Forum:Categories

Copy of Talk pages discussion between Mugiwara Franky and Kdom on categorization
Umm, Devil Fruit users and Devil Fruits kinda would both fall under two category. The main category that identify them as Devil Fruit users and Devil Fruits respectively and the sub category that identifies the type.Mugiwara Franky 23:17, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

more than one category  I'm trying to make a clear category Tree (as you may see from my number edits from today). My logic is to not pollute the categor~ies who already contain a Subcategory more pertinent.

To put the Devil Fruit in the Devil Fruit category is useless if it is already in the correct Subcategory Zoan, Paramecia or Logia (which is the case for all of them). We already know they are Devil Fruit just by looking at their name. Whereas the Rumble Ball article is clearly in focus when all the Devil Fruit links are suppressed. That's also why I have created the to put all the Zoan Users in it instead to have all of them in the Category:Devil Fruit Users. This category would only contain the 3 sub-categories.

In the same way, when an article had 2 categories Pirate and Organizations, I have replaced them with Pirates Organizations and made a link from this new subcategory to Pirates and Organizations.

The start of the tree is at Category:One Piece Wiki, I really think that it is the way categories shall be used but you tell me if I'm wrong

Kdom 23:38, January 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * But they still kinda fall under the main category. A main category typically categorizes articles in a large category. A sub category categorizes articles in smaller categories. If you just state the sub category, then one won't know they belong to a larger category.


 * Think of a collection of books. Books that are fictional would fall under fiction. Fictional books that are about pirates would fall under pirate fiction. If we were to put a classification on One Piece, we would classify it under pirate fiction. To categorize One Piece thus, we would need to put it in pirate fiction. However, if we don't classify it also as fiction, one would think that pirate fiction is a main category and categorizing it would be much harder.Mugiwara Franky 23:56, January 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Not in the case where the Sub category links directly to the category. Logia, Zoan, Paramecia Fruit are just one link below Devil Fruit, it is not that difficult to find. Especially when there is only these links left. And since the 3 Sub-categories links to the mother Devil Fruit it is true for both side.


 * Well I'm sorry I'm in UTC+1 and I really need to go to bed now. I'm not working tomorrow, so maybe I can continue the discussion Kdom 00:08, January 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Typical categorization of stuff usually include the sub category as well as the main category in most categorizations. Though there is a link, it kinda does not exempt it from the ruling used in most libraries and other similar establishments. True, the wikia is not a physical establishment but it doesn't mean it's articles shouldn't be arranged as if they were in one.


 * Besides there can be a little problem in just listing down the sub category. If a person would wish to look for similar articles belonging to a main category, they would unfortunately be forced to go through several links instead of just one. This maybe not a problem for articles like most Devil Fruits that have just one link to go through but it can be a problem for those articles that are completely different but fall under the same general jurisdiction. Take the Butler group template for instance. I wish to locate the main major category which contains the every template from there so I can find a specific template that is different. To do that I have to go through . Then I have to go through . Then I have to go to Category:Templates. When I get there unfortunately find that the specific template I want to find is located somewhere else. So I have to go to . Then I have to go to . Ultimately, I went through five links when I could have just made one if both the Butler template and the template I was looking for were both place together in the same category.Mugiwara Franky 02:52, January 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * That you have to go through 5 links to go from the Butler group template to the just proves that they have nothing related beside being Templates. If I'm wrong then the best way is to create another category which make the link between the 2 easier, if I'm true then it was simpler to start from the Category:Templates directly (there are several ways to do that easily).
 * I understand that your method is quicker from time to time but there is a huge drawback which is a large amount of links in the mother categories. I really wonder if your research is quicker when your Template is in the middle of 100 of others (Especially when their names are sometime confusing, there is a huge job to do on that matter). Plus how do you decide in which mother category do you stop the link ? After all, Devil Fruits are categorized in the Category:Abilities, shall we put them all in this category too ?
 * Moreover,it does make impossible to notice the articles which does not belong to a Subcategorie (Cf Rumble Ball) and that makes it difficult to see if the categorization is well done
 * I recognize however that it is done like that in other wiki, which I'm surprised of since I find it usually uneffective in a maintenance point of view
 * Kdom 09:03, January 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed the method is rather long and harder to maintain to a certain point, it is kinda the norm in categorizing standards. When you classify a book or object, you always state the main category along with the sub category. That way, you know where to place the object first and it'll be easier to look for.


 * For hundreds of articles within a main category, that's what the sub category section is for. They help a user pinpoint a certain article if they have a hard time finding an article. They help narrow down the search. It's like a search engine like Google. If want something, you first type down something general for what you are looking for. If you want it narrowed down, you write more specifications.


 * True, just writing down the subcategories eliminates some of the long process as it makes people just go directly to what they want. However, this doesn't help people who don't know the exact specifications of what they want. Take my example again. Pretend I'm a new user that isn't familiar with the templates. I want to edit an infobox template. I go to the template category via the Butler template starting point. I look at the main template category. I know that the template I'm looking for probably has to do with infobox but I don't know what it's called or even the proper name of the box. I look through the available templates listed in the main templates category. I can't find it. I then notice that the main category has sub categories so the template I'm looking for is somewhere there instead. I unfortunately don't know what sub category that template belongs to. So I have to look in each and every sub category until I find it. If the template I was looking for was listed down in the main category as well in the sub category, the chances of me finding the right template would at least be increased.


 * It maybe farfetched but I'm sure not everyone who comes to the wikia knows that character A like Marco and character B like Crocodile are two different types of Devil Fruit users.


 * For Devil Fruits being placed in the Abilities category, that probably would be going too far however they do belong in the main category of Devil Fruits as they are Devil Fruits.


 * For stuff like articles being placed in the wrong category, it's something we maybe have to deal with.


 * For large lists in general, which is more important? Devising a system so that only the most experienced can look through articles in order to maintain them, or having a user friendly system in order to aid those unfamiliar with the wikia in looking for the right article.Mugiwara Franky 15:24, January 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I will accept what the majority does, since it is done like that everywhere. Concerning the Template however, I don't say what I have done is perfect, most of them were uncategorised (the Special:UncategorizedTemplates page should be empty tomorrowà and they were no sub-categories. At least the good point is that most of the ones which are not in a sub-category could be candidate for delation. I'm not against having some typical templates such as a box or a Navibox in the main category (like a Template:Example of Navibox which redirect to one of them for example), but having all of them is good either.


 * Concerning the tree architecture, I can start a topic somewhere what is the best place ? Maybe the Forum:Index/Site_Problems. Kdom 15:56, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a real opinion on this... But I do look at it this way:


 * Are there more then 4 items in the subcategory: if so then the category is a "Yes"
 * Is a person LIKELY to look it up? i.e. "Villians" is so then "yes"
 * has the subcategory got only a fair % of whats in a main category? (i.e. Straw hat crewmembers = a main catergory -> Female characters of the = Sub-category: -> not need as there are only TWO and therefore not needed.)
 * On the one hand is there only a few items NOT in the main category but in the sub category>: (again this time with male, in which there are all but TWO members, might as well have just "crewmembers" and not bother with seperate).
 * Is there a MAJOR factor involved that seperates the things in the sub from the main. Marines -> Marine rankings = okay to have. But "rum" is okay to have in category "drink" but "rum TYPES" would not be a suitable subcategory for "Drinks".

Thats my thoughts on categories and subcategories. Everything is open to circumstances even at then. But we don't have "Hair colour" and so forth as some categories are open to arguments like this. I for one as an artist know some colours exist that fall between the lines so to be metaphorically. One-Winged Hawk 16:54, January 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * These are my only thoughts on categories and sub categories, its a minor issue to be quite frank. So long as pages are there with categories, and there are no duplicates... Everything else is not really important. Whether or not we have main and subcategories aren't that much of a big deal as it seems to have been made into here. At the end of the day, categories just make finding articles easier. If their doing the job, cool, if their not then we've got a major problem instead of a minor one. One-Winged Hawk 18:25, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Category Tree
The categories in the wiki are not very well organised, some of them like the Category:Trivia Pages or contained completely unrelated things, some other pages like One Piece International were really isolated so I thought the best way was to create a Category Tree architecture and maybe clarify some of the categories. It seems this can not be done without discussion so here is my proposal, please try not undo them until we agree on something. Maybe the result shall be displayed in the mother category for newcommers.

So I have chosen Category:One Piece Wiki as the mother category. It was almost empty beside This category is for all articles related to this wiki. which is quite good for what it is for.

One Piece Wiki
 * ---One Piece contains all the things related to One Piece in general
 * |---Manga all about the manga
 * |---Anime all about the anime
 * |---One Piece World all about the One piece universe (Characters, Devil Fruit...)
 * |--- well I didn't know what to do about this one, I put the Trivia and Terms categories
 * ---One Piece International Maybe has to be put in the Category:One Piece
 * ---Help Pages contains all the help pages, in particular the Category:One Piece Encyclopedia which contains most of the rules pages
 * ---Information : Contains all the informative articles
 * ---Templates : Contains all the templates
 * |--- well I didn't know what to do about this one, I put the Trivia and Terms categories
 * ---One Piece International Maybe has to be put in the Category:One Piece
 * ---Help Pages contains all the help pages, in particular the Category:One Piece Encyclopedia which contains most of the rules pages
 * ---Information : Contains all the informative articles
 * ---Templates : Contains all the templates
 * ---Information : Contains all the informative articles
 * ---Templates : Contains all the templates
 * ---Templates : Contains all the templates
 * ---Templates : Contains all the templates

Maybe we should also add a link to the Forum at the root or nearby. I think that the main categories which content are subject to discussion are, Category:One Piece Encyclopedia and. The Category:Miscellaneous also need to be updated, I'm not sure it is good to have such a category. Kdom 16:50, January 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * This structure is quite useful. I agree with it in general but I think that the main category should be Category:One Piece Encyclopedia and not Category:One Piece Wiki. It's unlogical to keep both categories since Wiki and Encyclopedia are synonyms, and I would propose to keep the Encyclopedia category because it includes much more articles then the Wiki category. Category:Miscellaneous also seem to be dispensable, we could put all articles form there in other categories and delete it. El Chupacabra 15:56, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Well like I said I choose an empty category because it is hard to work on a category which contains a lot of links since they are impossible to redirect. One Piece Encyclopedia contains all the rule pages which starts with One Piece Encyclopedia (like the FAQ, the community portal...) which does not need to be in the main category but in the help or information one. Since that means a lot of work I kept it like it is. Kdom 20:32, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

A little category thing
Lately, I've been noticing kinda alot of categories taken out from some characters and images and being replaced for sub categories. Now, I know that this is in good faith but it's kinda going against how stuff are commonly organized especially within libraries or museums which the wikia is kind falls together with. In the normal library setup, an article or anything is categorized firstly within main category. It is then categorized within a sub category. However, when it is categorized into a smaller sub category, it does not mean it's entry within the main category should be taken out. If it's entry is then it's entry within the sub category is somewhat voided.

Now I know that the wikia is not a regular library or a museum but having Category:Pirates and it's sub category Category:Whitebeard Pirates together on a character that falls under such categories is not too much as such a character does fall under such a category. I'm not asking for a list of categories that go all the way to the top of the wikia in the category tree, just the essential ones and their sub categories.Mugiwara Franky 19:07, February 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I admit that I remove the One piece media category when I found it since I'm creating file categories more specific. This category did not have particular themes beside being a file and I found that not particulary usefull given the high number of files. But I have used your method for lower level ( cover images contain all the subcateries ones) Kdom 23:59, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Categories and Subcategories
If a page is categorized in a subcategory it shouldn't be categorized in the more general category. For example a Logia Devil Fruit user should be categorized a in Category:Logia Devil Fruit users but not in the more general Category:Devil Fruit Users. Otherwise the subcategory become superfluous because it's unnecessary to have a subcategory which is completely covered by the main category. El Chupacabra 14:27, February 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * I kinda stated my reason for doing so both above and in the Category talk for the Devil Fruit user. Listing down both the general Devil Fruit user category and the different type of Devil Fruit user does not make the sub category superfluous. In any library or museum setting, the proper way is to list down both the main category and the sub category. Listing an item in a main category, puts it in a broad list of similar items. Listing it down in a sub category, puts it in a list sub divided based on what is placed in the main list. One can put an item in a main category but no sub category especially if the item does not fit in any sub category. One cannot however place an item only in a sub category and not in the main category. It has to be in the main category i order for it to be in the sub category.


