Category talk:Potions
Comments about this category before the in-game "Type: potion" existed
Perhaps we should reclassify this page as "(Mostly) Potions", like in the game, and list all the items here that the game classifies as potions?--Rikmach 23:15, 21 January 2006 (Central Standard Time)
I agree with this outdated question. It doesn't make sense to just categorize the (Mostly) Potions only if they have the word "potion" in them. --Someone Else 07:07, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
- Should "Dungeons of Doom Potions" be its own subcategory? --Hellion 14:17, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
I also agree with both of the above -- I think the Doom potions should be a subcategory like the Reagent potions, and I also think that the potions should be listed like the inventory listing. As a relatively new player I find it useful to be able to go to a section, like restoratives, hats, etc and then see the wiki links for them all. It makes it so much easier. Today I did, in fact, go ahead (without knowing there was a protocol) and add a bunch of "mostly potions" per the inventory listings in the game, to the potion page, however I've had two comments from other wiki users querying me on this. Apparently I need a consensus -- given the above comments, it seems that there are others who have had similar feelings to myself on this matter and I don't see any "oppositional" arguments here. How to proceed??? Mamph 19:25, 10 November 2007 (CST)
- First off you don't you wait for people to actually read what you have said and then after some time there comes to be a consensus and then you may proceed. --Chunky_boo 19:37, 10 November 2007 (CST)
- Let me try to edit this page again: My words: for kol, categories don't say much, it's the effect of the items, which is not shown in categories. In other words, all those categories (more or less) exist, but just as pages (see 'hats' and 'hp restorers'), and have a lot more detail. If you want to know what an Item does, you search the item, if you want to know what a nice HP-restorer is, you need to know if you can use it in combat, how much it restores, ect... that's not given in a category... So my question: what is the positive effect of a category, not finded anywhere else. Just my opinion, I can always be wrong... --Mercantilia 19:43, 10 November 2007 (CST)
- I can't say I like the way that Category:Potions is currently handled, with some of "(Mostly) Potions" in and most out. However, like Mercantilia, I can't see how Category:Potions would be useful. Also, the current description on the category page ("You can drink/use these to gain an effect. Which will affect you.") is inconsistent with defining based on things being in "(Mostly) Potions"--wads are not in there, but they certainly grant an effect. A can of hairspray is in "(Mostly) Combat Items," but grants an effect when used from inventory. I'd be happiest if Category:Potions were deleted entirely. --Bagatelle 13:57, 11 November 2007 (CST)
- I personally don't like that Category:Potions even exists, as it is just an semi-similar assortment of what KoL types as "Usable Items". Much like Category:Candy no longer exists because there was no clear cut definition of what a candy was in-game. (Some things with candy-like names were foods, or spleens, or usables, or potions, etc.) I don't even thing Reagent Potions should be a category, but instead treated as Candy Hearts(Astral Cupcakes, KWE Trading Cards, Mayflowers, and other helpful groupings) currently are with an index page which lists them all, with that page and the individual items categorized as usable items. A page called Reagent Potions would index all the reagent potions (then the former ones below that) and that page and its inhabitants would be categorized as usable items, and the categories of reagent and former reagent potions would be removed. I just like being consistent, as why should these items be trated special/differently than all other usable items?. It's easier to objectively categorize based on easy to define in-game terms (such as item type), else we have to have subjective arguments about what warrants a category or not. You'd be surprised hat categories could appear (worst case scenario of course ;-)) --JRSiebz (☎|§|‡) 19:57, 11 November 2007 (CST)
- This category isn't even consistent, it seems like anything which uses potionX.gif as its image is in it. The bottle of used blood and gourd potion are not by any definition potions (except than gourd potion has "potion" in its name, seems just like the candy problem all over again). They both are usable items which give stats and do not damage spleen. (Mostly) Potions are usable items which when used grant effects (like DoD, reagent potions, snowcones, and many other items). So in actuality a snowcone is more of a "potion" than a gourd potion. --JRSiebz (☎|§|‡) 20:05, 11 November 2007 (CST)
Comments after "Type: potion" was created in-game
In my DC I have a collection of almost every potion(missing 4) which I define as an item that gives an effect, but no spleen, fullness, or drunkenness. There was no list anywhere like this so it's self-compiled, but I'm fairly sure it's completely accurate. If anyone would find this useful let me know.--Vegan 15:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
This category needs to be reviewed. Some Type: usable item are now listed as type: potion in-game, these are the items which should be in this category. Items still listed as Type: usable item in-game should not be listed in this category. --JRSiebz (☎|§|‡) 21:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
