FANDOM


  • Can you explained to me why the female characters category was deleted by you bot?

      Loading editor
    • ParallelTraveler insisted on reforming the character category pages, which required their removal. ForeBot only deleted ones that didn’t have pipes in the code, so any left will have to be removed manually.

        Loading editor
    • Alright, so what ParallelTraveler didn't feel they need to be a female characters category anymore? 

      What do you mean reforming? I agreed that it need some work but why delate the characters category based on gender?

        Loading editor
    • I can't recall why. Maybe it was to do with it being a category of 1500 characters across different universes or some other reason.

        Loading editor
    • That is why there need to be a starting point for all of the characters. I know it would be a huge catergoy but then narrowing it down help. I can't remember what movies or games she is from. But I know she was in residevet evil and she was female. 

        Loading editor
    • Because I'm making it so the categories have a corresponding nav box. Characters are pretty much only categorized by what media they appear and what organizations they belong to if we decided to give those its own category based on other factors.

        Loading editor
    • Then that is one way grouping characters together. It doesn't mean it is the best or only way. Why if you're looking just for resident evil characters regardless of what media they ar e in? I had never read the comics or anything that seen the movies but I found characters from multiple sources by going through male and female characters catergoy. Then make a nav box for female, male, alive, death, etc. What if someone is looking for characters that are just civilians or don't belong to an organizations. This is insane and make the wiki less accuary and harder to find stuff. 

        Loading editor
    • 'Male' and 'Female' had over a thousand entries each. If you don't know a character's name, the organisation they were a part of, what game/movie/comic/novel they were in, I don't see how you'd quickly find them on those two categories without a dozen misses.

        Loading editor
    • And together they had over two thousand entries each. Never said it was going to be quick. But it will be faster than just going through all of the characters. Hell you don't even had a all characters list anymore from what I see. all catergory should go from large to small, (so character>female character>alive>etc.) I'm not always looking for a specific character, I'm just sometime looking through all of the characters that had a trait or whatever I'm looking for, alive for example. You literally had the years characters died but having gender is too much? 

        Loading editor
    • I'm not the one who made the decision. If you're looking for a specific character, surely a navbox containing everyone from one game or under a certain employment is easier to go through.

        Loading editor
    • If we had organization tools by trait, that could potentially be anything which user have tried to impliemnt before. Role in story, hair color, involved in an event, has been in combat, what tropes they fit into I.e “femme fatale”, if their face has been shown, skills they have I.e can pick locks.

      Then you could start applying these sort of tings to other groups of pages I.e which games have Co-op, have digital versions, which take place in Raccoon City.

      While these are interesting and fun, it’s not something we want to support when more useful and technical work can be done which helps facilitate proper editing.

        Loading editor
    • One fairly easy way to do this is to have the infobox generate as many categories as it can automatically, and then use DPL to perform logic on the categories. (See the Examples section on my profile for a demonstration of the intersection of two categories.) This way, you can easily get a list of all female characters that are in RE5, or all Police Officers in Racoon City, for example. Let me know if you are interested in doing this. I'd be happy to help.

        Loading editor
    • Offer appropriated but strongly not interested.

        Loading editor
    • Forerunner wrote:
      I'm not the one who made the decision. If you're looking for a specific character, surely a navbox containing everyone from one game or under a certain employment is easier to go through.

      I never said it was. Not if you don't know the employment or if you just browing for a trait. Let said male characters. I originally found the wiki by google resident evil male characters for a fanfiction I write.

        Loading editor
    • ParallelTraveler wrote:
      If we had organization tools by trait, that could potentially be anything which user have tried to impliemnt before. Role in story, hair color, involved in an event, has been in combat, what tropes they fit into I.e “femme fatale”, if their face has been shown, skills they have I.e can pick locks.

      Then you could start applying these sort of tings to other groups of pages I.e which games have Co-op, have digital versions, which take place in Raccoon City.

      While these are interesting and fun, it’s not something we want to support when more useful and technical work can be done which helps facilitate proper editing.

      Well you have a point but but their is a diferent between been in combat or femme fatale vs other traits like gender or hair color. There is a limit to the number of catergoy possible? No. You don't have to applied everything to to other things. Only when it make sense.

      "helps faciliate proper editing" at the cost of making the wiki less helping and accuary. It seem like you're making it easier for you, without taking into others. Or maybe you should think there should not be a gender catergoy? 

      So, instead of starting with an catergory with all of the characters, then subcatergory based on different traits, you know can only see the characters based on media and organization. So, unless you seen that media (film/game/comics for example) you don't know the characters exist. 

      Again, it just a different way of grouping characters together. Also, I hadn't heard a single argument against why not having a gender catergory. I found the wiki original by google resident evil male characters. When through looking for a male characters (any male characters) that I could used for my story. That now resource is gone. 

