Forum:Status in infobox

I think with the growing possibility that characters may die after the timeskip, it may be prudent to add a section into character infoboxes to convey their current status in the storyline. Most wikia sites do it already and I think it would be useful to avoid anything happening like this in a hypothetical scenario

-- Age x (before timeskip) -- Age x (after timeskip) (deceased)

Maybe it's just me, but this comes off as a little messy and it would be much more attractive in the article if we did it like this.

-- Age x (before timeskip) -- Age x (after timeskip) -- Status: Deceased

This would also be useful to showcase the status of characters with unknown ages, such as Rosinante.

Thoughts? --Mandon (talk) 07:05, November 23, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Bump.. --Mandon (talk) 01:26, January 11, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this sounds pretty useful to me. I like dealing with things before they become a problem. I would lean towards the first option though, since if we include "status" we'll probably get more newbs trying to make characters dead. 04:26, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

We already do it the first way. SeaTerror (talk) 05:19, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't giving options. lol I was basically comparing the system we had now to a new proposed system. As for people changing people's statuses to dead.. well that can [and has] already happened with the current system, so I'd call that a non-issue. The main concern I have is characters who don't have established ages in the series. There's no way to convey them as "dead" like we can with Ace or Whitebeard. If we displayed the status of characters in the infobox, it would basically solve this issue as well as make infoboxes more aesthetically cleaner. --Mandon (talk) 06:35, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

Oops, sorry for misunderstanding. So yeah, I wouldn't want to include a character's current status because it would lead to noobs trying to alter it. And if a character is deceased, the article does a decent job of showing that, it doesn't need to be in the infobox. 21:48, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

Is that really such a big deal though? People will already prematurely put "deceased" after a characters' age in the infobox. This changes nothing. Plus nearly every other Wikia site in existence has this system in place with no issues whatsoever. The pros outweigh the cons imo. --Mandon (talk) 00:12, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

We already do it that way anyway. Ace's page has it as deceased and if a character died post timeskip it would be there too after their post timeskip age. SeaTerror (talk) 02:45, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware, but that's also kind of the issue I have. Putting their status after their age may work well enough, but it would look a lot more clean in the article imo by having a separate area for their current status. This also lets us showcase it for characters with no disclosed ages either, like Rosinante. --Mandon (talk) 03:31, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with doing it that way. That's the ideal way to do it too since it would be inaccurate any other way. SeaTerror (talk) 04:19, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

So where do we go from here then? Poll? --Mandon (talk) 20:40, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I see no problem with adding the status of the characters on their infoboxes, it's not as if it's going to kill us to do that, and as Mandon said, it'd be more cleaner. 02:17, January 29, 2015 (UTC)

Then we can just close the forum since that's how we already do it. SeaTerror (talk) 03:26, January 29, 2015 (UTC)

We list their status after their age, which is different. I'm proposing a separate category altogether in each infobox that says "Alive" or "Deceased" --Mandon (talk) 17:56, February 1, 2015 (UTC)

No reason to make infoboxes larger than they already are. The way we do it is fine. SeaTerror (talk) 19:41, February 1, 2015 (UTC)

ST, I know you get off to it, but you cannot give your side of an argument as "we already do it this way". That just shows you can't think of anything to say about the topic.

20:36, February 1, 2015 (UTC)

ST, 99% of wiki's on the internet do it this way. Ours is the only one that doesn't. You say the way we do it is fine, but the fact that we can only list characters as "deceased" when they have an established age says otherwise. There's no reason not to change it. --Mandon (talk) 21:42, February 2, 2015 (UTC)

I might have to semi-lock a shitload of pages after this, but I'll say it: I've changed my mind. And I think that makes it a clear majority, unless someone who hasn't posted here has a problem.

Now the real question is how we move forward. Are we gonna painstakingly add this to the infoboxes manually, or attempt automation or a bot? I lean towards automation, personally, since I bet it can be done with no impact on load times and it will lead to less vandalism from newbs, because they won't know how to change it. 22:04, February 2, 2015 (UTC)

I'm against this whole status thing. It's just going to spark debates about whether character X is dead or not. 22:18, February 2, 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so maybe we need a bit more discussion. But still, we should discuss options of how we can deal with this. 22:30, February 2, 2015 (UTC)

I'm still in favor of having a status for alive/dead, but I'd prefer a bot doing this kind of work. Why deal with automation? 22:53, February 2, 2015 (UTC)

That's one of those things all wikis deal with Awai, including ours, even now. [Doflamingo anyone?] There really isn't much difference from people adding (deceased) to a character's age and changing their status from : Alive to : Deceased. Same problem, different place in the infobox. --Mandon (talk) 06:07, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

Not the same. Currently, if a character's fate is unknown, we can just say that in the article and refrain from marking them as "deceased". However, with the status section, we only have two options: claiming that they're alive or claiming that they're dead. Take Bluejam for example - Either option would be speculation.

