Talk:Wizard

Should we include the "Hotu-exclusive", "exp-added" notes for the class page spell lists?--Defunc7 00:29, 11 Sep 2005 (PDT)

I would think it would start looking messy. The name is wiki'ed to the spell description which has the note about that already. I think that is enough. -- Pstarky 00:38, 11 Sep 2005 (PDT)

I agree with Pstarky. -- Austicke 18:39, 11 Sep 2005 (PDT)

Moved article from "Wizard" to "Wizard (class)" to disambiguate (what an awful verb!) from toolset wizards. Will fix links to the article, may take some time (there are lots of them). --Llandru 21:14, 2 Oct 2005 (PDT)

• I wonder if it would be more appropriate for is to prefix things when doing this. Can you have a comma (,) as part of the article identifier? Or perhaps a dash instead? So we would use Class, Wizard or Class-Wizard instead. This means you prefix the item with what is appropriate be it class, race, spell, etc, etc They then also keep close together because they are all talking about the same concept (ie Class, Wizard is near Class, Sorcerer). Enigmatic 02:22, 3 Oct 2005 (PDT)

• Well I think LLandru just keep it the same as every other Dis. Do you think it a real problem? -- Pstarky 04:49, 3 Oct 2005 (PDT)

• I would just keep the toolset wizards from being ambiguous by naming them by their full names. Item Wizard, Area Wizard, etc. In fact, over in the toolset area that's more or less what we are already doing. 2 GP from Klingon Mage 07:24, 3 Oct 2005 (PDT)

• I think using the toolset wizards' full names is a fine idea, and one that can coexist with the Wizard (class) disambiguation. No need to rename the toolset ones IMO, since the distinctive part of their names is not the "Wizard" part but what they work on ("Item" etc.). For the class, since there was no existing disambiguated class, I followed the standard disambiguation format. One bonus to that format is that, if the ambiguous title is already in case-insensitive search form, the disambiguated article page will be as well. Hope that all makes sense... --Llandru 19:15, 3 Oct 2005 (PDT)

• Good point. It follows the standards and would be very clear to the reader when they were reading an article and it said "And the Wizard (class) who casted the spell". They have no confusion then as to what is being talked about. Enigmatic 19:21, 3 Oct 2005 (PDT)

• Yes, and if the context is clear, the "(class)" part is easily suppressed (I did most of the fixed links that way, in fact). Now that I think about it, though, if any renaming of the Toolset wizards is necessary, it would probably be to disambiguate the non-"wizard" part. e.g. " Module (toolset wizard)" vs. " Module (definition)". I'm not sure it would be worth the hassle though, I'll leave that decision to those who've actually done some work in the Builder category. ;) --Llandru 19:27, 3 Oct 2005 (PDT)