 * Take this for example, you are given a list of foods. You are asked to categorize the list by plants and meats. You divide them. Once you do so, do you give to your boss one half of the lists, two separated lists, or one list with the foods divided. To further make a point, you are also asked to categorize further the plant list by vegetables and fruits. You divide the plant list. After doing so, do you submit one list containing just the plants divided, or submit a list that not only divides the plants but also lists down the meats as well.Mugiwara Franky 15:47, February 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Here are some common definitions of Category and Subcategory as they form the basis of part of my understanding of the matter. Mugiwara Franky 15:53, February 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Mugiwara Franky is right, there is no need to create something like Category:Logia Devil Fruit user or the like and drop the Category:Devil Fruit Users! It's more convenient the way it is right now actually!! MasterDeva 18:19, February 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a difference between a library and a wiki. If a page is categorized in a sub-category it becomes indirectly categorized in the main category. The subcategory is just more precise then the more general category. However, if all pages in a subcategory are directly categorized in a category, there is no need for it. Your example above proves that you didn't understand what I intend. In your terms, categorizing pages both into the subcategory and the main category is the same as providing both the two lists of fruits and vegetables and the list of plants, which is the same as the two lists together. I think the categories Category:Devil Fruit Users and Category:Non-Canon should become umbrella categories similar to Category:Anime or Category:Characters. They should include only a number of subcategories. However, if you think that the subcategories are superfluous, we can alternatively delete them and keep just the main categories. They were created recently. Categorizing articles in both (as of now) is just stupid. El Chupacabra 14:48, February 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see the subcategories as superfluous however I do see the Devil Fruit user and Non Canon categories differently. I don't see them as super huge umbrella categories. I only see them as the middle man. A category that's called Characters is vastly broader than one that's called Marines. A category that's called Devil Fruit users however isn't that much broader than one called Logia Devil Fruit users. I mean it's just one small step from being the same thing. Mugiwara Franky 15:17, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

This is how I see the situation. The yellow shapes represent articles. The blue shapes represent sub categories. The red shapes represent categories. The green shapes represent super umbrella categories. The whole chart represents the wikia.

If you would want to categorize a certain red shape, you would mention the name of the green shape it is in. If you would want to categorize a certain blue shape, you would want to mention the red shape that it is in. If you want to categorize a certain yellow shape, you would have to mention the blue shape it is in.

Now in a typical library setting, if you are asked to locate a certain yellow shape and categorize it, you would have to mention it's location from the very top to the very bottom. This is a bit unnecessary to point for a place like the wikia since it goes a bit to far. The red shapes however are labeled differently so they are worth mentioning as they can help. The blue shapes next are also labeled differently so they are also mentioning as they can help more.

Now here is here is the problem, the labels for the blue shapes are only slightly different than the red labels they are in. True the labels are different in a sense, but they are so similar that you might just as well only mention the red label. However, because the yellow shapes are grouped differently, you have to mention the blue shape label as it can really help in location and categorization. So in order to help locate and categorize a yellow shape, it is best to mention it's unique red shape label first to help start the search and then mention the blue shape label next to narrow down the search. Mugiwara Franky 16:27, February 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * There's also a problem caused when you just mention a sub category. When I decided to do a major edit across several pages due to some slight mishap caused by another editor, I had to find a place where I can easily find all the affected pages in one go. The problem was, all the affected pages were mentioned in just sub categories and not in any main category. So in order to fix the problem, I had to jump from one sub category to another. Really tedious.


 * Now this maybe just a problem for me, but it does point out a flaw. If somebody wants to look for a more broader set of similar pages to maybe edit or something else, they would have to jump way too many times. Narrowing the category path helps, but it doesn't mean you should completely chop it up and take away the sections just for minor differences such as rank or type. Mugiwara Franky 16:35, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

We started out with it being listed as MF puts it, when did it change? I know I haven't been paying much attention to this as I let you guys get on with it but I'll agree with MF here. Its silly to have them in the sub-cats and not the main cats as well. And I hate to say it, we're basically a "library" these days (hardly "Encyclopedic at all anymore). One-Winged Hawk 19:33, February 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should write it somewhere, because I had the same discussion with MF not so long ago, so it seems like it can be a common misunderstanding Kdom 19:56, February 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not against subcategories in general, I just think that they should be used properly. The subcategories of Category:Non-Canon are an example of bad usage. All articles in subcategory categorized three times: e.g. as ships, as Non-Canon and as Non-Canon ships. However if an article is categorized i the last on, it becomes clear that it is a ship and that it's non-canon. There is no need for a categorizing the page in the other two categories as well. As to the Devil fruit users and the Devil Fruits, I have an idea how to re-organize these categories, so that the subcategories would become surerfluous. Articles in a category are ordered by the first letter. If we'll put an "L", "P" or "Z" in front of the article's name when categorizing them in this category then the articles in these categories will be divided in three groups. We would then see a complete list of fruits or users, divided in three groups by the kind of power. I think that this is better than having a main category and three subcategories. What do you think about this idea? El Chupacabra 14:09, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Having a L, Z or P in front of every Devil Fruit page title is a bad idea in my honest opinion. Just leave the categories/subcategories as they are now since there are no actual problems with this system. MasterDeva 14:31, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * The subcategories of Category:Non-Canon are kinda an example however their creation was at most in good faith by Kdom believe. From what I gather, he subdivided them in order to create a narrower list that shows certain differences.


 * For categories in general, it is kinda a main objective to categorize articles based on what available categories there are. It's kinda the organized way if not common sense. For articles that are Non-Canon ships, they would fall under the categories that are available for them to fall under. Since there is a Non-Canon category, they would fall under Non-Canon. Since there is a ship category, they would fall under ship also. Since there is a Non-Canon Ship category, they would fall under Non-Canon Ships lastly. While putting them in just the Non-Canon Ship category would be simpler since it is understood that they are Non-Canon ships, you are however not accounting that if you exclude them from the two other categories, you are making the two other categories incomplete. The Non-Canon category is meant to list all the Non-Canon things. The Ship category is meant to list all the ships. A Non-Canon ship falls under these two categories by simply being called Non-Canon Ships.


 * For the Devil Fruit user and their fruits rearrangement proposal, it's a bit of a hassle in a way especially when it kinda forces people to take note of the letter which is not something everybody who visits the wikia takes note of. While it would create three lists in the category page arranged by type, it's really no different than creating three separate sub categories. It's also rather an unorthodox way of arranging things in a category. The basics of any category based on most library settings and this wikia is that the articles categorized in it are arranged via alphabetically. If certain articles in the category are different from one another, they are given a sub category.


 * In light of this proposal, you have to also account for those Devil Fruits that can't be easily placed in this type of rearrangement at the moment. Take Sengoku, Tsuru, and those other Devil Fruit users who can't easily be identified. They would have no place in the new order of things. While you could make a fourth section to place them in, it's kinda just of a hassle as making the other three sections. Mugiwara Franky 14:41, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if he wanted to narrow the Non-Canon category, then the stuff should be placed only in the more precise category. Putting every article in every category it can fit in is a bad idea, because then every single article would be categorized in Category:One Piece because they all are somehow related to One Piece. I order to keep categories narrow, it is the most appropriate to categorize an article in the most precise category. As in the chart above, where all yellow shapes are in the blue shapes. putting them into less precise category would mean that the would appear in the red and green shapes as well. If you think that it better to have a long but complete instead of a number of smaler lists in an umbrella category, then delete the subcategories. Anyway, I don't think that there are many users who want a complete list of Non-Canon ships. If there are some, they can still compare the list in category:Non-Canon with the one in category:Ships. As to the Devil Fruit categories: If you think that people doesn't care about the kind of devil fruits, why do you want to keep the subcategories? It would not be too confusing. The category would contain four lists of Fruits/users (the unknown fruits can get an "U" prefix), and in these lists pages would be arranged in alpahbetical order. El Chupacabra 15:17, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * For placing every article in the category of One Piece, that is where I draw the line because it is abit unnecessary as the the various articles contained in the wikia are very broad in topic. However for the smaller categories, you have to place the necessary articles in to the necessary categories as they are narrower in topic.


 * For the chart above, I made it to state a point. While the yellow shapes were placed in the blue shapes to show the point, it does not mean they are not part of the red shapes and green shapes their blue shapes belong to.


 * For the categories, a long complete list would be more sufficient, however a smaller sub list would be aid in searching. A Main Category helps people in searching for topics in a broad scope. Sub categories help people in searching for topics in narrower scope. Both scopes are helpful as they cater to the different styles of searching that people have.


 * The Non-Canon ship category kinda helps people in a way. It narrows down contents found in both the ship and the Non-Canon categories. While you can say that there aren't that many people who would want a list of Non-Canon ships, how sure can you back such a claim? There can be some people who looking at a long list of ships, would want to know which are Non-Canon right away. There can be some people who looking at a long list of Non-Canon stuff, would want to know which are ships right away. While making them compare two lists would be a solution, it is not a user friendly solution. Not everybody can easily point out in a common denominator in two large lists.


 * For the Devil Fruits, I don't think I said that I believe that people don't care about the type of fruit. I am for both a main category and sub categories as I believe that both styles would benefit different types of people. My biff however is the fact of not including the articles contained within subcategories into a main category when the difference of topic is not that broad


 * For the rearrangement, you really have to consider the common person. Throughout the wikia, the category system lists down articles via alphabetically, that is the only form of listing present in them. Based on this, when joe average thus categorizes an article for the first time, he gets that it is alphabetically arranged in the category automatically. However the style you are proposing for the Devil Fruits would kinda confuse joe. When joe categorizes a Devil Fruit into the category and sees a different type of listing, some questions would come to mind. If he does not know what L,P,Z, and U stand for, he will wonder why the category is arranged as thus. If he does know what the letters stand for but does not know how to list an article into the appropriate letter, he will wonder why he categorized an article like Lion Lion Fruit and it appears in the L section.Mugiwara Franky 16:16, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

El, from what I gather from the beginning, what you are asking for is a straight precise point of direction. You want the articles to be precisely pointed to one category but you are not taking into account of people who would want a broad point of direction.

You also want a different style of categorizing things in order to eliminate sub categories. You however are not taking into account that such an unorthodox use of the system is not something anybody can pick up on.Mugiwara Franky 16:22, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems that the only reason why the non-canon subcategories were created was to narrow the main Non-Canon category. However, the creator of these categories should confirm this. If this is true, then the existance of these categories is only justified when the articles categorized in them do not appear in the more general categories. And as to the devil fruit categories, we can expalain the system in the text at the top of the category. Joe would read the text and understand the system. New Devil Fruits and Users do not appear that often, so that we can monitor the category and correct the categorization if neccessary. After a short while all users should be aware of the system and I'm sure that they won't try to categorize the pages in a different way. El Chupacabra 16:30, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

You kinda don't need to have Kdom confirm the fact as it can be inferred by common sense. For the Devil Fruit categories, giving joe too many instructions when there is a simplier way of doing things is not helpful. Also you cannot speculate that on the rate how many of Devil Fruits and users appear often. Take what's happened since Sabaody, a ridiculous number of Devil Fruits have appeared in such a short time and we don't even have half of their names. As for people becoming aware of the system. Everybody here was aware of the current system since day one and yet you are trying to categorize the pages in a different way now. So how sure can you say that such a thing won't happen again.Mugiwara Franky 16:41, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I just think that we should follow the categorization policy of wikipedia and other wikias, which says: Articles should be placed in the lowest level category possible. They do not need a category declaration toward every category that would logically contain it. A single, well targeted category declaration will place that article in a category which will itself be properly contained (subcategorized). Categorization. I proposed the modified way of categorizing the Devil Fruits because I took your opinion into account, I wanted to propose a compromise between your system. Since you don't like my proposal, let's just follow the wikipedia policy. El Chupacabra 16:44, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * We are not wikipedia and shouldn't always follow their ruling to the letter. The compromise you proposed may take into account of what I want and what you want, but it doesn't take into account of other people.


 * Here is another chart and it kinda best describes the state of the wikia. In this chart it is more dynamic. The green shape is the umbrella category. The red shapes are the main categories. The blue shapes are the sub categories. They are not labeled but can convey an idea.


 * Here are some questions and instructions that can be asked in regards to this chart.


 * What yellow shapes can be found in the red rectangle?
 * What yellow shapes can be found in the blue rectangle of the red rectangle?
 * Which yellow shape can found in the red rectangle and the red circle?
 * Pick a yellow shape and then name the location of the shape so that even though they are not labeled, a fellow person would be much closer to picking the same shape as the one you picked.