I really don't see a problem with the current way of doing things. If you want the status for unknown-age characters that much, then maybe just put "Age: Unknown (deceased)". 10:25, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

I like M4ND0N's idea, about those with unknown statuses, just set them as unknown. Awa's post above is fine with me too. As for the automation, if it's easily possible I'd prefer it, if not let just do this manually.

Awai, to imply that there will only be too options is jumping the gun. We can easily code it in a way that lets you write out whatever you please in the status section. Could be alive, deceased, incapacitated, unknown, etc. In addition, your idea of listing an ageless character's age as unknown in order to convey the fact that they're dead just contributes to the problem, in that it would make the articles even more sloppy looking. This solution solves both problems, the age dilema and the needless mess that comes with putting (deceased) at the end of a character's age There's nothing wrong with having a section to note a character's status, and instead of offering alternate solutions to the age problem, you should offer a compelling reason why we shouldn't change the current system. --Mandon (talk) 19:45, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

"Needless mess" Citation needed for your opinion. SeaTerror (talk) 20:01, February 3, 2015 (UTC)
 * Citation needed for the effectiveness of using the phrase "citation needed" as the basis for your argument. 01:48, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

It's mainly been a potential problem that's been nagging at me for awhile now. When we have two separate ages for characters, pre-timeskip and post-timeskip, after the timeskip. It has worked fine up until now for characters like Ace, Whitebeard and Vergo, but if a character that's appeared in both halves of the story with an established age dies, I think it will ultimately look more messy [opinions on this may vary] than it did for other cases, so there's that.. as well as the issue of character ages and the inability to express their current status unless they have said age established, and then finally there may be situations where a character's status is unknown. By doing this, we get more options and neater infoboxes. That's all I meant. --Mandon (talk) 20:30, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

The only thing we'll get is an infobox that is longer than they need to be. SeaTerror (talk) 20:33, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

If the only counterargument you can think up is that it makes the "Infoboxes longer than they need to be" then you're grasping at straws. Big time. There's absolutely no aesthetic downside to doing it this way. Will it technically make them longer? Sure. Will it compromise the aesthetic appeal of the infobox? No. Every wikia does it this way, and there's more benefit to changing it than not. --Mandon (talk) 05:19, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to prove every wiki does it that way now. Not to mention that's a terrible argument claiming that just because a different wiki does it that way then we should to. You also have not backed up how there is any benefit at all. SeaTerror (talk) 05:25, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

I could list countless wikia sites that do it this way, including the wikia sites for Naruto, Fairy Tail, Attack on Titan, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, Sons of Anarchy, The Walking Dead, etc etc, just to name a few off the top of my head.. but you're right, it isn't a very good argument to use, I was simply pointing out that a very large number of wikia sites use this system with great success.

Now, as for your statement that I didn't back up how there is any benefit at all, that's a blatant fallacy. I explained exactly what the benefits are, but in case you failed to read what I said, I'll list said benefits again.


 * The ability to list a character's status even if they don't have an established age.


 * More options in regards to specifying a character's status.


 * A cleaner, more organized, more aesthetically pleasing infobox. [last part is subjective obviously]

If you're asking me to back up that these things are beneficial, then that's a completely unrealistic request to make of me. There's no way to prove that a proposition is beneficial.. but with that being said, I can easily show you that this system works. Whether you consider it better or worse than our current way of doing things is subjective. But the thing about subjectivity is that it's the furthest thing from a viable counterargument. As of right now I've listed several benefits of changing the system, while you've listed one that isn't even that legitimate. Instead of trying to poke holes in my argument where there are none, why don't you actually come up with a legitimate reason why we shouldn't change the current system? --Mandon (talk) 05:53, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

I know the wikia warns you about spoilers, but I seriously think this would just be too much of a spoiler. People like to look up trivia or certain things on a character, and it would suck to be spoiled like that. 04:42, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

That's not an argument to make. This wiki is full of spoilers and I don't see how Age: 20 (deceased) is less of a spoiler than Status: Deceased. Mandon (talk) 21:50, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Mandon is right. We even have a warning on the main page for visitors not caught up to the series yet about spoilers on here. If they continue on, and spoil themselves, not our problem. 22:16, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

Poll Discussion
It seems like we're moving towards a poll here, since the argument is currently going in circles. We can keep the main discussion going, but we should start making movement towards closing this. What options should the poll include? 22:19, February 7, 2015 (UTC)


 * A status category for the infobox that's coded with specific options ranging from Alive, Deceased, Incapacitated, Presumed Deceased to Unknown.


 * A status category for the infobox that's coded to allow users to write out the status in the editer.


