I think with the growing possibility that characters may die after the timeskip, it may be prudent to add a section into character infoboxes to convey their current status in the storyline. Most wikia sites do it already and I think it would be useful to avoid anything happening like this in a hypothetical scenario
-- Age x (before timeskip) -- Age x (after timeskip) (deceased)
Maybe it's just me, but this comes off as a little messy and it would be much more attractive in the article if we did it like this.
-- Age x (before timeskip) -- Age x (after timeskip) -- Status: Deceased
This would also be useful to showcase the status of characters with unknown ages, such as Rosinante.
| Hey! Let's talk this out!
This is an active forum. Please participate if you wish to make changes to the subject at hand. Remember to remain calm and civil throughout the discussion!
Yeah, this sounds pretty useful to me. I like dealing with things before they become a problem. I would lean towards the first option though, since if we include "status" we'll probably get more newbs trying to make characters dead. Talk | 04:26, January 16, 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't giving options. lol I was basically comparing the system we had now to a new proposed system. As for people changing people's statuses to dead.. well that can [and has] already happened with the current system, so I'd call that a non-issue. The main concern I have is characters who don't have established ages in the series. There's no way to convey them as "dead" like we can with Ace or Whitebeard. If we displayed the status of characters in the infobox, it would basically solve this issue as well as make infoboxes more aesthetically cleaner. --Mandon (talk) 06:35, January 16, 2015 (UTC)
Oops, sorry for misunderstanding. So yeah, I wouldn't want to include a character's current status because it would lead to noobs trying to alter it. And if a character is deceased, the article does a decent job of showing that, it doesn't need to be in the infobox. Talk | 21:48, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
Is that really such a big deal though? People will already prematurely put "deceased" after a characters' age in the infobox. This changes nothing. Plus nearly every other Wikia site in existence has this system in place with no issues whatsoever. The pros outweigh the cons imo. --Mandon (talk) 00:12, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
We already do it that way anyway. Ace's page has it as deceased and if a character died post timeskip it would be there too after their post timeskip age. SeaTerror (talk) 02:45, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
I'm aware, but that's also kind of the issue I have. Putting their status after their age may work well enough, but it would look a lot more clean in the article imo by having a separate area for their current status. This also lets us showcase it for characters with no disclosed ages either, like Rosinante. --Mandon (talk) 03:31, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I see no problem with adding the status of the characters on their infoboxes, it's not as if it's going to kill us to do that, and as Mandon said, it'd be more cleaner.02:17, January 29, 2015 (UTC)
ST, I know you get off to it, but you cannot give your side of an argument as "we already do it this way". That just shows you can't think of anything to say about the topic.
It's recommended to throw away socks after a year 20:36, February 1, 2015 (UTC)
ST, 99% of wiki's on the internet do it this way. Ours is the only one that doesn't. You say the way we do it is fine, but the fact that we can only list characters as "deceased" when they have an established age says otherwise. There's no reason not to change it. --Mandon (talk) 21:42, February 2, 2015 (UTC)
I might have to semi-lock a shitload of pages after this, but I'll say it: I've changed my mind. And I think that makes it a clear majority, unless someone who hasn't posted here has a problem.
Now the real question is how we move forward. Are we gonna painstakingly add this to the infoboxes manually, or attempt automation or a bot? I lean towards automation, personally, since I bet it can be done with no impact on load times and it will lead to less vandalism from newbs, because they won't know how to change it. Talk | 22:04, February 2, 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so maybe we need a bit more discussion. But still, we should discuss options of how we can deal with this. Talk | 22:30, February 2, 2015 (UTC)
I'm still in favor of having a status for alive/dead, but I'd prefer a bot doing this kind of work. Why deal with automation?22:53, February 2, 2015 (UTC)
That's one of those things all wikis deal with Awai, including ours, even now. [Doflamingo anyone?] There really isn't much difference from people adding (deceased) to a character's age and changing their status from : Alive to : Deceased. Same problem, different place in the infobox. --Mandon (talk) 06:07, February 3, 2015 (UTC)
Not the same. Currently, if a character's fate is unknown, we can just say that in the article and refrain from marking them as "deceased". However, with the status section, we only have two options: claiming that they're alive or claiming that they're dead. Take Bluejam for example - Either option would be speculation.
I really don't see a problem with the current way of doing things. If you want the status for unknown-age characters that much, then maybe just put "Age: Unknown (deceased)". Awaikage Talk 10:25, February 3, 2015 (UTC)I like M4ND0N's idea, about those with unknown statuses, just set them as unknown. Awa's post above is fine with me too. As for the automation, if it's easily possible I'd prefer it, if not let just do this manually.<