 * Mugiwara Franky 16:50, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I show this very elementary type of quiz as common sense seems to be lacking in regards to how these articles should be categorized.Mugiwara Franky


 * Of course we are not wikipedia, but we are based on them, and if they have a good policy, i see no reason why we shouldn't obey them. As to the other people: If there are some who have a third opinion, they should express it. I don't want to speculate about their thoughts. As to your second chart: I think that all yellow shapes that belong in the red rectangle should be placed there. However, since the blue rectangle itself is already placed in the red rectangle, none of the yellow shapes which were put in the blue rectangle should be placed directly in the red one. If a shape fits into the red circle and into the blue rectangle, it should be put into both. it is then indirectly put into the red rectangle, and doesn't need to be categorized there directly. If a yellow shape fits both in the blue rectangle and the blue square it should be categorized in both blue shapes but not in the red circle and the red rectangle. El Chupacabra 17:11, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * We maybe based on Wikipedia but we stray a lot from it in order to be a different site. Also a good policy there is not necessarily a good policy here. They have a good policy there about limiting fictional character histories there. Should we follow that as well.


 * For the chart, you have some points there however you did not answer part of the the questions properly. The first question is asking for what yellow shapes are found in the red rectangle. The blue rectangle is found in the red rectangle. But are you going to say that the yellow shapes found in the blue rectangle are not in the red rectangle also? Do the contents of the blue shape do not belong as well to red shape. Mugiwara Franky 17:33, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is another chart in regards to this. The box labeled blue is in the box labeled red and the question I ask is how many balls are in the box labeled red? Mugiwara Franky 17:44, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Ah... Guys... This is getting silly now. I tried to follow this but thus far without the aid of MF's diagrams this has reached the point of silliness for those of us who don't quite get whats being spoken about anymore. This issue needs to be resolved fast, its delaying things too far. I mean this out of respect, but if you can't resolve it quickly - vote on it and have done with it. One-Winged Hawk 17:50, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) El wants to have just articles with just the subcategory and not in the main category.
 * 2) I try explaining the need for them to be in both in the subcategory and the main category.
 * 3) In light of some my comments, El comes up with a very unorthodox method of categorizing the Devil Fruits and their users thus eliminating the sub categories altogether.
 * 4) I try explaining that it can't be done.
 * 5) El wants now to go back to just listing down the subcategory based on Wikipedia's rules.

Mugiwara Franky 18:00, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * One the one note, thanks for listing the debate that is fast pushing others out of the loop here. On the other, it still doesn't solve the problem of resolving the issue at hand. Wikpedia isn't always worth noting their categories tend to be "whatever one editor thinks they should be". One-Winged Hawk 18:16, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok about the non-canon subcategories, I created them after myself and Mugiwara Franky agreed on the procedure to categorize things (Cf here. However it's true, that both methods have their flaws. For example, when I wanted to make the List of non canon characters page in the similar way of the canon one, the non canon category was not really usefull because it contained a lot of thing that were not characters, that is why I created the Category:Non-Canon Characters. Concerning the Devil Fruit, I had the same concern as El Chupacabra, that is why I put the Devil Fruit template in the category. They are identified by type in it so there is no need to add letters prefix Kdom 22:36, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

The creation of the Non-Canon subcategories is a understandable one as it appeared that it was hard to identify which of the articles in the category were characters. The Devil Fruit template in the category is helpful I guess. A little different since it's supposed to be navigational template but helpful to a point. However putting it in kinda shows the need for there to be more than one type of search field of similarly grouped topics. Mugiwara Franky 02:26, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * The Template:Devil Fruits is really good. We should also create a similar one for the users. Then these templates will provide a full list of fruits/users divided by the type of devil fruit. They will be the place where everybody could see a full list of fruits/users. The subcategories would become obsolete then. El Chupacabra 14:36, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Defense for having more than one Category such as Main Category and Sub Category


 * Technically, the proper way of arranging things in a library setting
 * Gives users a broad search field of closely similar topics
 * Aids users in large actions such as mass searching or editing of similar topics
 * Gives users a search field that narrows down the broader search field by topics that differ ever so slightly from one another
 * Works very well especially in categories that have a lot of similar topics

These are my basic arguments summed up for having more than one category instead of just one precise category. Put here as a defense and for clearer understanding.Mugiwara Franky 02:26, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against having more than one Category.
 * Category sprawl, articles can become categorized into a large number of categories.
 * Pages become overloaded with categories. Too many categories are bad for site navigation.
 * Categories become overloaded with pages. Giant categories (200+ pages) appear more often.
 * The subcategories become less important and rarely visited/used.
 * The best way of giving users a well-arranged list are lead articles and templates, not categories.

Arguments for categorizing articles just into the most precise Category.
 * It's the way how wikipedia arranges pages and the most appropriate way of categorizing pages in a digital encyclopedia.
 * Technical aspects of a wiki should be similar to wikipedia and the other wikia, otherwise it will confuse people.
 * Helps to avoid giant, overloaded overloaded categories.
 * To whatch a few subcategories is not more difficult then watching a giant category.

P.S. I might expand this list if I'll find additional arguments. El Chupacabra 14:36, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a limit to how much one should delete categories. Putting a list in a category, could help and make the subcategories obsolete but it is kinda overly repetitive. It also creates a bigger problem. When a category reaches more than 200+ pages, it automatically separates into different pages. When there is just one list of 200+ pages, there is gonna be just only one page containing all the pages. Better for a category that has 200+ pages that are automatically separated than one page that lists 200+ links that is no different than a list page.


 * In regards to category sprawling, there is no harm for articles to belong in more than one category. More categories actually means more ways of searching. In fact, this happens in Wikipedia itself. Check the categories of Hitler, George Bush, George Washington, Titanic, United States, Jesus, Judea, Obama, and almost any other article in Wikipedia. These articles have ridiculous number of categories and their categories have ridiculous number of articles in them.Mugiwara Franky 16:27, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * In regards to using the precise categories and Wikipedia's way, there is a limit to how far we should follow Wikipedia. While the wikia is based on Wikipedia, it is however a different site. The advantage of any wikia is that it can make it's own rules and regulations that would otherwise be not allowed on Wikipedia. In one wikia, it give in-depth details of fictional characters. In another, it can include fanfiction and fandom. In yet another, it can include speculations. Wikipedia is the parent of all wikias, but not all wikias should be clones of it.Mugiwara Franky 16:35, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * The examples from wikipedia have a great number of categories because wikipedia is far bigger then this wiki and has much more categories. However, the pages you brought up as examples are categorized according to the wikipedia rule. E.G. George Bush is categorized in Category:American Aviators but not in Category:Avitors and Category:American people. If these pages were categorize in your way, they would have an even larger list of categories. I don't want to clone wikipedia, I just want to organize this encyclopedia in the most useful way. I think that following the wikipedia policies in the technical aspects is useful. Your example on fictional characters is wrong for two reasons: 1) I refer to a technical/organizational issue and you refer to content. 2) actually, we have a similar policy; we ignore the fanfictional ones. El Chupacabra 14:45, February 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * True they are categorized via Wikipedia's rules however I merely pointed them out because it seemed that from your arguments you are stating that overloading a page with too many categories is a bad thing and/or overloading a category with over 200+ articles is also a bad thing. Some parts of your arguments somewhat contradict each other. If we go with just main categories, it would overload the categories and provide a very hard way of finding articles of specific similarity. If we go with just sub categories, it would overload the category section a little bit and it would provide a very hard way of finding articles with a broader similarity. Using main categories and sub categories would overload in both cases but at least the searching for topics in either way would be accessible.


 * Wikipedia has a way of organizing things but it's not necessarily a way everyone would agree would be the most useful way. Wikias also have different ways of organizing things. Check out the Bioshock wikia, the God of War wikia, the Dragonball wikia, and the Bleach Wikia for starters. If look how their articles are categorized, they're clearly violating a Wikipedia. I'm not saying we should follow these other wikias, I am however pointing out that not all of Wikipedia's rules are followed over the wikias.Mugiwara Franky 15:16, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

The way I want it... If I click "female" I want ALL the female characters. If I click "pirate" I want all the pirates. If I click Logia, I want all the Logia, and so often. If anything prevents me from doing this, it becomes a problem in some cases. I use categories to check things are correct. Whatever happens, if none of us can do the job at the end of the day a bad system is as useless to us as a glass of water is to water a lily already in a pond. One-Winged Hawk 16:59, February 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * This kinda points out what I've been saying all along about having a complete category list, and including both main and sub categories.


 * As shown here, there are two people. People like Kdom who require sub categories in order to differentiate different topics, and people like Angel who require full main categories in order to manage things better. Also it must be taken into account what is discussed does not refer to only the Devil Fruit categories but to the whole wikia itself. Let's take the Pirates category into account since it's kinda prime example and a major part of wikia.


 * If we were to simply categorize all the pirates as pirates, then users like Kdom cannot differentiate which pirate belongs to which crew. Even if we were to create a list or template that would go into the category as a way to differentiate the pirates as proposed, differentiating would still be hard and would require more attention in the arrangement. If we were to simply categorize all the pirates by crews, then users like Angel would have a problem. Since there are pirates that don't belong to certain crews, they would be left in the main category and it would create a incomplete list that would not aid such users.


 * The best option to aid both users and any other type, is to have both main categories and sub categories. Besides it's not confusing of an arrangement for anyone to understand. As Angel said if a person clicks a category like pirates, they would expect to see a full list of pirates and so forth.Mugiwara Franky 06:01, February 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't see the problem with having 2 or 20 categories down the bottom, so long as everyone can do their job on the wikia it's fine. If we have to sacrifice for a little unsighting listing such as 100+ categories, then so be it. At the end of the day, we've all got work to do here, none of us has to do it and if theres a problem it puts people off doing it. Better to have a 100+ categories and be ugly and able then a few and be impractical and attractive. Categories and Subcategories, in the end we have things to do. One-Winged Hawk 08:51, February 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Why do you say that my arguments contradict each other? putting a page in a subcategory and removing it from the main category lowers both the amount of pages in the category and the amount of categories on the page. A page categorized once as "Non-Canon Villain" will have one category instead of two categories "Non-Canon" and "Villains". All pages in both categories will be removed from them and included in the new category. This would reduce the number of articles directly categorized in both categories. Where is the contradiction? Now to the system. If some other wikia user other systems, it's their internal cause. However as to your examples, I can't see any fundamental differences to the wikipedia system in three of them, except the dragon ball wiki. None of them seems to categorize pages both in the subcategories and the main category, please give me some examples. And the Dragon Ball wiki puts a lot of stuff in category:Dragon Ball. Do you think we should put all our pages into category:One Piece? And how can you prevent somebody from doing this if we keep your system? As to the complete lists, tell me is watching the main category and some subcategories really much more difficult then watching a big category? of course you have to switch between the categories, but it doesn't take that much time. Honestly, do you really check the entire category every day? And how often is it necessary to have an edit on all pirate articles? And if yes why don't you request to put all character articles into Category:Characters? It's almost empty except for the subcategory. I think the category:Pirates should include only the ones who are not part of any of the crews that have an own subcategory. El Chupacabra 14:54, February 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * El, I say your arguments are a bit contradictory as some of it does sound contradictory. One of your arguments for example is asking for no overload of articles into a category. I interpreted as contradictory to another argument as one of your arguments is against sub categories. It's not directly against sub categories per say but considering that part you've been proposing is either main category or sub category but not both.


 * For the wikias, check them more carefully. For Bioshock, check Leadhead Splicer for example. For God of War, check Minotaur. For Kenpachi Zaraki. They are clearly violating Wikipedia's rules.


 * For the character category, I have explained that having it filled is a bit going to far. There is a limit for the system I am trying to argue for.


 * For the pirate category and any other huge main category, some people may not check it but some other do check it especially in cases such as mass editing. Tell me is it really easier to so mass editing going back and forth between lists.


 * Also, I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, but it almost seems like you are ignoring the posts of both Kdom and Angel. Users like Kdom need subcategories to locate specific topics. Users like Angel need main categories to locate topics in a broad subject.


 * You are asking for a pretty system like Wikipedia but just because it is there does not mean it should be a precedent for all the wikias. Mugiwara Franky 15:40, February 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * This is how I do my edits: first I click on "recent" every visit to check things are alright and no vandals are about. Then I pick a category and I look at the pages within that category and I to a page and from there I go to others via links and templates, when I reach a dead end, I go back to the category or another. For me I want access to everything within a subject at my fingertips. So as MF as rightly said, main categories are important to me for editing. If there are no main categories, then it becomes problematic. I don't mind sub categories I note, their just as handy, but I would not want to have to choose one or the other.


