower rifles
 * Tensile weapons
 * Bows
 * Catapults
 * Projectiles
 * Slugs
 * Sonic weapons
 * Starship weapons
 * Cannons
 * Launchers
 * Turrets
 * Superweapons
 * Vibroweapons
 * Weapon attachments
 * Other weapons (placeholder category for any weapons that potentially do not fit in above, until an appropriate category can be created)

Obviously the changes would be extensive, so I want to get some community feedback on the actual plan before we move to voting. If you can think of anything that should be added, removed, or changed, please post it below in the Comments section.

– Brynn Alastayr 11:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

 * I think weapons should listed by type first. Do other groupings such as cultural with a second category. -Finlayson 17:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem with that is that there are multiple type classifications to sort by. There is technological classification (blaster, laser, disruptor, lightsaber, etc.), size classification (personal, emplacement, starship, etc.), usage classification (cultural, I added this as a sort of backwards lookup, we could do affiliation too, but it would add at least one more category to every weapon model), manufacturer classification (hypothetically, we could link every weapon directly to its manufacturer page instead of doing it manually), and so on.  Are you suggesting we eliminate all other classification systems and strictly use, say, technological?  That would get rid of Cultural, Emplacement, Personal, Projectiles (would have to be moved under Projectile weapons), Starship, Superweapons, and Weapon attachments.  Personally, I think the more redundancy that's built into the system the better, since models would not exist simply under one category, but under a number of them.  Alternatively, we could use the aforementioned classification systems as direct subcategories under Weapons and go from there, but I think it would just make it more confusing for casual users.  My end goal here is to make finding a specific weapon easier. – Brynn Alastayr 20:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)