Forum:Categories 2

This issue needs to be addressed soon. In chat we've been discussing whether or not we should just delete people from the antagonist category and make sure their only in the ___ saga category, while leaving the saga categories as sub categories of the antagonist category. Category:Antagonists for reference.

There is also the issue of the devil fruit users category page. It is whether or not we should remove all of them from that category page, and just put them in the respective devil fruit type page (logia, paremecia, zoan) Category:Devil Fruit Users.

Start Discussion! Galaxy9000 (talk) 13:54, August 12, 2012 (UTC)

Devil Fruit Category Discussion
I like the idea of getting rid off the Devil Fruit Category page and putting them in the respective Devil Fruit Type Page. User:X-RAPTOR 14:04, August 12, 2012 (UTC)

We'd keep the DF category page and have the sub categories in it. Just the characters would only be on the types categories Galaxy9000 (talk) 14:10, August 12, 2012 (UTC)

I'm down with just using the sub-categories. Is there a sub-category for unknown devil fruit users? If not, what do we do with them? 14:35, August 12, 2012 (UTC)

Stick them in an unknown devil fruit category. Galaxy9000 (talk) 17:11, August 12, 2012 (UTC)

Or just leave them in the main category.

We treat confirmed users with unnamed fruits, example Epoida, the same way we treat users with named fruits. The categories are fine as they are. 21:28, August 12, 2012 (UTC)

They're not. We shouldn't put people in both "Devil Fruit Users" and in the subcategories. It looks very unorganized. Galaxy9000 (talk) 22:45, August 12, 2012 (UTC)

It's fine as it is.

Ah LPK. You really added to the discussion by saying that. It isn't fine as it is. Galaxy9000 (talk) 23:19, August 16, 2012 (UTC)

'It's fine as it is'.

Nope. Wrong once again. It's redundant to put them in both. Galaxy9000 (talk) 22:33, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, actually this is the only wiki I've seen so far that place an article in both the category and its parent category. Then why don't you add the grandparent-category too? The purpose of a sub category is to make lighter the parent category.

Antagonist Discussion
Start discussion. I'd also like to add the fact that we need to know who to classify as an antagonist and not to classify as an antagonist. People like Amazon and Conis can be considered "Former antagonists" because at one point, they went against the ideals and dreams of the protagonists. The same can be said with groups such as God's Guards who most definitely antagonized the straw hats during the Skypiea arc, even if they turned good later. Galaxy9000 (talk) 06:12, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

I'm sticking by what I said in the Usopp discussion - you've been setting the threshold way too low. When I go into the antagonists categories, I want to know who the real enemies of the Straw Hats are, since they've quarreled with pretty much everyone at some point. In the case of Amazon and Conis, they were acting under duress, so they shouldn't be considered antagonists. 06:17, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

Antagonists have their role over most if not all of the plot for that arc. Single instances like what Amazon and Conis did can hardly be considered antagonistic. They weren't out to destroy the crew outright, they were just doing their job and civic duty, respectively. After their single isolated incident, how did they impede the actions of the crew? Exactly. Antagonists are judged for their actions on the whole based on duration, degree, and intent, which is why Franky is considered an antagonist for the Water 7 arc. One action does not an antagonist make. 06:20, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

This is why the former antagonist category exists. None of the people in that are enemies of the crew anymore. Galaxy9000 (talk) 06:30, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

Conis and Amazon are NOT 'Former Antagonists'.. You see everyone out of their crew as an antagonist.

The "Former Antagonists" category is for people that could have been considered antagonists at one point. If we're telling you that these people were never antagonists to being with, then you can't just put them in the "former antagonists" category. Former Antagonists is for people who were once substantial enemies of the crew in one arc (or most of one) and have since become allies later in the arc or in a later arc. People that totally belong in the FA category are people like: Mr. 2, Hatchan, Vivi, the Franky Family, and most of Galley-La. People like Conis and Amazon just weren't oppposed to the SHs long enough to be conisdered antagonists. 16:16, August 16, 2012 (UTC)

Let's add Ishigo Shitemanna to the category. SeaTerror (talk) 17:02, August 16, 2012 (UTC)