 * Also, while Wikipedia does the thing is does, may I remind you we came to the wikia originally to free us from the burden of doing thing the "wikipedia way". In fact the whole matter of us being more like wikipedia annoys me because it goes against the original intention of the site. To create a wikia useful to fans and not have non-fans tell us what to do because they are "outsiders". Wikipedia never fitted our needs, so we should not make wikipedia fit ours. One-Winged Hawk 18:47, February 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, One-Winged Hawk, you check pages by category. I agree that it might be useful to have a complete list of pirates. However, I have an idea ho to re-arrange the pirates category: We can create a new category:Piracy as a subcategory of Category:Society and Culture and make Category:pirates and all the pirate crew crews categories subcategories of this new category. Including the crew categories into category:pirate is not very appropriate anyway since they might include ships and locations as well. It would be similar to the existing categories slavery and slaves. The only remaining subcategories in category:pirates would be pirate captains and real-world pirates. Does this solution sound good for you? Now to the other wikia. I've already said that the layout of wikia is their internal affair. However I think that we all should try to have similar standards in order to make it easier for users. Of course we are independent from wikipedia, but we didn't cut all ties to them. For example, we have hundreds of links to wikipedia pages form various pages here. I'm not a fan of wikipedia and dislike a lot on wikipedia. I don't promote their categorization policy because it's a wikipedia policy but because I believe that it's the best way of categorizing pages in an internet encyclopedia. El Chupacabra 14:57, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

A piracy category sounds a bit appropriate as it can include other facets of piracy covered here in the wikia. For the crews, they could still belong to pirates as a majority of what's in their categories are pirates per say.

For Wikipedia's way of categorizing things, it maybe the best way of categorizing things on Wikipedia and maybe some other similar internet encyclopedia but it may not be the best solution on other sites. Wikipedia is an extremely large site with millions of pages and millions of users. The One Piece wikia on the other hand is vastly smaller than Wikipedia in all areas that it pales in comparison.

In Wikipedia, they can afford to have such a system as they have lots of people to handle the workload and have various topics that are vastly broad in nature. It apparently doesn't matter if their system only helps out a minority of people in the workload. It's not expected from regular contributors there to handle the entire site just a small fraction at least that suits them. Wikipedia in short has a luxury of sorts.

In this wikia, we may not be able to afford to have such a system as we don't exactly have that many people and most of our topics aren't that much broad. It kinda matters whether if we have a system to help out a wide range of people or only a few. For most of the contributors here, it's expected that they would handle more facets of this site than in Wikipedia. For the more dedicated contributors, they would probably handle a relatively large fraction of the site, half the site at most. This wikia in short doesn't have the same luxury as Wikipedia has.

In essence, it kinda comes down to the values that each site have and can afford to have in regards to system I guess. In relation I guess, take the various laws and ideologies found in different countries. The structure of America can be said to be the most ideal in some people's minds. However in others' mind, it is flawed especially in countries that can't enjoy the same luxuries of America. A system maybe good in one area but it maybe not in another area. Mugiwara Franky 06:33, February 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, tell me why is it less useful for users to have pages categorized in the most precise category only. If a user checks a large category Devil Fruits, it takes just a few seconds less time then to check the three subcategories as well. I'm not talking about category:pirates because since you agrees that it would be useful to have a category piracy, I'm going to create it. And you still did not explain why you think that the library system is more appropriate to us then the wikipedia system. El Chupacabra 16:31, February 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * I and I believe others also kinda have been explaining why it however just to repeat things over.


 * Doesn't aid people who wish to locate articles with broader topics if only put in sub categories
 * Doesn't aid people who wish to locate articles with narrower topics if only put in a main category
 * Makes certain categories incomplete.
 * The wikia doesn't have the same luxuries as Wikipedia to allow such a system


 * The Wikipedia way of categorizing things maybe a way but it is not the only way especially considering the circumstances. It kinda forces people to go one way instead of giving them choices. The library system on the other hand, takes into account of different people thus being a bit more user friendly and flexible. When dealing with people, sometimes variety can be a good thing as it will cater to different people. Not everybody would like to search articles in a category via the Wikipedia way. Think of it as like spaghetti sauce. Some people like it super chunky while some people like it smooth. If a company only sells one type, then they only get a tiny percentage of profit.


 * For the category of Devil Fruits, there is a very likely chance that the category will become really really large. By that time, it will become extremely hard for people to distinguish Devil Fruit is of which type even if you put a template at top. The only surefire way to help people in such a case are the subcategories. Mugiwara Franky 03:29, February 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think so too that the discussion is repeating itself, both Mugiwara Franky and Emfrbl have both provided reasonable explanations and have patiently talk this through more than necessary. It's about time this discussion came to an end already, El Chupacabra raised some good points but the Devil Fruit categories are fine the way they are now and more convenient to work with. The Piracy Category seems like a good idea though and I am waiting to see it completed! ;-) MasterDeva 11:10, February 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, as I said above, an umbrella category is not incomplete. It just has it's articles located in a few subcategories. It's not more difficult to watch a few subcategories. I will complete the category:piracy when this issue is solved. As to the devil fruits for a complete list of named devil fruit users you can use Template:DFUsers. It's based on Template:Devil Fruits, which can be used for the fruits. these templates should satisfy both groups of users. The system is not a "luxury" but a practical rule. In fact, categorising pages in as many categories as possible is a luxury. El Chupacabra 14:27, February 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Why should I use a template to check the various Devil Fruti pages when there is a category made specifically for that job!? Of course that is not its only function but that's my main use for it in this argument now. Come on El Chupacabra this sounds like making excuses to support your point more than providing a reasonable answer.


 * Besides, the category even shows how many Devil Fruit pages exist in the wiki and the sub-categories can be used to narrow down the pages with a specific type of Devil Fruit (Logia, Zoan, etc). Also, using this doesn't help much either!!


 * You don't have to wait for the end result of this discussion to continue on with your Piracy category since from what I can gather there isn't a problem with it (correct me if I am wrong please) and I honestly think it's a great idea and I still wait for its completion!!! ;D MasterDeva 19:37, February 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think characters subcategories are important since Characters is one of the largest category. In the same way that Piracy is interesting wrt Pirate category, there shall be something similar wrt Marine category which help to differenciate marine characters from other marine related articles. Kdom 19:49, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

For watching a few different subcategories, it's indeed not that difficult. However it can be difficult when you have lots of subcategories. Due to the nature of some things, they can subcategorized in all sorts of ways depending on similarities. The pirate category, which kind of illustrates this to a point, has several sub categories. If it were two or three, it wouldn't be hard for a person who wanted to do mass searching and editing. But with around 20 subcategories, a single list of all the pirates would greatly be efficient for those who can't handle jumping 20 times to different pages.

For the Devil Fruit user template, apart from looking a bit rushed, such a template is meant to be navigational template. Navigational templates are meant to help people who find category jumping and searching hard for certain similar topics. Placing them in a category may help a little in differentiating articles but it's a bit repetitive and useless. It's no different than creating a chart in a category page that lists all the possible articles.

Wikipedia's system is indeed a rule. It's a rule that can be supported by a luxury. The idea of placing multiple categories in an article is indeed a luxury. It's a luxury as it helps people out. Luxuries can allow certain things to happen depending on what they are. Wikipedia has some luxuries so it can support a system that enforces a strict category system. In this wikia, we do not have such luxuries. In order to compensate for the lack of such luxuries, other forms of luxuries could be used to make it more user friendly.Mugiwara Franky 04:02, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * You just answered perfectly to everything that I had in my mind and wanted to say Mugiwara Franky, I can't add anything to make it this any more complete!! ;-) MasterDeva 10:15, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, MasterDeva if you prefer to use categories to check pages, do it this way. Still the template can be useful for others and should be added to every Devil Fruit user article, just like the Devil Fruits template is added to all Devil fruit articles. Now to the categories. As of now, the category:Devil Fruit Users shows all users, and each of the three subcategories show the users of each type. However, this means that there's no category showing only the users of unidentified Devil fruits, like Tsuru or Trafalgar Law. If the wikipedia rule will be adopted, all users of a known-type fruit would appear in their category only and the articles directly categorized in Category:Devil Fruit Users would be the users of unknown fruits. To check the category and three subcategories takes a few seconds. Try it out and answer me if it's significantly more difficult then checking a single category. For me it isn't. Now to the Category:Pirates and it's subcategories. As part of the rearrange I intend to remove all but two subcategories from this category. All the pirate crew categories doesn't really belong into this category because they include not only characters but also ships, events and locations. In some categories, like Category:Shichibukai or Category:Straw Hat Pirates these artilcles make a large part of the category. I think now, after the creation of the Category:Piracy as the central category for all piracy-related articles all these pages should be categorized in only. However, I want to finish this discussion first before I will remove categories from any page again. a similar category for Marines is a good idea. In this case, all subcategories except for category:Non-Canon Marines could be removed from category marines. The rank categories can be included into category ranks as its subcategories. However, the problem is that if we don't follow the wikipedia policy, it's tecnically legal to categorize any page or category into almost every other category. That's one of the reasons why I think it's neccesary to adopt this policy. El Chupacabra 11:14, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not that difficult to check a few sub categories but it can be difficult to check several sub categories. There's also the fact that some people when going to a main category called Devil Fruit users, expect to find a complete category of Devil Fruit users.


 * For the pirates categories, it's that much of problem having the pirate crews listed under pirates as well as a majority of the pirate crews are of pirates. Also you have to take into account of the various individual pirates. If you keep all the individual pirates in the pirate category, you are going to need some sub categories to differentiate them. There are such sub categories, but it would be easier for users if they can locate such subcategories right away in the category page instead of jumping from one page to another. If you don't keep the individual pirates in the pirate category, then creates a bigger problem. You are gonna ask people to jump 20+ times to locate these pirates.


 * For having it legal to categorize into different categories, what's the problem with that? It provides the benefits I've saying over and over. As long as an article is properly placed in the appropriate category then there is no problem. Wikipedia's policies are wikipedia's policies. They were made with Wikipedia in mind. We should use and create policies that have our own site in mind.Mugiwara Franky 11:37, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, there are also some people who expect to find a complete list of characters in Category:Characters. However, if they will visit an almost empty category with three subcategories entitle "(type) Devil fruit users" they will understand that they should check them as well. The pirates category would become smaller if all the articles and categories on crews would be moved into, which should be a subcategory of Piracy along with Pirates. The pirates category should include only the individuals. additionally, the Pirate Captains, who make a large part of all the pirates should be categorized only in Category:Pirate Captains, not as pirates. Category:Pirates would include only the "common" pirates and have only two subcategories: Captains and real-life pirates. All pirates would be then categorized in pirates and his crew category, if they have an own category. the reason why these categories were included into category pirates was the fact that it was the main category for all piracy-related articles until I created Category:Piracy. Now it should become just a list of individuals involved in piracy, and the pirate crews should be listed in . El Chupacabra 12:09, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we are really going around in circles here. I've said before and I'll say it again the Characters can be empty as it is much more broader category term considering it's title.


 * For the Devil Fruit category, people can understand that but it's not necessarily the most user friendly of ways of categorizing things. For one thing, it is not friendly to users like Angel.


 * For the pirates category, you are doing something but it's not necessarily the most user friendly of solutions. With your solution in mind: If person wants to be able to differentiate which pirate belongs to which crew, they would have to jump at least two pages instead of one to find the answer. If a person wants to know all the pirates there are in one page for mass searching and or editing, they won't as they have to jump several pages just to find the ones they missed.


 * The piracy category you made is a good idea as it can include the various pirate related topics found in the wikia. Since it's name is piracy, it's not necessary to place the individual pirates there as piracy is a broad term. However, just because a category like that exists, it doesn't mean the categories under pirates should be strictly rearranged in a way that forces people to find categories in a very rigid manner. For one thing, I'm personally abit confused as to the setup you want for these individuals. Instead of a clear picture, all I'm getting is a confusing maze-like map.Mugiwara Franky 12:33, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * If One-Winged Hawk or anybody else have real with problems with the arrange I proposed above, they should express it. As to the difficulty to differentiate which pirate belongs to which crew: The current system is not better. now he would have to jump from category to category anyway, because the list of pirates is arranged in alphabetical order. The place where he can see it is the . You argue that Category:characters or Category:Piracy can't be compared to ategory.Pirates because that are broader terms, but the problem is that we have no definition what is a "broader" term. Somebody may think that characters is not a baroader term and another that pirate is one. In fact, we have only two rules for categorization and I want to add a third one. It will make the system a bit more rigid, but alos more precise and clear. We talk alot about various examples, but i think that we should first adopt the system and discuss the various way of arranging pages within it. El Chupacabra 12:52, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * The automatic separation thing that categories have is just a device that makes things easier when categories have 200+ articles. It is however more easier than jumping from page to page just to find all the similar articles. For the page, that's just one option for a person to find a complete list of pirates. It doesn't mean it should be the only option. Saying that if a person wants to find a complete list of pirates, they should just go here instead of category searching is not very user friendly. Besides, it's not even a complete list as it tells people to go to another page just to identify pirates belonging to Yokou and Shichibukai.