 * Leave it as is

Off the top of my head, those are the only options I can think of. --Mandon (talk) 02:44, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

We got rid of that category ages ago since it was completely speculative. We do not want a presumed deceased category. SeaTerror (talk) 03:31, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

That's fair. Alive, Deceased, Incapacitated and Unknown sound good then? Mandon (talk) 17:29, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

Unknown might start edit wars and incapacitated isn't needed. At the very most it should be Alive, Deceased/dead, and Unknown. SeaTerror (talk) 19:55, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

There are circumstances where Unknown might be needed though. But yeah incapacitated.. not so much. I'm all for those three options. Mandon (talk) 21:19, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

"Unknown" is definitely necessary if you want to avoid arguments. 21:21, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm for Alive, Deceased, and Unknown. Unknown will probably cause some edit wars, but it'll be better than the edit wars we will definitely get if we only have Alive and Deceased. 21:22, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

Let's have a poll for the adding the section in general, and then a separate poll for if we should include Unknown. Sound fair? I've typed it up. Make any minor phrasing changes you want (keep it fair-sounding), but discuss larger changes.

One week test phase, but should the poll itself be one week or two? I have no idea, personally. 04:01, February 9, 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like there's much opposition for Unknown, so I don't think that needs a separate poll. And honestly the status section would NEED an unknown option, because some charaters' statuses simply are, well, unknown. It's not like the "Presumed Deceased" category that was based on speculation, it's basically just us saying "we don't know". 11:47, February 9, 2015 (UTC)

I'm personally unconvinced of unknown (I could go either way at this point), and ST's against it. If I throw my lot in with ST, that's not a very clear majority. Just poll it and it will work itself out. 03:18, February 11, 2015 (UTC)

Unconvinced? Then please explain to me how you would handle characters like Bluejam without an unknown option. Or Kadar, whose history section even straight up says "his current status is unknown". 20:33, February 11, 2015 (UTC)

We would just say that they are alive. I probably would vote for unknown (hesitantly), but I still want the option polled, as it suddenly popping up after a poll would surprise people who never read these forums. But arguing about that is for the other section, this is about the poll.

Now, should we push off the start of it because this discussion has been slow? And how long should it be, 1 or 2 weeks? These are the questions that actually need answering in this section. Anything else is unrelated. 05:47, February 14, 2015 (UTC)

I guess I'm just gonna say 1 week if nobody else cares. 00:47, February 15, 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with polling the "Unknown" status in a separate section. I'm also fine with one week long for voting too. 00:52, February 15, 2015 (UTC)

Post Poll Discussion
Alright, the poll agreed on creating a new section for status in the infoboxes. "Unknown" status was also allowed. I went ahead and added the status section to the Char Box template, so I guess all that's left now is deciding the exact wording of the statuses and then adding the section to every single character infobox on the wiki.

Does anyone have a problem with "Alive", "Deceased" and "Unknown"? 20:22, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

Just talk to Roa, we need to discuss automation options, that's the best way to do this. 20:34, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

Ah, a good old fashioned poll, where all the people against it before the poll mysteriously changed their minds or forgot to vote entirely. I think those options are fine, since it removes discussion about whether individual people - for example, Moriah - fit into Alive or Deceased.

20:35, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

"Alive", "Deceased", and "Unknown" are good enough for me. I don't really want to make this automated, though. 16:11, February 24, 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with those terms, automation's certainly possible,but I don't like it as it might restrict the flexibility of the infoboxes, but if most people want automation we can work on it. As far as adding those parameters, a bot might be able to take care of it.

To be fair there doesn't really need to be flexibility. "Alive, Deceased, and Unknown" pretty much cover it all. --Mandon (talk) 00:08, February 26, 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't really want it to be automated. 00:41, February 27, 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Don't automate it. Status only matters if they are anything but alive. 00:53, February 27, 2015 (UTC)

Automated would be a bit too risky, so people should do it themselves. Otherwise sounds good 00:58, February 27, 2015 (UTC)

Just automate it so that alive is default, deceased if the article has the deceased category and then only unknown is left as a manual input. 01:08, February 27, 2015 (UTC)

Maybe instead of automating that a character's status would appear as deceased by giving them the Deceased Characters category, maybe it could be the other way around where putting them as deceased in the infobox would automatically add the category Deceased Characters? I don't really mind filling out the infoboxes, and it's better to be safe rather than leave it to automation. 01:20, February 27, 2015 (UTC)

I'd also be fine with contributing to that and manually changing individual infoboxes, if it's coded into the template. --Mandon (talk) 01:43, February 28, 2015 (UTC)

I'm against anything being automated since people will just add characters as deceased and make it a pain in the ass to remove. SeaTerror (talk) 02:46, February 28, 2015 (UTC)

I agree, which makes it a clear majority against doing it automated. --Mandon (talk) 04:43, February 28, 2015 (UTC)

Well, how about just code the that makes the character alive if the parameter isn't there, 1 = unknown, 2 = deceased? Is that possible? Simple, yet doesn't use the word "deceased" or anything like it so that people don't add it to characters that don't need it. 04:50, February 28, 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Mandon (talk) 07:47, February 28, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, let's go with JSD's suggestion. 17:54, March 1, 2015 (UTC)

That's still automation. SeaTerror (talk) 18:23, March 1, 2015 (UTC)


 * That's really not automation.... 03:27, March 4, 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with JSD's suggestion, let's go with it. 03:27, March 4, 2015 (UTC)