Stop trolling SeaTerror. I'm fine with Conis and Amazon not being considered former antagonists, and @LPK, "You see everyone out of their crew as an antagonist." Not at all, just the ones who have gone against the actual definition. Galaxy9000 (talk) 23:17, August 16, 2012 (UTC)

World Government and World Government Workers Discussion
I've noticed recently that there's been minor debate over who/what should be added to these categories. Personally, I think Marines do not need to be added to this category, simply because it's understood that the Marines work for the WG. However, for people that have an unclear rank/standing in the Marines (ie: Impel Down workers/guards/officers and CP9), I think they should be put in the WG workers category.

Also, for locations, it should be for places owned by the WG. Punk Hazard, while currently not populated by WG workers, does still belong to them, Caesar is just hiding out there without the government's knowledge.

That's just my opinion, but let's actually discuss this a bit further before the edit wars get to be too much. 23:49, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Putting the marines in the World Government Workers category would not be redundant at all. That's like saying it's clearly understood who the antagonists are so we shouldn't have a category for them 20:48, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

It is redundant, not because of what JSD said (Gal is totally right in his answer), but simply because Category:Marines is a subcategory of Category:World Government Workers. It's basically the same case as for the other sections in this forum.

When Klobis told me why, I understand him why he removed these categories, and I believe that he is right about removing it. We already have sub categories on that page, why do we have to add the parent category as well? 21:50, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

General discussion
We should extend the discussion to every article under both the category and its parent category.

Agreed. The WG and DF sections have essentially the same argument going on in each. The antagonists category also has the same kind of thing that could affect it, though that discussion is more about "who is an antagonist?"

I think you're right form the posts in the other sections, Levi. The parent category shouldn't be needed for those in the sub-categories. 00:11, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that some mistake the category system for a tagging system like in the danbooru image boards? -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 05:22, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

I fear that too, in a wiki the category-organization should be a tree-style.

So articles that are in subcategories do not also belong in the parent category. Some examples: Kuro belongs in Category:East Blue Saga Antagonists and not Category:Antagonists.
 * If people are Antagonists in multiple Sagas (Ex: Smoker in East Blue/Alabasta/Marineford), then they'll go in multiple subcategories, yes?

The Gomu Gomu no Mi goes in Category:Paramecia, not Category:Devil Fruits. Likewise, Monkey D. Luffy goes in Category:Paramecia Devil Fruit Users and not Category:Devil Fruit Users.
 * I'm not sure what we'll do for unconfirmed fruits though. Possibly put them in the larger category.

Kizaru belongs in Category:Marine Admirals, and not Category:Marines or Category:World Government Workers.
 * For people that have held multiple ranks, they should go in the categories of all the ranks they've had, right? Ex: Smoker goes in Commodores, Captains, and Vice-Admirals.

Are these decisions ok with everyone? If so, we won't need a poll and we'll put it directly into the Manual of Style. 00:44, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Articles with subcategories on it should not have the parent category on it. Gotcha, I agree with that, JSD. 00:49, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Basically, yes. There can be exceptions in particular cases though.

What cases are you thinking of? We should get that exceptions sort out, if we decide on sub categories only. 19:26, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

@JustSomeDude...: Ok and yes, if an articles is not clear what sub-category belongs to (like an strange DF) then it remains in the parent category (Devi Fruits). I don't agree on putting a marine in all former rank categories, it's misleading... hence we should create the "former categories", but I do not agree with creating the former rank category for the same reason we removed the former (promoted) marines from the galleries. Garp, Sengoku and retired marines should have their former category though.

@Jade: This explains the general idea (actually, the whole section is interesting). Basically, the rule of "articles that are in subcategories do not also belong in the parent category" applies to "diffusing categories", like the antagonist ones (one big category is splitted into smaller ones), but not all categories are diffusing—and which category is diffusing or not is debatable. For example, I'd say that inside of Category:Pirates, the two subcategories Category:Pirate Captains‎ and Category:First Mates‎ are non-diffusing: they exhibit characters of the category that have particular status, but they don't "subdivide" the category. I know that's rather technical and most users don't give a damn, sorry about it!