 * A broad term is like this. When you say character, it has a very broad meaning. It can mean a Marine, a Pirate, a Devil Fruit user, or anything else, no specific type of character comes into mind. When you say Piracy, it can refer to treasure hunting, pillaging, or anything else, pirates come into mind but because there are all sorts of pirates in One Piece, a huge number comes into mind and it is very broad. When you say Pirate, it can refer to a Pirate Captain, a Whitebeard Pirate, a real life Pirate, a Pirate crew, or anything else that falls in that matter.


 * For the system and policies you are asking for. They maybe clear and precise creating a single line of sorts but it is not user friendly. I don't know what Wikipedia is thinking why they don't give user friendliness in category matters but just because they don't doesn't mean we should be as well.Mugiwara Franky 13:22, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

A little thing I also noticed about the Devil Fruit users template that you El made. It kinda doesn't take into account that some Devil Fruit users are of unknown type. For it to be useful it has to take into account characters like Sengoku and Tsuru. For it to be useful, it has to list down all the Devil Fruit users since most of them have pages unlike the unknown fruits. It could work if there was section called unknown type but that section would be abit unstably fluctuating especially since some characters aren't that definite as Devil Fruit users.Mugiwara Franky 11:45, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * I've included a section for the unknown fruit users, but you're right, the rtemplate doesn't show this. This must be a bug. Can you fix this? El Chupacabra 12:09, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * No it's not a bug and it better to leave it as it is; the problematic main Template can’t handle more than four table heading. And already has enough bugs if you add the code for the fifth you will create problem to others templates. Tipota 15:09, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

I think you're becoming a bit stubborn about this El Chupacabra! I only talked about the Devil Fruit Pages, not the Devil Fruit Users nor the Pirates category. I never said anything about the template of the that you made, don't put words in my mouth. Using a template (just as Mugiwara Franky has said) is mainly for navigational purposes and a category for categorization purposes don't put these two together like this!!

It's not only me that thinks that the Devil Fruit category system we have (for their pages not their users) is working fine but Emfrbl too, in fact you're the only one who has had a problem so far, to my knowledge at least. Not to mention that the categories show the number of article pages that exist in the wiki for the said pages.

If someone wants to check all the Devil Fruit Users pages they can use a Devil Fruit Users category that lists all the Devil Fruit users including those we know have a Devil Fruit ability but we don't know it's name or type (Akainu at a time was both)!!! I hope I have made myself clear and answered to you to all the points that are my focus. MasterDeva 14:53, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

I read some random part of the above discussion and I really don’t understand your arguments EL. I have already read the Wikipedia categorization system and Devil Fruit category definitely doesn’t violate the categorization rules. You begin a discussion without first understand what is going on. And now you want to create templates instead of subcategories I don’t know what to say. If you write a real argument then maybe I will change my opinion now I am against Sub-Category--> Template idea or a category with subcategories only.

Your arguments: Tipota 15:09, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) About Wikipedia: read again the help article.
 * 2) overload: a big category with 1000+ pages it is the same with a category with 200 pages a good index will help to find quickly what you want.
 * 3) read again the Wikipedia help article. Sub-categories will help you to find what you want.


 * The advantage of categorizing in sub-categories only, is that it emphasize the article that are not subcategorized. If you look at the Characters category, the 5 pages that are in this category would be completely invisible if all characters were put in this category. If we do it with the category, it will emphasize the fact that there is a Rumble Ball article, if we do it with the Devil Fruit Users category it will emphasize the characters which type is yet unknown ( also I'm dubitative about what is done on this, it is not because they are unnamed that their type are unknown, I think I will start a discussion on that here ). It is also an advantage for maintenance point of view, since we deal with shorter list (for example, it helps to notice that most of the Templates which are not subcategorized are not that usefull, this is due to the fact that they are not subcategorized and that the one that are usefull are not in the Template category). The drawback like Mugiwara Franky said is that it is less friendly since one needs to jump between the categories and that the user has to know the category tree very well in order to find easily the articles.
 * Since both solutions have their pros and cons it is not very wise to stick to one rule. For each category, one need to decide what is the best way (also it is what has been made so far in an empiric way). If the future Pirate category only contains characters and that all articles belonging to this category will be part of a subcategory, then the best solution is to put the article in both categories Pirates and the sub-category had hoc. In the same way, for the, putting the * in front of the only 5 articles that are not devil fruit articles is sufficient to emphasize them and having a list of all the Devil fruit is usefull. For the Devil Fruit Users it depends on if we think it is important to emphasized the list of the user which devil fruit is yet unnamed or not, maybe creating a sub-category is necessary. I don't think maintain it will be a problem since it will be corrected as soon as the info comes out :-). :One the contrary, I don't think that the Templates category needs to contain all the templates since it is mainly used by editors who have a good knowledge of the wiki and that the maintenance point of view has to be taken into account.
 * Kdom 10:33, February 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * For the characters category, it's kinda true that those articles would not be emphasized if all of the characters were included. Considering the extremely broad nature one could associate the term "characters" with also, it would be a bit too much. Making certain articles like them and lists more emphasized would be a good idea though.


 * For the templates, it's kinda necessary to include them in one category for quick indexing as stated. While they maybe used mostly by editors who have a good knowledge, there kinda needs to be something there in order to help newcomers and potential future good contributoes. There's also the fact that some of the editors who have a good knowledge of how the wikia works have different methods of checking things out as explained by Angel.


 * For subcategories on Unnamed Devil Fruit users and/or Unknown Devil Fruits, it maybe not a good idea to create them. One is that they're unnamed and unknown, factors that don't exactly warrant a page. It's not exactly a stable subcategory idea.Mugiwara Franky 12:57, February 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not speak of a Unknown Devil Fruit category but Unknown Devil Fruit Users, their page exists. If you want the list of Devil Fruit users which are unknown at the moment like for [discussion], you have to make diff between the main category and the subcategories, it's not very practical. In such a case, El Chupacabra categorization method would be more usefull ; the other solution is to create the sub-category. Well, it's just to give practical examples that none of the 2 method is perfect. Kdom 13:56, February 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * For users whose Devil Fruit types are unknown, it's probably okay for them to not be included in a subcategory that lists them down as users whose types are unknown. A subcategory like that would be a bit unstable considering there would be times that it would be completely empty. Their type would be revealed eventually.


 * In any categorization, there is sometimes one or more items that do not fit in any given subcategory due to uncertainties like inability to tell type. It's usually best to leave them in the main category rather than create another subcategory that's basically a "?" subcategory.Mugiwara Franky 14:10, February 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * MasterDeva, I didn't refer to Category:Devil Fruits because it's smaller and less complicatd then Pirates and even Devil fruits users. I thik Category:Devil fruits should be similar in appearance to Category:Devil fruit users, but the latter already includes the unidentified ones. Their fruits however, don't have own articles. What did you mean when you wrote that the current appearance doesn't violate the Wikipedia rules? Are you referring to the Non-diffusing subcategories? However, since all devil fruits belong to one of the three types there is no need to keep them in both a main category and the sub-category. I think the should include directly only a few articles like Devil Fruit and Rumble Ball and the three type subcategories which would include the fruits. Now One-Winged Hawk, please say me if this arrangement would be too dificult for you. As to the Category:Pirates, One reason why I want to remove all the organization from there, is the category is quite messy. It includes both individuals and crews, and I think that these things should be separated. As I said, a crew is not just a group of characters, it also includes their ships, related events and locations. Just like Category:Organizations is not a subcategory od Category:Characters the pirate organisations should not be mixed up with individuals. I think this would be the most logical and user-friendly way of categorizing them. El Chupacabra 15:04, March 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * For Tipota's interpretation of Wikipedia's policy in regards to our site, it kinda shows the flaw of wanting to use it in our site. You El interpret that the categories violate the policy. Tipota interprets that the categories don't violate the policy. For some of us, we can't make heads or tales of what it's really about. It's really best not to use it as basis for how we should do things when we can't even agree on how it works.


 * For the rest of your arguments, I kinda already stated my reasons against them above.Mugiwara Franky 02:52, March 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I have also stated my reasons above. However, not much seems to happen. The discussion at Category talk:Devil Fruit Users was quite useful, and I think that similar shoud be done with piracy/pirates. However, i'm still waiting for the answers to my previous comment. El Chupacabra 16:07, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Actually stuff has happened based on the various comments within this discussion. It maybe presumptious but it maybe rather useless to keep demanding opinions from some as their comments can be somewhat clear as to what their opinion towards your general idea is.Mugiwara Franky 03:14, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Category layouts
Let me expalain how I thik the categories devil Fruits and Piracy with their subcategories should look like:


 * Includes the main articles (Devil Fruit, Rumble Ball etc.)
 * The Template:Devil Fruits gives atthe top of the category gives a list of devil fruits arranged by type and canon/non canon
 * Has the "DF users" and "DF images" subcategories and the three type subcategories.
 * All devil Fruit articles are categorized in their type subcategory only. No other articles are included in these categories.
 * The articles Paramecia, Zoan and Logia are merged into the Devil Fruit article.

Category:Piracy:


 * Includes artilces related to piracy in general like Jolly Roger or Treasure.
 * Has piracy-related subcategories including Category:Pirates and
 * The difference between these categories is simple: Articles on individuals and nuclear groups that are not organizations like Acrobatic Fuwas or Mizuuta Twins are included in the first and articles on organizations in the second one.
 * Category:Pirates includes all articles on individuals, except the captains and real pirates who have own subcategories within category:Pirates.
 * includes (as article or subcategory) the various groups related to piracy.
 * If you think that it is useful to distinguish crew from organizations like the yonkou or the supernovas, they should keep their Category:Pirate Crews as a subcategory of "Pirates Organizations". Otherwise they are categorized directly.
 * Pirates who are members of an orgnization that has an own category like the Straw Hat Pirates are included both into this category and the category pirates.

I think this will make the structure of these categories very clear and easy to understand. It will help to narrow the category pirates and make a clear distinction between individuals and organizations. This is not given now.

Comment these layouts below. El Chupacabra 16:55, March 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the merger of the Paramecia, Zoan and Logia for the sole reason that they're not stub pages and each page is a fully developed individual article! For reasons I stated above I am against the removal of the Devil Fruit category from the Devil Fruit pages and the inclusion of the Devil Fruit Users, together with anything else, put under the Devil Fruit category. You can't just throw everything into the mixer to produce a indistinguishable mass or rather you shouldn't; the way it is now is more convenient and user friendly to work with!!


 * On the other hand I find the Piracy category a really good idea and wish to see it completed. If any problems appear concerning the implementation of this idea, I'm sure that some "polishing" to it should be enough to work around them (unless I am mistaken of course) and solve some of the existing ones. MasterDeva 18:21, March 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this the only reason against the merger? We don't have a rule that only stub pages should be merged. Law Enforcement, Police and Bounty Hunters were all merged into Justice although they weren't stubs These articles would fit well into the Devil Fruit article. They could be easily integrated as sections. The merged article would be around 50 000 bytes long, siilar in size to Bounties. Both aspects are very important in the One Piece world and I think equally-sized articles would be appropriate. I don't propose to include Category:Devil Fruit Users into category:Devil fruits. Mugiwara Franky did this back in 2006. I wan to keep this there. I don't want to "throw everything into the mixer to produce a indistinguishable mass", I want the exact opposite. I want to make the Category:Devil fruit a central place for all articles on this topic and keep the fruit articles in the type categories. El Chupacabra 14:15, March 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * For the Devil Fruit category, there are some things are kinda wrong. The template placed at the top, while it shows the Devil Fruits, is actually not an idle replacement for directly categorizing the Devil Fruits in the category itself. It provides a nice useful decor but it's really meant for navigational purposes in articles. It's no better than writing down the articles on the category itself as if it were a "List of" page.


 * For the merging of the 3 main Devil Fruit type articles, that's a bit too much downsizing in a sort of way. While it would reduce the number of pages in the Devil Fruit category in your setup, El, from 5 to 2, it's really a bit too much.


 * For the pirates category, some points to note.
 * Some pirates like Brook were captains at one point of time. Where should they belong to? Should they be in only the pirates category or should they be only in the pirate captains category? It's a bit of a hassle that would be better left with the characters listed within both categories.
 * For pirate crews, the usual first idea when you say a pirate crew like the Straw Hat Pirates is that you think of the pirates themselves rather than their attachments like ships. There are also some pirate crew categories that contain nothing but their crewmembers I believe.Mugiwara Franky 03:08, March 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I said above, the articles wouldn't be downsized or reduced a lot. Their main parts would just become sections of Devil Fruit. For me it wouldn't be too much of work. As for the former pirate captains, I think they can be put in the captains category only, just like Crocodile ad Jinbei are still categorized as shichibukai although they were stripped off their titles. We could add a note into the top of Category:pirates that all pirates who ever commanded an own crew are in the pirate captains subcategory. Almost all pirate crew categories have at least one ship in their category. And remember that all the indiviguals who are part of a crew will remain in the category:Pirates. I see no need to categorize both all the members of a crew and the crew itself into category:pirates when we have a Category:pirates organizations for the latter. El Chupacabra 14:15, March 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * However, I would like to know what you think on Category:Pirate Crews, should we keep it or not? And what does One-Winged Hawk (or another user who has a similar way to check pages) think about my Category:Devil Fruit layout? Would this be apropriate for you or not? El Chupacabra 14:15, March 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Putting the 3 pages as sections into the Devil Fruit article actually may take some work. For starters, what constitutes as the main points of the pages. The pages have developed into being self sustaining and separate since day one. Their main points have expanded to be much more than simple sections in one page. Putting them all together would be indeed placing them into a big mass.


