Category talk:Magic
We should better define the scope of this category. We have been putting Mages in here for a while, which is a little questionable. Also, should it include magic-users who are not categorized as mages -- say, Khoth? Also, some magical creatures are here but not others -- nagas but not dragons?! --Slarty 07:31, 18 October 2006 (PDT)
We still need to figure this out. I'm going to propose that the category be limited to include only topics strongly pertinent to magic itself. Articles that are already in other top-level categories and are only incidentally magical would not be included. My reasoning is that magic is pretty darn widespread in Ermarian, and the category would become pretty useless if we put everything magical in it. A huge chunk of the Bestiary category would go here, most of the Items category, the entire contents of the Mages and Priests category... it's not useful.
This would leave the category containing "core" magical articles such as: Alchemy, Antimagic Field, Blessed athames, Crystal Souls, Crystals, Curses, Dread curses, Familiar, Forcecages, Guardian runes, Liches, Mages, Magic, Magic barriers, Magic in the Empire, Mass teleporter, Mindduels, Null bugs, Onyx scepter, Quickfire, Rakshasi, Redmark College, Schools of Magery, Scrying, Skylark School of Magery, Soruharva, Summoning, Surface Portal, Teleportation, The Five, Tower Colony, Tower of Magi, Triad, Undead
Any comments and/or objections? -- Slarty 19:14, 19 October 2007 (PDT)
Wait a Bit
I think we should wait a little bit more to do this until we get the opinions of a few more people. I'm personally torn between what to do. I like the category the way it is, but I also think it's a good idea to "better define the scope of this category." So yeah, wait like a week or two until starting.
Yeah, it's always a good idea to gather consensus before making a change that is organizational (as opposed to factual). That said, my original comment dates from one year ago, so there has been lots of time to comment. Wizboy, how would you define the scope? -- Slarty 06:30, 21 October 2007 (PDT)
A year ago... Ahhh... I see. I mistakened the original comment for this year (the dates are nearly the same). But still, after I thought about this, I believe that we should leave the category as it is for now. When I first came to the Encyclopedia Ermariana, I was interested in the magic of Ermarian. I actually liked how broad the category was because it showed me that there was A LOT of magic in the world of Ermarian. I don't know if this makes sense or not to you, but that's the best that I can explain it.
Restrict or expand
As it is now the category is pretty arbitrary about what is and isn't in it. A quick glance in other categories reveals about 50 bestiary entries and 70 persons entries that should go here, by the loose criteria all of the category's current contents are.
I don't think we want it that huge, but we need to do something. Either we fill out the very loose boundary that it has now, or we constrict it to a boundary as specific as those of other categories. -- Slarty 10:02, 23 October 2007 (PDT)