      Finally, whomever thought grouping based solely on media and orginzation was a good idea, clearly it's doing anyone else a favor. Here is a primary exmaple, I found multiple characters I used for my fanfiction from the males and female catergory from mulitple media. Didn't find them from looking through media or organziation. That my point. 

        Loading editor
    • What's the difference exactly? Just because there isn't a limit to categories doesn't mean we should add more. What categories "make sense" because they your suggestions do not make sense to me so far.

      Limiting categories doesn't make the wiki less accurate. I'm aware limiting the ways categories for characters are done limits the ways you can look them up, but adding more has the effect of encouraging not helpful edits. Facilitating good edits to the community is more important because you still have the tools to look up characters.

      No, I am not doing this just for me, and even if I was, why are you against the wiki of being good quality then since you acknowledged limited categories is good for the wiki? I have talked about this with others many times. This isn't like the very first time this has ever come up, I always talk to other when making decisions.

      I don't follow your argument about not knowing a character exists unless you've seen that media. If you look through the categories, then you would. How is this related to categories by trait?

      We already told you, categories by gender isn't useful because they each have 1500 entries and doesn't help editing. The wiki isn't meant to be a resource for fanfiction writers by having tools to look up characters by trait, this isn't going to convince us to add any.

      If you believe having set up categories this way isn't helping anyone, then you don't understand the situation. Your primary example doesn't matter to us, also, you still just look up characters by media anyway.

        Loading editor
    • The wiki is meant to be a resource for anyone who is interesting in Resident Evil. Editing shouldn't be the primary concern. Making a reliable and accuary wiki should be. No, you don't understand the situation. There is no requirement for being a admin on wiki, which mean you may not even be qualified. You may should had been make an admin by someone because you edit a lot.

        Loading editor
    • Facilitating good is absolutely a primary concern because that makes the wiki more reliable and accurate so that it can be usable resource, adding categories for character traits doesn't do that. You just supported my side.

      If there are no requirements to be an admin, then how can I not be qualified? Irrelevant though, because there are requirements.

      You've thoroughly demonstrated you don't understand what you're talking about.

        Loading editor
    • Again, it a concern, not the primary concern. It doesn't make the wiki more reliable and accurate. How it's accurate to remove the category with gender? 

      The only thing I had demonstrated is that you had make your opinion and nothing I will said will ever convinced you otherwise. You're wrong, period. You edit didn't, in my opinion, make the wiki better. If I feel this way then other will also feel the way. Again, I hadn't seen most of the RE media. So moving around by media doesn't actually make sense. When I'm not looking for that. You see. What I'm looking for is different. 

        Loading editor
    • You've never been a part of this community, how would you know what our own concerns are? Facilitating good edits helps the wiki be more reliable. I have no idea why you think that's untrue. Not having a gender category doesn't make pages less accurate, gender is noted in the articles themselves.

      You said factually wrong things, you demonstrated you don't understand what you're talking about and continue to.

        Loading editor
    • False. I edited pages before. so check my history. I never said it didn't, help the wiki be more reliable making good edits. I said delete category like gender make the wiki less reliable. Yes it does. Because the articles noted them but that is it. and if the articles themselves noted them, you think they would be a gender category but that would required logical. You're demonstrated you don't understand what I'm talking about and continue to discuss.

        Loading editor
    • You have 5 edits of adding gender to pages made in 2 days. That doesn't convince me you've been part of the community long enough to know our concerns and priorities, especially since if did then you wouldn't have tried adding those in the first place.

      You said "It doesn't make the wiki more reliable and accurate." in response to me saying facilitating good edits does just that. You literally said it didn't.

      How does not having a gender category make the wiki less reliable? Its not conveying the gender is unknown. The gender is in on the page. The reliability isn't affected.

      "Because the articles noted them but that is it. and if the articles themselves noted them, you think they would be a gender category but that would required logical."

      So by your logic, since they're noted on articles, should there also be categories for birth date, race/nationality, blood type, height, weight, voice actor, every occupation, if they have a family, and events they were involved in, and their first & last media appearances?

        Loading editor
    • When I make those edits the gender category still existed. So, I thought I was being helpful. But if i had make edit before it mean I was party of the community. It mean I care enough to take time and make edit.

      I said it doesn't make the wiki more reliable and accurate in regarding the gender. Yes, good edits are important, those not the most important.

      Can you look find characters based on gender? No. Yes. I'm find add all of those categories. The nav box can stil exist and those could be list under traits or miscellenous. Again, what is the problem having those catergory? Nothing. Yes, some pages will be missed. But there are always better edits or more edits to be make.

      does that make sense? it's not rocket science. If I wnat to find all of the characters who was students that would be one way of looking through the characters. 