 * Parts of your arguments regarding the former pirate captains and pirate groups are somewhat contradictory especially with this line of yours: And remember that all the indiviguals who are part of a crew will remain in the category:Pirates. You are asking that captains of a crew should only be placed in a separate category. However, you are also asking that all the individual crewmembers should be placed in the pirate category. In order to achieve one, you have to disregard the other.


 * For the Category:Pirate Crews, it seems more or less useful as it easily identifies all the pirate crews.


 * For your demand for Angel's opinion, it's getting to a bit tiring. She kinda gave her opinions on the whole matter above. I'm not her but I'm guessing she's really tired of the matter. If you really really really want her to talk, ask her yourself directly cause demanding from here is going nowhere. Also there have been other users who use her style that have discussed here. There's me for starters, and there's apparently others like Tipota and Masterdeva.Mugiwara Franky 02:27, March 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * As to the amount of work, don't worry about this. I said that I'm ready to do this. They have NOT been "self sustaining and separate since day one", they were separated from Devil Fruit on January 1, 2008. Beside, a lot of page that existed for a longer time were deleted or merged during the large purge not a long ago. What main points do they have that requre the existance of separate articles? They all are similar in structure. They consist of sections describing the effects, strenghts and weaknesses of the type, a list of fruits and a few trivia. A merger would be similar to the merger of all the sword grade articles into Swords.


 * I see no contradiction. I want to place the captains into a subcategor of Category:pirates. They would be still categorized in Category:pirates, just not directly.


 * Yes, but there are around 50 of them. If we remove them, the amount of articles in category:pirates will sink below 200. And the layout would mirror the structure of the more general categories. Like Category:Organizations is not a subcategory of Category:Characters, the organization articles should not be mixed with the individuals. Why do you want to keep a "big mass" of articles in the category?


 * I just have the impression that a more precise discussion is better then the more general one we had above. I therefore want to know if the proposed layout would be OK for somebody who uses this way to check pages. That's why I ask everybody here to tell me their opinion. I would like to have as any responses as possible. El Chupacabra 16:11, March 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well we gave our opinion, but you continue to act as if we said nothing and get stuck on your opinion beside everybody else says otherwise. I, personnaly, kinda give up. Kdom 21:36, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

For the individual Devil Fruit type pages, while it is true that various other pages have been either merged or deleted in the past, they were only done so under different circumstances. The Devil Fruit types however are completely different especially compared to articles like sword grades. With sword grades, they are not an essential part of One Piece, just a small facet like the type of goggles Wanze wears. Devil Fruit types however are an essential part of One Piece. Considering how much Devil Fruits play throughout the story, they're not exactly throwaway one time subjects.

Aside from the preceding argument on the Devil Fruit types, the proposal is abit too unreasonable. It is at least a separate matter different than the category argument being discussed about here. Adding it to this proposal is asking too much.

For the pirates, Tipota has kinda explained this in quote: "overload: a big category with 1000+ pages it is the same with a category with 200 pages a good index will help to find quickly what you want.". Having a massive 200+ category is not a problem. It would be a problem if the site was ran by a single person who requires some more precise categorying but it is not a problem for a site ran by a community of people.

For the discussion itself, the precise one doesn't seem all the more different than the general one. It's discussing the same things and problems. Things are just being repeated. The only difference is that you are aiming only a set group of categories as opposed to all of them. The difference maybe fewer in number but it's just the same thing.

If you El, really really really want opinions on this precise discussion, you may really need to convince other people upfront to express their opinions here. Unless convinced, their opinions in the related general discussion kinda stand in this one as it's pretty much the same thing.Mugiwara Franky 08:34, March 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * The devil fruits in general are a more fundamental aspect then the types alone. Think about this, what is more important for the world, the presence of the Devil Fruits or the existance of certain types. If there were more or less fruit types, the world of One Piece would be more similar to what it is then if there were no Devil Fruits at all. It's somehow similar to Chapters and Volumes, there is one article and not two, although both things are very important. If you think that it shouldn't be discussed here, let's move the discussion to Talk:Devil Fruit.


 * Of courese big categories can't be avoided competely. However, I think that this should be done whenever it's possible. I see no reason why is it neccesary to keep the organizations in the Category pirates when there a separate category for them. Is there anybody who thinks that they have to stay among the individuals? If yes please give some reasons for this.


 * I statred this section after many examples were brought on how difficult it would be to fulfil my proposal. I had the impresson thatz some people have difficultioes to understand my intentions. I therefore presented them and wanted a response. I still want to continue the more general discussion after finishing the deal with the categories that were brought up as examples against my proposal above. Should I adress some users directly on their talk pages and introduce them to the discussion? El Chupacabra 15:13, March 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * First off, you're talking like a Wikipedian if you view the different types of Devil Fruits as not important enough to warrant their own pages.


 * Second, chapters and volumes are a completely different matter. For them, all you have is a list. If you separate it into chapters and volumes, you get two small lists. With them combined, they compliment each other. With the Devil Fruits and their types, they all have descriptions that are more than a simple list. They could fit all together but that there isn't any reason why they should especially in the wikia. In Wikipedia, they would have to fit together regardless of the need for expansion. In this wikia, they can separated and given more freedom and detail to expand upon.


 * For article category sprawling and large category, what is your problem anyway? If an article or subcategory can be found in one category and then another, it means that is more accessible to a larger variety of users than it staying in a dead end. Trying to avoid large categories is a bit dumb even Wikipedia itself doesn't avoid it. Wikipedia may use a precise system but it certainly doesn't avoid categories that go over 200+. Besides what are listed in categories are just links, they don't require much loading and with automatic sorting system at hand, big categories are easy to maneuver.


 * For the discussion, regardless of whether it's a more precise discussion or a general one, you are still asking the same things and repeating the same arguments. For asking other users, I've been telling you should however I'm not sure if they're gonna be irritated or not. You've kinda disregarded all their previous opinions in the previous related discussion.Mugiwara Franky 23:15, March 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * First off, not all wikipedians have the same opinion, see Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia for more. However, when wikipedia merges articles, they are often shortened significantly. I don't want to cut them shorter. I don't think that an own page is always better then a separate section. it's not a matter of importance but a matter of usefulness. Sometimes some important and related aspects can be covered by a single article better then by a number of articles. I already explained thet the pages would fit well into the Devil Fruit article, like they did before 2008. I think that a merged article would be easier to read and to edit. Why do you think that can't they be expanded as a sections? The chapters and volumes was a reference to the size and importance of the article. In structure, it's indeed more similar to the sword types. They were merged into the Swords article, and the devil Fruit Types should be threated in a similar way.


 * It's indeed good when an article fits in many categories, but it's a bit stupid to have a subcategory that consists of articles from the top category. Besides, as I said, an article can theoretically fit into dozends of categories. If they are included among the individuals, thay could be put into categories charactes, organization, one piece and many otheres. You said that these categories are broader, but you still didn't explain what is a broad category and where we should draw the line between broad and narrow categories.


 * Don't forget the backstory of the pirates category. until I've created cetagory:Piracy, it was used as the central category for all piracy-related articles, and included articles like Jolly Roger, that are not about individual pirates. Now when we have a new central category for piracy, I want to remove all articles that do not treat individuals and nuclear groups from the Category pirates in order to make it's structure clearer. One category for the individuals, one for the organizations. You want to have one category for everybody and one for the organizations, but don't you think that a category for individual pirates is quite useful?


 * Wikipedia is by times bigger then this wikia, they simply can't avoid giant categories. I also don't want to avoid them completely, but in this case I see a possibility to avoid one without damage.


 * I started this discussion because seome users brought Category:Pirates and Category Devil Fruits as examples against my proposal. I want to show how these categories cold be rearranged in order to fit the proposed rule. That's why I want a wide response. You are wong when you say that I ignore the opinion of other users. I have reacted to many responses and changed my opinion in some points. Of course I still want to reach my original goal, but this is the point of our discussion. I see no reason to change my opinion in this point. However some of my arguments and questions were ingnored as well. Besides, only a few users were engaged in the discussion above, many others didn't express their opinion at all. I don't know if they had noticed this discussion. El Chupacabra 14:02, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

I say you sound like a Wikipedian as those are the lines that a type of Wikipedian would say. The way you word things sound like a Wikipedian who comes across a bunch of created articles and says that they should be grouped all together or even deleted due to usefulness. Several articles on Devil Fruit types maybe less useful than one page especially in Wikipedia, but they are kinda important in a wikia about One Piece.

For the categories, people have stated that they find it useful when a category is complete. A broad category is like a category called Plants. A narrower category is like a category called Red Plants. A person who wants to look up a broad list of plants can use the category Plants. A person who wants to narrow his list to red plants can use the category Red Plants.

For the pirates, people have stated that they want a complete list of pirates when they look through a category called pirates. Your proposal asks to take out the Pirate Crews, Real Life Pirates, Pirate Captains, and any other associated subcategory and have them only one path that leads to them, essentially forcing certain users to go a roundabout way rather than a direct way.

There is some damage caused by you asking for smaller categories, the fact that we're arguing is proof of that. Besides what is the damage that can be created by having large categories anyway.

While this discussion focuses on some smaller points of the larger general discussion, they are just the same thing in essence. While the Pirate and Devil Fruit categories were brought up in light of your proposal, they are just a small fraction of what you are asking. There are the Template and the Episode category that would conflict with what you are asking.

For users participating in this very discussion, you are kinda being a nag wanting people to express their opinions despite what has been said above.Mugiwara Franky 14:44, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

We're still arguing about this? I hope this isn't a case of "I'm not going to stop complaining until I get my own way?". Because thats themost annoying thing on the net I've come across after trolls. We have come to a conclusion, that most of us like things the way MF stated. Plants -> red plants, fine categorization method to me and most logical. I honestly DON'T mind how big or small a category is (unless its a category of less then 4 items, then I wonder if its worth having for such limited no. of items). One-Winged Hawk 14:54, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Hey, El, are you okay? I've noticed that you've been merging too many pages and ome of them is good but some is not. However MF sent me a message about your uncharactic about merging way too many pages and I think you need to stop.

I' still would want to undo most of your merging and I can't unless if most people let me do it.

Joekido 15:29, March 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, the merger proposal for the divil fruits is not the main topic of this section. Since it became somehow important, we should continue this discussion on Talk:Devil Fruit.


 * As I said above, if you want to have articles categorized in all broader and narrower categories, this woill end with hundreds of articles in Category:Characters and all artilcles categorized in Category:One Piece.


 * Why do you consider a category "incomplete" when some articles are in it's subcategories? If you have a collection of items and put some of them in a few small boxes and then put the small boxes into a large box along with the other items, would you say that the collection in the large box is incomplete? It's the same thing with categories and subcategories.


 * I took the examples that were brought up. However Category:Templates is quite close to my proposal, most templates included into it's subcategories are not categorized directly as templates (see Category:Gallery Templates or Category:Romaji Templates for a lot of them). Most of the directly categorized ones are not included into any of the subcategories. Only a few are categorized both into the category and a subcategory. Having all episodes categorized in Category:Episodes is very superfluous. It's a leftover from the times when we didn't categorize episodes by season and by director/sriptwriter/etc. It's especially useless because we have an Episode Guide.


 * Mugiwara Franky, your line "Your proposal asks to take out the Pirate Crews, Real Life Pirates, Pirate Captains" proves that you are not very familiar with the subject of our discussion. I don't propose to take the out of Category:Pirates because none of them is categorized directly. This subcategory already fulfils the rule I proposed. Why didn't you notice that? Perhaps because the Category:Pirates is overloaded and needs to be made smaller and clearer?


 * Yes, if the crews will be removed from the category:Pirates there will be only one way leading to them, from, which is a subcategory of Category:Piracy and Category:Organizations. However, before I've created the Category.piracy, there was only one way as well, form Category Pirates. pirate Organizations was a subcategory of Pirates at that time. In other words, I want to move all articles/categories not about individuals form Category pirates to category:piracy.


