Category talk:Male Characters

Males
Shouldn't it be renamed males ? .. as Pirate captains, Slaves ,etc ?

Bump. This category (and female) is inconsistent with most of our other ones.

02:07, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

It's fine. One single letter is not worth the irritation of having to create a new category and replace it on every page. 02:33, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

It can be done with a bot, so it's hardly an irritation. 02:34, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with renaming it. 03:29, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, if a bot does it, I don't have a problem with both categories being renamed. But that's only if a bot does it. 13:01, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Males is better, use a bot. 13:14, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

No, no, no. Male is definitely better.... 14:12, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

How? 14:14, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

All other categories are plural, Staw. 14:20, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Plural.--

Every other category we have which describes the character is a plural. Keep in consistency. 14:50, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to go with Staw here. I don't agree with plural grammar-wise. Now, I don't know exactly how to explain it in english, but here it goes. Unlike other categories, this one has an epithet as a title, instead of a noun. Male is a word that characterises the objective of the sentence. If you want so bad to have plural, then you can use "Male Characters" as a title. The word "males" is just a bad, bad word for me..

What Vaz said. 16:05, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Male Characters works. 16:55, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Grammar is why I was against changing all the other categories to plural in the first place. SeaTerror (talk) 18:44, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

The category name is just fine as it is. No need to change it just for the sake of editing. 18:44, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

It can be done by a bot Staw, so nobody is gaining anything. 18:45, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Grammar is the reason not to change it. SeaTerror (talk) 19:11, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Male Characters is correct. 19:20, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

It's fine as is. 19:25, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Most of the people here don't seem to think that. 19:32, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a three way poll to me. All options are almost equally rooted for.

What we have is just as acceptable as the ideas proposed. The way I see it Roa just wants this so he can give his bot a workout. Don't fix what isn't broken. 19:38, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

I love all the tiny details that cause a debate. 19:58, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Don't assume DP. Roa might want to do it to make things consistent. Anyways, yeah, gonna have to poll it I guess. 20:06, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

There's no need to poll anything. Changing it would just be the pot calling the kettle black. 20:19, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Male Characters seems good.--

We either rename all the other ones, or make this one plural. Things need to be consistent so things can be done in an organized way. 14:32, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

This is not like the other words. You can't say "Males", it just sounds wrong. 14:36, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

You can, but Male Characters also works (and sounds better and more specific anyways). 14:38, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

"Males" sounds a bit awkward, but it is still grammatically correct. What Vaz is talking about is the use of "Males" as a plural noun, which it can be used for. An example of this is the phrase "preference for males" or something similar. "Male Characters" seems odd to me because none of our other categories are named "Pirate Characters" or "Shichibukai Characters". The word "characters" is unneeded. 14:46, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

@JSD : "Pirate Characters" would be unneeded since "Pirate" is a noun. Here "Male" and "Female" are adjectives, so it's different. That said, I don't really care either way. They're adjectives, the "characters" is implicit, short names are nice. On the other hand extreme consistency is nice too.

Not everything has to be perfectly 100% consistent. I'd rather have something inconsistent that works fine than replace it for the sake of replacing. It isn't hurting anything now, save for a few peoples' OCD. It's only a problem because you want it to be. You're making a mountain out a non-existent mole hill. 15:54, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

How does changing it hurt the wiki DP? Having a system keeps things organized. Can't see any advantage to keeping it the same. 15:56, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

Male is actually a noun in this context though, Sff. "Males" are what are in the category, it is not describing anything. We need to look at it from the same perspective as other categories. Luffy isn't "categorized as male" (adjective), but "categorized as a male" (noun) just like how Luffy is "categorized as a Pirate". 15:59, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

Then why do people (including you) seem to find "Category:Males" awkward and/or wrong? I for certain always thought of Luffy as "categorized as male", not "a male".

Again, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. The category has been this way for as long as I can remember, so I would think that if it were an actual issue, it would have been raised already. Any further action here is just a waste of everyone's time. Right now it's only an issue because someone wants it to be, and for no other reason. 19:14, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

It's an issue of consistency. You're making it seem like this is going to take the wiki weeks to do, when in reality, it will only take around an hour for a bot to do the whole process. 19:29, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

You people just want to change it for the sake of edit whoring. The category has been there since 2006 and nobody ever had a problem with it. Male is an adjective therefore it shouldn't be in plural and male characters goes against out consistency you keep talking about. This discussion should be closed. 19:42, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

There's a fair amount of people on each side, so it's not just gonna close.

You keep forgetting that it will be bot edits, and no "edit whoring" will be involved. 19:47, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the need to change it, as it's easier keeping things the way they are. Besty17 (talk) 20:04, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

There's no "easiest" option. It's bot work that is automated. 20:20, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

"On the other hand extreme consistency is nice too." That's just completely asinine. Consistency is bad when it comes to something that is perfectly fine and would make it grammatically incorrect. SeaTerror (talk) 20:51, October 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * Fortunately, using "Male Characters" would be grammatically correct, so no asininity here. What a relief.

I don't care how it would get edited, I care that it would be edited at all. Besty is right. The easiest and smartest option is to do nothing. And as for your "extreme consistency", it's fine until it crosses the line between consistent and obsessive compulsiveness, as is the case here. There is nothing wrong with how we have it. If there were, then the part of your driver's license that tells your sex would say "male person". True, there are circumstances in which this kind of thing would matter, but this is not one of them. 23:46, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't have even changed the others in the first place. Grammar is far more important than consistency. SeaTerror (talk) 23:51, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

They're all grammatically correct SeaTerror.

You are still not giving reasons as to how changing this is bad for the wiki at all DP. You're giving your own personal opinion on the matter. What's wrong with organization and consistency? They keep people from naming things however they please, and it shows that we actually have a system even for small things like this. 02:56, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to look at the categories then if you think they are actually grammatically correct. SeaTerror (talk) 06:14, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Changing it does nothing in either direction. Everything proposed, as well as the current category in use, is correct. Rather than waste time with a meaningless change like this, our attentions would be better focused elsewhere. We're arguing over equally acceptable synonyms for what we already have, which is just as acceptable as the ones proposed. It would be the same as if we were arguing over whether or not Monet's hair was yellow-green, or greenish yellow. Neither is better than the other and it just leads to pointless arguing over something that was never an issue in the first place. 07:22, October 24, 2013 (UTC)