        Loading editor
    • Allen Knott wrote:
      The wiki is meant to be a resource for anyone who is interesting in Resident Evil. Editing shouldn't be the primary concern. Making a reliable and accuary wiki should be. No, you don't understand the situation. There is no requirement for being a admin on wiki, which mean you may not even be qualified. You may should had been make an admin by someone because you edit a lot.

      Wiki is meant to be an encyclopedia of knowledge, of course editing every pages by adding the latest information or any valuable things is always a concern, they do that for the sake of citing reliable information. Do you understand why Wiki existed don't you?

      There is a requirement for being a wiki admin, yeah sure hire somebody that has been adding many false informations to administrate your wiki, PT didn't just get the admin rights because he edited too much here for a long time, he gets it because he earns the trust and respect of the many people here.

        Loading editor
    • Correct. The wiki is meant to be an encyclopedia of knolwegde, included gender. So, yes I understand why wiki existed.

      Peoples are who no longer here because the wiki was created in 2006 and he didn't make his first edit until 2011. So, who make him an admin? But there are any actual requirements. He was giving the admin rights because peoples trust and respect him, because he make good edits. Doesn't mean he is qualified to be an admin. 

        Loading editor
    • I didn't even say you didn't make any edits to begin with. What I meant was you haven't been involved in this community enough to see how things works and have communicated with others to understand these decisions and know our concerns which you are still trying to claim to know so. I'm not trying to be condescending when I say you don't understand the issue, I'm referring to fact this has already been debated and discussed, and every time I point out something you say that doesn't make sense, you don't acknowledge it.

      Telling us, who are concerned about how pages get edited, that we shouldn't be concerned about that, isn't going to convince us to do things that causes pages to be edited poorly.

      One more time, plainly state what do the categories have to do with reliability?

      I told you the problem, we don't want a limitless amount of categories that we'll have to manage. No one wants to check over 3,000 pages every time someone decides to add a new trait that's not going to be used for navigation. Especially when some pages require debate over if they should be added. Plus these long lists make pages cluttered and just look unprofessional which reflects poorly on the wiki.

      Why should we add any in the first place? The only reason I recall was so you can get fan fiction ideas which is absolutely not something the wiki should be structured to support. If you want to find characters who are students, then the wiki isn't for that.

        Loading editor
    • You said I wasn't part of the community. Making edits is part of being of the community. You're correct I don't know why, hint why I asked. The wiki should be structured to support the knowledge of the resdient evil universe, period. regardless of what that knowledge should be used for. 

      Oh, so you have to edits 3,000 pages. Ok and? Reliability is "the quality of being trustworthy or of performing consistently well," but if they don't reflect the characters then they are perforrming consistently well. Oh well, so is debate is bad? If you can't come to an agreement that is perfectly alright regarding that character, but the majority of the characters are not that. 

      You should add it because it another way of grouping the characters together. Not better or worst than the currently way of Media/organization. Which I personally find to be a poor way of grouping the characters together. You don't even had a single character category anymore that I saw. 

      I'm sorry if my reply to you don't make sense. I do have a grammar learning disability but i feel I been very clear. Editing should be the primary concern, meaning the top concern. Making a reliable and accuary wiki should be, editing is part of that but it's the top or primary concern. 

        Loading editor
    • I'm going to used Jill Valentine as a exmaple, she had multiple characters categories from her various of appearing but what about characters that appeared in multiple media? Oh, wait their isn't a category for that. You see my point. This is why you need a category for all of the characters, then subcategory based on things like gender.

        Loading editor
    • I said what I meant about being in the community, don't try to make a technical argument over semantics please. So again, you don't understand, you keep demonstrating so. The wiki should not be structured to support every possible way info can be presented. Many people have tried to argue this, its a bad idea.

      Noting absolutely everything on the wiki makes things cluttered, harder to use, appear less reliable, and other issues. Adding info isn't always a net gain. Having a long list of categories of superfluous traits goes against the things you've agreed the wiki should be.

      Expecting editors to check 3,000+ pages every time anyone on whim decides to add a new category just isn't realistic and honestly, pretty offensive. There's no way to keep up with that which in turns, makes the wiki unreliable. Where as not having those categorizes at all, doesn't affect reliability, which you failed to explain why it would. And yes, having to spend time and energy to debate if a trait categories applies to pages is very bad. Decisions should be clear enough that there shouldn't be question when applying the edits themselves en masse. The fact you aren't aware of these types of things demonstrated you aren't familiar enough with wikis in general to be having this debate.

      Again, the categories do not affect reliability and accuracy in any positive way. I told you just saying "editing shouldn't be a concern" isn't going to convince us. Facilitating good editing is what makes the wiki more reliable and accurate, the thing you say should be the main concern. Allowing random categories to be made will realistically make things less reliable when we can't keep up checking 3000 pages every time.

      I'm sorry but you really just do not know what you're talking about. I'm going to have to end it here.

        Loading editor
    • ok

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.