 * One-Winged Hawk, it isn't "a case of "I'm not going to stop complaining until I get my own way?"", I have made a proposal that I consider very useful and your counter-idea is in fact a chaotic system. I already said it above, if the "only the most precise category" rule is not applied, this might lead to problems. none of did provide a good answer to my question, how he or she wants to prevent somebody form putting each article into dozends of categories without using this rule. I am sure that my layout won't cause problems for you when you chaeck pages. Just do the following experiment: go to and forget for a moment thet all the fruits are there, check them just be visiting the three type subcategories. Please tell me then if it was much more difficult then to check them in the main category. El Chupacabra 17:22, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

I have already given my opinion on this and it hasn't changed! I have no idea why this still has continued for so long and hasn't ended yet, especially since it has become a repeated discussion trapped in a loop!! MasterDeva 21:05, March 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * This ^ we've discussed the issue, I had seriously considered giving this disucssion its own page since this seems to be a big discussion that does how MD describes it. None of us are changing our minds on the matters. But, I'm not about not to discuss it, its just the discussion died down for a number of days and I presumed we'd come to an arrangement. Did we call a vote? We should with all the listed ideas written out and just vote on it. 1) This idea, 2) another idea 3) A third idea that somehow includes beans and eggs 4) the fourth and final idea. Etc, etc, we all know how the voting system works around here. Once a vote is called, then we can just end the discussion. One-Winged Hawk 22:22, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

El, I do not understand why the hell you just don't see that the majority of the community does not support your proposal.

People have stated that they prefer the system regardless how ugly or chaotic it is as it helps them in getting the job done.

People are stating again their opinions on the matter.

The discussion is going round and round.

Your piracy category is a good idea but starting to become obnoxious since you want everything to be rearranged fit it.

Categories like the Episodes are still being used regardless of having a Episode Guide. Constantly saying we don't need a category that lists down every certain item because there is already a page that lists down the items is very short sighted. There is a limit to how useful a large list page is to a certain group of people.

In checking Devil Fruits, it's not hard to locate Devil Fruits via three different pages. However, it's much more easier if they were all in one neat place that doesn't force people go jumping to and fro.

In cases where people would put articles in every single possible category, it depends whether what they're doing is correct or just useless. If a person places a character in Pirates, Whitebeard Pirates, Pirate Captains, Devil Fruit users, Paramecia Devil Fruit users, Former Villains, and etc. it could be allowed as long as the character falls into the category. If the character doesn't fall into some of the categories, then the categories they don't belong to will be taken out.

The templates category started out with all of the templates placed together as a quick reference. Due to some edits, some of them were changed. They may support your proposal but locating them is a bit harder to some degree.Mugiwara Franky 02:38, March 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's quite strange you say that my category:piracy is a good idea but protest against the essential point of this idea. I didn't want to create on more category, I intend a full rearrange. I think it would be very useful to have a category for the individual pirates. Currently, we don't have on because Category:Pirates includes the crews as well. If we would remove them, we would have a compact category showing the individual pirates. And for the ones who want a list of the crews, a note with a link cvan be added at the top of the category. Like that: "This is a list of pirates. Note: This category includes only idividuals. For groups of pirates, see ." El Chupacabra 17:48, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Arguments
Defense for having more than one Category such as Main Category and Sub Category


 * Technically, the proper way of arranging things in a library setting
 * Gives users a broad search field of closely similar topics
 * Aids users in large actions such as mass searching or editing of similar topics
 * Gives users a search field that narrows down the broader search field by topics that differ ever so slightly from one another
 * Works very well especially in categories that have a lot of similar topics
 * Quote from Tipota, "Sub-categories will help you to find what you want."
 * Majority of the community have expressed their preference to this system rather than a super precise one
 * Quote from Angel, "Personally, I don't see the problem with having 2 or 20 categories down the bottom, so long as everyone can do their job on the wikia it's fine. If we have to sacrifice for a little unsighting listing such as 100+ categories, then so be it. At the end of the day, we've all got work to do here, none of us has to do it and if theres a problem it puts people off doing it. Better to have a 100+ categories and be ugly and able then a few and be impractical and attractive. Categories and Subcategories, in the end we have things to do."
 * Quote from Tipota, "I am against Sub-Category--> Template idea or a category with subcategories only."
 * Quote from MasterDeva, "the Devil Fruit categories are fine the way they are now and more convenient to work with."
 * The Wikia cannot be like Wikipedia as to incorporate the same super precise system policy
 * The wikia is generally a separate site from Wikipedia
 * Other wikias use the main and sub category system than the precise one of Wikipedia as a note
 * Doesn't aid people who wish to locate articles with broader topics if only put in sub categories
 * Doesn't aid people who wish to locate articles with narrower topics if only put in a main category
 * Makes certain categories incomplete.
 * The wikia doesn't have the same luxuries as Wikipedia to allow such a system
 * Quote from Angel, "Wikpedia isn't always worth noting their categories tend to be "whatever one editor thinks they should be""
 * Wikipedia's policy on categorizing things precisely can be interpreted differently to support the main and sub category setup rather than dismiss it
 * Quote from Tipota, "I have already read the Wikipedia categorization system and Devil Fruit category definitely doesn’t violate the categorization rules."
 * Alternatives such as directing people to use a "list of" page or a navigational template instead of a category only goes so far as pages and templates have limits that categories don't have.
 * "List of" Pages are usually not a quick reference index guide due to the general demand for them to be more than just a list.
 * Navigational templates are originally meant for navigational purposes between articles not necessarily fancy useful decor for categories.
 * Quote from MasterDeva, "categories show the number of article pages that exist in the wiki for the said pages"
 * As to overloading categories, quote from Tipota, "overload: a big category with 1000+ pages it is the same with a category with 200 pages a good index will help to find quickly what you want."

Sorry about the move, but this discussion was making the page load slowly. One-Winged Hawk 08:38, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Against categorizing both in Main Categories and Sub Categories El Chupacabra 17:48, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * The One Piece Encyclopedia is not a library.
 * We are more similar to wikipedia then to a library
 * If this method would be consequently applied, top-level categories like Category:One Piece would include all artitcles on the wikia.
 * Articles become overloaded with categories.
 * Searching articles in subcategories is not more difficult.
 * Searching artilcles in an overloaded category (200+ pages) is as difficult as searching them in a smaller cateogry with one subcategory.
 * Quote form Mugiwara Franky: "it's not hard to locate Devil Fruits via three different pages."
 * If a category includes articles that are not included in any of its subcategories, it's better not to include the otheres, otherwise it might confuse some users.
 * If a catzegory includes a large number of pages, it becomes difficult to not which pages are included or not included.
 * If an article is included in dozends of categories, it becomes difficult to notice all of them when reading the page.
 * The wikia lacks a rule on categorizing pages.
 * It would be useful to have a rule in order to avoid such conflicts.
 * We use the same MediaWiki software as Wikipedia.
 * Therefore it is useful to have similar rules on technical aspects
 * It is likely that visitors who look for information here are familiar with the wikipedia rules because wikipedia is more visited then then this wiki.
 * A category is not incomplete if some articles that would otheriwse be included are in a subcategory; the subcategories amand the main main category.
 * the "both in Main Categories and Sub Categories" is only good for systems with simple category trees with two or three levels. We have an elaborate system of categories with many overlapping levels.
 * Large parts of the wikia are already arranged according to the "only the most precise category" rule:
 * Category:Characters do not include all the characters. they are located in the subcategories only.
 * None of the articles in is included into Category:Pirates
 * most templates are not included into Category:Templates but into it's subcategories only. Most of the templates in Category:Templates arte not included into any of its subcategories.
 * Many violations of this rule are leftovers form former times, e.g. Category:Episodes orginaly had no subcategories. When they were created, it became superfluous to keep all the episode articles in category:Episodes.
 * Related categories can be linked to in the category description without being categorized.
 * This helps avoid the problem reported in the section below.
 * Possible category description for Category:Pirates: "This is a list of pirates. This category includes only idividuals. For groups of pirates, see ."
 * Our software doesn't depict all articles and subcategories of a category with over 200 entries on one page.
 * It is better to keep categoreis below 200 pages whenever it's possible.
 * The subcategories become less important and rarely visited and used.

Votes
Against El's proposals or For El's proposals.


 * Against: For various reasonsMugiwara Franky 00:57, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Against: I've stated my reasons. One-Winged Hawk 08:20, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * For: El Chupacabra 16:19, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral : I think both methods can be use depending on the category Kdom 20:56, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Against: For reasons I have stated myself as well as other editors. MasterDeva 19:08, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Against: The proposal makes things harder than they need to be. Uncanny Ultrabeast 20:57, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion
The wikia maybe not a library but having some sort of library based system would be appropriate. For extremely large categories like One Piece and categories, as I've said over and over, that's where the line has to drawn at least. Category overload for articles is not a problem, it just means you can find articles in other categories.

For searching in a 200+ category, users get a broad category that includes similar topics. If they wish to narrow down their search, they can use the subcategories to help them. If they wish to broaden their search once more, they can use the main category again.

My full quote: "In checking Devil Fruits, it's not hard to locate Devil Fruits via three different pages. However, it's much more easier if they were all in one neat place that doesn't force people go jumping to and fro."

For not noticing which articles are not included is a downside at most. But for the reason that if an article has lots of categories, it becomes difficult to notice all of them when reading the page, is stupid. An overload of categories is not a problem for an article. Alot of pages in wikipedia itself have category overload articles.

Having the same software as Wikipedia doesn't mean we should use the same rules. We can handle our site in any way possible using the same software system due to the liberty of the wikia. Assuming that most visitors who come here are familiar with all of Wikipedia's rule is a grave speculation. Not everyone knows the rules, which is why they are often cited in arguments in wikipedia. Using the Main Categories and Sub Categories thing is actually useful for large category trees.

For the existing categories themselves, they have their ups and down that could be rectified in time. The Episodes category however in particular should stay as it provides a list of episodes arranged by numerical order.

Our software doesn't depict all articles and subcategories of a category with over 200 entries on one page indeed. However, the beauty of it is that it fixes it by providing a links called (previous 200) and (next 200). In fact, I believe the software does this in order to avoid making users crosseyed with a list that contains more than 200+ categories.Mugiwara Franky 00:57, March 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * The piracy category was a good idea as it could include topics that are much broader in sense when it comes to other pirate articles found in the wikia. When you say rum, you know it's related to pirates but not necessarily something you want to put in a category called pirates as it is not a pirate. Since the essential point of the creation of such a category is apparently to rearrange various categories in one person's view rather than help the rest of the community based on their needs, such as users like Angel who need categories that show everything properly belonging to that category, I am starting to be really against it.


 * For a sign post saying go here and there, sometimes it can be annoying to some users depending on the matter. If it's a character with a similar name, it's fine. If it's just as simple as having some articles in a category, then it's not direct if not annoying.Mugiwara Franky 01:51, March 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Having experienced the time when Wikipedia became a ***** for fans of a series to edit, I know how the rules work. The rules on wikipedia are decided via mass vote, and its not always what folks want. Because if you feel passionate about a subject, you're more likely to bother to vote. And I've seen rules used in plenty of arguments. People tend to quote rules in arguments to their liking.


 * Its like the creationist argument, they decide evolution doesn't work, they have one particular line they like to quote from Darwin (which I forget) which they use as a canon against Darwin's theory of evolution. Yet whenever they quote that Darwin line they leave the most important part of that statement he made out - the next line. Why? Because that final line proves Creatism is wrong, yet without it they are right. So they use the version without that final line to their advantage.


 * This is how arguments at wikipedia tend to work, though you see people quoting all the time, they quote the rules that suit them most of all. Then when someone quotes the large rule to prove them wrong, stink happens. I could talk all day about the machine that is wikipedia, its more politics at times then it is practical. So long as you can rally a number of mass editors to side with you everything is within reach of achievement. I was there for 2 or 3 years monitoring the One Pieces pages, the origin 'founders' of this wikia were all subject to wikipedia's bad workings in this. We came here to break free of wikipedia. One thing I do note is half of the reason for wikipedias categorization is unlike us, who can only have at the most a few hundred right now, they may have 1000+ articles in a category. Take for instance the Orchid, a flower, there are 1,000 species of orchid, imagine searching through THAT list. So they sub categorize for this reason, rather then one mass orchid category they'd have them in sub categories. Likewise, you can imagien a general 'flower' category, with other flowers included, would be 100,000+ if not heading towards 500,000+, or 1,000,000.


