Forum:Marine Rank Categories and Tabs

Weeks/months ago, it has been suggested that all Marine ranks and their related portrait templates be deleted. This matter hasn't been resolved for a very long time, so let's get a forum started. Here are the pages we should deal with:
 * Category:Ranks
 * Marines/High-ranking Marines
 * Marines/Low-ranking Marines
 * Template:Commodores
 * Template:Fleet Admiral
 * Template:Marine Captains
 * Template:Marine Commanders
 * Template:Marine Lieutenant Commander
 * Template:Rear-Admirals
 * Template:Vice-Admirals

How should we deal with all of them? 07:20, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
We have articles about all the ranks. And its nice.

Now for their templates, I say they are fine in the 'Marines' article, that we keep all the templates together. To just delete the rest two tabs and keep that only page. There we have links about the ranks. As for the category 'Ranks', I don't mind keeping that. Its actually good.

As I said in the other talk here, all the info in High-Ranking Marines and Low-Ranking Marines tabs is already on the main page under Rank System and Marine Members headings (or could easily be added with just a sentence or two). Also there is no need to merge the ranks that are long enough to have their own pages (Admiral, Vice Admiral, and one or two others if my memory serves). All the other ranks are yet again just repeats of what is already in the main Marines page and should be turned into redirects. Bastian964 13:06, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with LPK, its good to have them all together so people can get a quick list of marines without searching throught a lot of pages, thats expecially helpful for people with slow computersDionit 20:08, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

No, don't do that. What's wrong with having minor pages?

Then can we start deleting/merging the lesser pages or something? And we keep the Admiral pages? 07:44, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good.. And yeah, the 'Admiral', 'Vice Admiral' and 'Fleet Admiral' pages are all fine..

No, don't do that. What's wrong with having minor pages?

Joekido 09:19, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with the deletion of the "High-ranking Marines" and "Marines/Low-ranking Marines" pages as they practically seemed redundant I don't understand the reason behind considering the thread archived so soon. MasterDeva 10:27, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's face the facts: the stubby and most likely never to increase rank pages are an eyesore, so we merge them into one list, similar to Foods and Beverages. People were against allowing the ranks to be on a separate page each, and the tabs were redundant. So I don't see what else is to argue about. 18:54, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

Well I already said in the other talk page that we should merge ALL the ranks into one article. SeaTerror 20:13, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

Its fine as it is.. It turned to be better..

Not really. If it was something else they would have all got merged. SeaTerror 01:54, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

Well I never stated that I was against the merger. I merely wanted to say that more editors should participate in the conversation before it is considered closed and archived. MasterDeva 15:56, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

True, but previous forums/talk pages on the topic already shown that a majority is for merging, so I didn't see much reason to continue, seeing many people were either agreeing or remaining silent. 04:47, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Didn't we created the high/low ranking subpages to merge the single rank pages? Just to remind... so we want to merge them in Marine Ranks? Did I get it right? I'm fine to that.


 * Originally they were all on the Marine page, but like with Devil Fruits the page became so buly we split it for easier sorting. Ony due to dodgey translations I'm not sure it worked well in Marine rankings case. Those pages were all based on looose/quasi elevant transaltions in english and weren't all perfect matches for the rank assigned to them. One-Winged Hawk 21:41, December 26, 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything else to talk about in this forum? Because if not, I'm closing it off in three days. 23:36, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

I already said it. All of the ranks should have been merged. Including admirals. SeaTerror 05:43, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Admiral is too long of a page to merge properly. And I wasn't asking just you, but everyone else. 05:55, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

I'm still against this. If it was up to me I would seperate these pages. There is nothing wrong with having a small article. Are you people paying attention to me?

Joekido 11:57, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Well its not my fault you people ignored it. It isn't even that long at all. It can easily be merged. SeaTerror 16:22, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Well, why don't you try to merge it? Anyway, I'm closing this forum off in a few hours, if nobody has anything else to add. 07:51, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

Because obviously a debate has to happen first. Also no you're not. If there are unresolved issues they need to be debated first. SeaTerror 16:46, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

Hey, it's already been determined to merge them all. The only reason I didn't merge the Admirals into the rest is because I didn't know how to do it without making it too long or deleting important lines. If you're so good, why don't you show us how to do it? Anyway, everything is decided, no need for this forum to be active much longer. 19:34, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

The proper way to do it is ti debate first how it should be done. Such as adding tabs or adding it in all at once to the main article. SeaTerror 20:03, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

You try tabbing something small like chore boy or ensign. That's no different from leaving it as their single page. 23:24, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

It can be how it was before with high ranks and low ranks but tabbed instead. SeaTerror 03:11, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

That's a rather terrible design. 03:43, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how it is terrible at all. SeaTerror 06:14, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

Which would be high and which would be low rank? The cutoff line is hard to determine exactly. 07:03, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

It can be done in 2 ways. Make 3 different tabs such as the highest ranks in one then lower such as captain and under then the low ranks or make 2 tabs with all higher ranks and the other having all low ranks. SeaTerror 00:36, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

But who are high and who are low ranks? It'd be easier to just jam admiral into the page somehow, if you can. 04:04, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

The highest ranks are fleet admiral through rear admiral. Though there's also probably a rank in between commodore and rear admiral we don't know about yet. If we split it 3 ways it would be fleet admiral through rear admiral then commodore-ensign and all the low ranks into one. SeaTerror 17:02, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

The way you rank them, seems so unofficial and fanon. 19:13, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

I actually agree with you. All these ranks are fanon since they don't exist in the manga. SeaTerror 20:45, January 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * What? All ranks were given in SBS Volume 8. How would they be fanon? (And we know there is no rank between commodore and rear admiral.)


 * Yeah, and for more info, SBS Volume 24. 21:45, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

Look up sarcasm in the dictionary. SeaTerror 22:55, January 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * Try adding a sarcasm function in typing. 23:11, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

In any case, Admirals are the most deserving page to be kept on its own, no need to merge. Let's just put it to a vote. 01:51, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

I can't vote since I can go for either one of the merge options. SeaTerror 05:55, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Vote
To vote, you must have: Vote ends in two weeks, on January 22, 2012. 01:53, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * At least 300 edits.
 * Must be active for at least 3 months.