 * LEts put this is another perspective, there is also not really much need FOR the main category when their "search" option covers just about every subject. Ever played "the wikipedia game". You go "Take a page like 'Tree' and find the quickest route from that page to 'spaceship' its a forumesque game I've seen a few times, though I imagine people don't know it. But it proves a point, that wikipedia is so big you can do this sort of thing with it. In theory, most of what you're looking for is found via the search engine. One-Winged Hawk 08:39, March 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the Category:Piracy is to remove all articles like Rum or Jolly Roger from the Category:Pirates. I think that the pirate organizations are should be included in their own category. I am sure that it would help all users. Just think a bit, as of now when you open category:Pirates you see alist of individuals and groups from A to S. In order to see the rest you need to see the next 200 (one more step). However, if my layout you would see a list of individual pirates only from A to Z (something that we don't have as of now) and a link to a complete list of pirate organizations. E.g. the one who wann a full of both individuals and groups would need the same two steps as now, but there will be a possibility to see the individuals without the groups. I see no reason why the current layout is better then the one I propose.


 * As to the episodes, is the fact that it provides a list of episodes arranged by numerical order your only argument? however, The Episode Guide does the same. Besides, do you think that otherwise people won't know that episode 437 is preceeded by 436 and followed by 438? Where is the benefit of this list?


 * As to rules in general, we are not anarchists. Thsi wiki alos has rules that should be followed. I proposed to add one more. What do you propose instead? Do you think that an "as many categories as possible" rule is better? or do you want to keep everything as it is now? this means that "anything goes" and will lead to more such discussions and arbitrary decisions. However, I've already said that it would be much easier to apply my rule to this wikia then the other one. for example it would be much sier to remove the few templates categorized in the more special categories from Category:templates then to put hundreds of templates into it. for category:pirates it's the same. It's easier to remove the captains then to put all the pirates (and all the other characters) into Category:Characters directly.

El Chupacabra 16:19, March 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Your piracy idea was a good idea as it can take out stuff like rum and such, but just because people agree with part of that proposal, doesn't necessarily mean people agree with all the other parts of the same proposal.


 * With the automated category system, using the next and prev buttons aren't that big of a deal as they are part of the same page and don't require much loading. Going between categories to find what you want however is a bigger problem as they require users to load up different pages. There's also the problem that when doing so, you have to start again from A. Why start again in A of another page when you can find the article you looking for by looking through the Z section of the category you are looking in.


 * What is the benefit of the list? It gives you a freaking quick index, something that can't be achieved in a large list of a page like Episode Guide. People know that 437 is preceded by 436 and followed by 438, but some of them are gonna require a list that is just a numerical list rather than a large guide to find what they want right away.


 * Indeed we are not anarchists but we are not wikipedia. Besides what makes your rule applicable to every facet of the wikia. Also are reading what people are saying. For the character category, I have said "There is a line of how far it should go". People like Angel have also said that "They need the system we have now as it makes their job easier". Do really want to deprive their ability to do their job well all for the sake of being neat and clean as wikipedia.Mugiwara Franky 16:42, March 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Nautrally there are categories that never deserve existing. "Smokers" can exist as its got a legit amount of characters that smoke, but the category "green hair" is thrown out because some green looking colours are actually classified as "blue" and vice versa, so to save arguments we just don't go there. And I don't know about the average user here, but when it comes to categories I'm uncreative at making new ones. I made the standard "we must have ones" and "smokers" and then found my brain rain dry on what else we could have. So I don't think its possible to even have 200+ categories right now unless we bring up the "green hair" style ones once more. ^_- One-Winged Hawk 21:15, March 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * If no rule will be applied, it will lead to more discussions about various categories. A clear rule would help to avoid the, but if you don't want one, we 'll continue the discussion for some categories only. As to the episodes: I see no reson why anybody should ever need just a numerical list of all episodes. If someone searches for a certain epiosde, he doesn't need any category. If he wants to know the overall number of episodes it's revealed at the main page.


 * Now to the category piracy. Please explain me why you want to keep a mixed list of groups and individuals split two parts instead of two lists, one for the individuals and one for the groups, both below 200 entries and linked to each other. El Chupacabra 17:48, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

The problem with a generalized rule as saying that all articles should be categorized to the most precise is that you have to rearrange the whole system from the bottom up to suit this rule. This is problematic as many people have as constantly being repeated use the system as is. Changing the whole structure of an established system that's been used for some time via a generalized rule can be bad for the community. It kinda forces the community to suit the rule rather than it being the other way around. The ruling you are proposing could have been implemented when the wikia was first started but not now.

While with things how they are, they can lead to discussions over various categories, at least they can be handled individually based on the circumstances of each individual category.

For episodes, providing people with a quick index of all the episodes is not bad. The Episode Guide page provides a list but it isn't a quick list for people to quickly locate the episode they want. The main page shows the number of episodes and such but it is not a quick indexes. Quick indexes help people out in locating things right away. This is also kinda why you say that taking things out of a category is easier than putting things in as there is a quick list for one to look at to see which don't belong.

The thing with the piracy category, which I think is being repeated over and over, is that I and other people like Angel see a category called pirates, they expect it to be a complete category with all the pirates both individual and groups for purposes like mass editing or searching. If we want to narrow our search down to pirate groups or organizations, we can use the appropriate subcategories to search for them.

As to the categories being under 200, you do know we are talking about pirates of a pirate manga/anime. There are more than 200 pirate articles currently and there are gonna be a whole lot more in the future. Constantly slimming things down in a category out of apparent fear of over 200 articles is making things complicated if not very superfluous.

By the way, considering that this has been about a three week long argument, it might be about time to really look at the comments and really see how the whole community feels about your proposals. The votes section is a start.Mugiwara Franky 01:45, March 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of us have already spoken. However I do note I have nothing agaisnt a "Piracey" sub-category OR category as well as the Pirates one, its just the overhaul of the whole system. Okay, some things COULD be better indexed and El does bring a point to the table on that and perhaps large 200 titles can be looked at to check everyone in there is suppose to be in there relgaurly. BUT we've got no real reason right now tochange the whole site and change things.


 * The main issue we're stuck on is the piracey issue and I think we've gone in circles on it about 5 or so times, I think we've already discussed and it was said earlier was fine. Its just the rest of the stuff some of us didn't like and the whole system effect was too much. On a low scale, some tweakings of the system aren't too much of a problem, its just this idea of a mass overhaul, I know its off putting to me, plus as its said time and time again, some of us rely on this system as it is far too much. But as I snapped a bit ealier at El for is just as you've said here; its been 3 weeks. There are only about half a dozen or less of us talking, we should have come to conclusion half-way through the second week, especially when the last week we've not really added anything too new to the table. :-/ One-Winged Hawk 02:06, March 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, the subject got so big I had to cut it off the previosu page to save loading times on that page, and to keep it together the rest of the categories had to be put on this page to make life easier. Simulair topics were also moved to keep it all togehter (and note; a few things were already brought up, but because of how things went got missed elsewhere). One-Winged Hawk 02:11, March 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I acknowledge that the majority of the users is against my proposal. Should we vote on the other possible generalized rule "put all articles in all possible categories"? Or should we make a compromise similar to what Kdom poined out and apply both metodes, depending on the category. Some categories like would include articles form their subcategories and other like Category:Characters won't. However, the question which category should belong to which type would be a topic for upcoming discussions then.


 * Now to Category:Episodes. Mugiwara Franky, how does an index that lists numbered pages in numerical order "help people out in locating things right away"? It could have some sense if the episode articles were named, but with the naming system we have now, it does not give any help. Nobody need a category listing all episodes to understand that the ones with lower numbers are followed by the ones with higher numbers.


 * As to category:piracy; Of course some people expect to find a full list of pirates but that's why i proposed to add the note at the top of the category. The ones who search for the groups would read it and go to category:Pirate organizations. Against, I think that it's better to have this as not as a subcategory of Category:pirates but okeep them on the same level, as two subcategories of Category:Piracy, along with pirate ships. It should look similar to Category:Characters and Category:Organizations. Both are subcategories of Category:One Piece World, but Organizations isn't a subcategory of characters. I agree that the number of individual pirate will raise over 200, but the structure would be the same. There would be one category for the individuals and one for the groups. The ones who search just for one category wouln't be bothered by the other one and the ones who need both individuals and groups would have to take multiple steps anyway. Whtching the next 200 is't more or less difficult then following a link. However, if we'll keep the mixed list, the ones who need the individuals only woulúld have a problem. El Chupacabra 17:37, March 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * For the categories, I've been saying something like that for some time now with me saying that there is a limit. However, it maybe best to not make any absolute generalized rules as certain categories would have a problem if they were forced either way.


 * For the Episodes category, it helps people right away as it helps them easily locate an episode via the numerical order. Take this for example, a user knows that the info he wants to look up on is on an episode near episode 200. To help him out, he is gonna need a list that just shows the episode numbers. When he has located Episode 200, he can simply click on the links in a close proximity Episode 200. This is one way of helping people out in finding what they want apart from navigational templates and links in the episode article themselves. The other ways are useful but some people may want a different way of locating things rather than these.


 * For the Piracy category, I really can't easily see some parts of your plan especially how you worded things out. Why make things more complicated when the simplest solution is helping people out.


 * For the discussion itself, it may need to stop or be accepted as is. It's really been going on for some time. It's gone from simple to including a whole variety of aspects of the wikia. Dragging it on with stuff like making new related discussions and new related requests for votes is getting annoying and tiring.Mugiwara Franky 02:06, March 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * We voted - close the vote and end the discussion. We spoke earlier and if anything thats an end all. I suggest we don't talk about this for 3 or 4 weeks and THEN consiider it. By then we've long thought about it. Right now, its all hiccups and confusions since cycling ideas are being said over and over again. A hault to the discussion would do us all good. Then when reopened, let proper preposals be put up (I actually suggest 3 different ones). We can rediscuss this then with the discussion fresh on our minds. One-Winged Hawk 02:34, March 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea. I agree to make a break and restart the discussion some weeks later. El Chupacabra 17:40, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Others Category issue
About the big Categories. A problem is that the server put the subcategories at the same letter than the article. Which means that, if the category contains more than 200 articles and the subcategory starts with the letter Z, it will not be displayed when you click on the category link. A workaround is to redirect the subcategory under * but it is not made everywhere. Shall we generalise that ? Also, for information, I have copied the CategoryTOC used on wikipedia that can be used for the big categories indexation Kdom 12:28, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

And still on categorisation, thanks for your opinion here. Kdom 20:26, March 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Where exactly does this happen again if I may ask? Just asking cause I'm not exactly sure of the problem being described. From what I understand at least, the system automatically sorts things out in order to provide enough links, whether article or subcategory, in the category per category page with the starting letter in mind.Mugiwara Franky 03:12, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

In you see that Portraits is artificially put at * letter otherwise it would not appear. Also, you see that Portraits has, in theory, 3 subcategories (well, maybe they should be remove), but when you click on the link they do not appear, unless you go further in the list. If at least one Sub-category appears, it gives you a message like This category has the following m subcategories, out of n total, but if you do not remember what they were, it does not help much and you have to go back in the tree. Kdom 09:19, March 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * I dislike the large categories in genral. I think it would be good to reduce the number of pages in these categories wherever it's possible. Not putting pages that are already categorized in a subcategory into the main category would help. El Chupacabra 17:48, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the Character category is probably a bug or something.


 * No it is not a bug, it works like that on Wikipedia as well. I suppose it is something unpractical that people are use to deal with. So if by miracle a wiki developer read this thread, notice that it should be changed ! Kdom 21:36, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Large categories cannot be avoided no matter how many times you remove articles out of a category. Making the categories as small as possible is superfluous if not counterproductive.Mugiwara Franky 01:11, March 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * According to Special:Mostpopularcategories we have only 9 of them. I think that three of them can and should be reduced. These are:Category:Pirates (see the discussion above for more ditails), Category:Episodes (should look exactly like Category:Characters) and Category:Non-Canon (same as for Category:Pirates). however, if every page will be categorized in as many categories as possible, the number will increas by times. El Chupacabra 16:19, March 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * That is a fucking idea of perceiving things in light of what's going on. That special page is meant to show a person which categories are popular not which categories need to be reduced. It is not candidate for deletion list or anything like that.Mugiwara Franky 16:44, March 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Puts the "swear tin" in front of MF. 


 * That will be 10pence or cents or whatever currancey you use... And depending on the amount of 00s I'll be demanding more. Lol. Sorry, I had to throw a joke in here, this whole page is a page of dead beat seriousness and its about time we had one light hearted message in here. :-P


 * Special Pages are just routine maintaince related pages, they do particular searches on subjects. I'd not bother putting anything up with a categroy found via that for deletetion unless it has 1 item in it only. Then you can wonder why it exists. One-Winged Hawk 21:20, March 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * look at now. just add a "| " after the name when you categorize the subcategory and it will appear at the first page. El Chupacabra 17:48, March 17, 2010 (UTC)