Forum:CT:Characters to Individuals

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Characters to Individuals


This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was inconclusive. –SentryTalk 09:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Characters to Individuals

Imperialles recommends that we change all the categories with Characters in them to Individuals. I beg to differ because it will force us to rename all the categories, apply that text to every character article, and change all the character stubs. But as has been done many times before I will hold a quick vote as to whether or not we impliment this change. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:29, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)

For change

  1. Imp 21:39, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  2. For. At the very least, we should change those that have reasonable suggestions for replacement (e.g. "Black Sun members"), in the hopes that a more suitable word than "individuals" can be found for those that don't qualify; I've made some suggestions below. We also shouldn't rule out "person" and "people" as labels. jSarek 11:18, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  3. For --beeurd 01:36, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  4. For, at least to begin a move away from OOU categories where they don't belong. --SparqMan 03:28, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  5. For, stylistically better and non-OOU. - Sikon [Talk] 10:12, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  6. For. Wookieefication is wookieefication. CooperTFN 02:06, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  7. Riffsyphon1024 06:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC), as things have changed in the last year and I transfered many IU characters to individual categories. There can be ways around this then.
  8. Kuralyov 06:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Adamwankenobi 20:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Why would a citizen of the GFFA see a category reading "characters"? As CooperTFN said above, "Wookieefication is Wookieefication."
  10. I thought we already agreed in this? Yes, we should do this where possible. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Against change

#? Riffsyphon1024 21:29, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  1. MarcK 21:40, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  2. Riff's outline below shows many conflicts which would arise. – Aidje talk 05:44, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  3. Don't particularly see the need myself. WhiteBoy 07:25, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  4. This requires a prolonged effort of editions, and I don't see it so important. Leaving as is, at least for now, will avoid people focusing in a routine instead doing other needed editions. --Thinortolan 00:01, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  5. Nothing wrong with how it is now; the 'pedia has never and will never be entirely IU, and I think the categories is one area in which IU isn't important. Also, the category section appears at the bottom of the article, where all the other IU stuff goes anyway, so it's not like it's a glaring problem. That, coupled with the workload involved...I see it as being pretty pointless. --Fade 14:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Characters is more specific - in that these are fictional people. Save 'individuals' for real life folks like cast and crew. -- Dark Spork 06:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Against. Last I checked, our readers do not live in the Star Wars universe, and our readers are the ones whom categories are intended to benefit. — SavageBob 17:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Against - let's stick to "characters". According to literary science, character is also the correct term for persons or individuals in fictive worlds. KEJ 17:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Against. -- SFH 19:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Mild against - some of the changes suggested seem to be fairly natural, but some of them seem forced. I'm against the use of 'individual' at all as a replacement for character because it's so awkward, but 'member', etc., is fine where appropriate. Yrfeloran 20:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm willing to do all the work, really. I have a whole week to spare. :) --Imp 21:39, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • I have thought about it and maybe its okay. If you are willing to do the work then it can be done but I'd like to specify how the categories in Category:Characters are renamed.
  • Characters = Individuals
  • Black Sun characters = Black Sun members
  • Bounty hunters = no change
  • Character stubs = still unknown on this
  • Confederacy characters = Confederacy members
    • Or "Confederacy leaders", "Confederacy commanders", "Confederacy soliders" etc --
      • "Confederate citizens" as a catch-all? Yrfeloran 20:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

SparqMan 03:27, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Corellians = no change
  • Criminals = no change
  • Dark Jedi characters = Dark Jedi
  • Families = no change
  • Imperial characters = Imperial individuals
    • "citizens"? Yrfeloran 20:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • This could be "Imperial personnel," or even just "Imperials" jSarek 11:18, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Jedi characters = Jedi (but this would conflict with the all-purpose Jedi category that exists already)
    • "Jedi Knights", "Jedi Masters", "Jedi Padawans", etc. --SparqMan 03:27, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Mandalorians = no change
  • Musicians = no change
  • New Republic characters = New Republic individuals
  • Old Republic characters = Old Republic individuals
    • These last two could be "Old/New Republic personnel." jSarek 11:18, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • "Personnel" kinda implies that they are an employ, which is IMO a little too specific for this "catch all" category. WhiteBoy 07:29, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC)
        • Is "New Republicans" silly? Obviously this could be broken down into "New Republic politicians", "New Republic Defense Force officers" etc. --SparqMan 03:27, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
          • NR/OR citizens? Yrfeloran 20:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Podracers = no change
    • Change to Podracer pilots, as podracers are the vehicles. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Political characters = Politicians
  • Rebel Alliance characters = Rebel Alliance individuals
    • Again, "Rebel Alliance personnel" would work, as would just "Rebels." jSarek 11:18, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Sith characters = Sith lords or Sith Lords

This is what I'd like to see then if this is approved. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:01, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • Not all Sith were Lords, so the correct category would be Sith, giving it a similar problem as the Jedi category. --Imp 22:11, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • "New Republic individuals" sounds just as stupid as "New Republic characters". How does Wikipedia deal with individuals? --SparqMan 22:15, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • I can't seem to find anyway around the 'individuals' part of it unless they are affiliated with someone or do something else. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:27, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • I think for major organisations (eg: the Empire, Republic, etc.) "personnel" sounds the most appropriate to me. --Beeurd 16:17, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • Perhaps now is the time to sketch out a better overarching categorization scheme for the whole wiki. --SparqMan 23:05, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
        • I'd actually agree on that point. If we are going to spend what is undeniably a great effort in this reorganisation, we might as well ensure that the entire wiki has a well defined categorisation structure. Not saying what we have now is bad, I just believe it could be better. --Beeurd 16:17, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm in favour of folding all the Sith character categories back into one. It's pointlessly complex at the moment and some characters aren't able to be fit in the categories already there. QuentinGeorge 23:39, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)
            • I'll second that. – Aidje talk 18:05, 25 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • We seem to have come to a standstill at 3-2 against. <sings>How long do we have to wait, how long?</sings> – Aidje talk 04:35, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I've already voted, so I can't do much about the standstill. ;-) Still, I'd like to point out that the recent spate of categorizing characters by species/ethnicity has also greatly enhanced our ability to make this change. jSarek 05:41, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • I vote! Ha ha! Erm... Sorry? -- Dark Spork 06:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • In changing my vote, it was on these terms: that there was a way to rename these and the fact that this in-universe encyclopedia should remain like that while in universe categories. Individuals (humans) on Earth can be called "people" versus the wide variety of species in the galaxy for which "Individuals" works better. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • A more philosophical question then: would droids count as individuals, given that they are not as such sentient organic beings? They are without doubs characters in a narratological point of view, but are they individuals? KEJ 10:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Sentience may not play a role here, but intelligence might. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you Yrfeloran. I like citizens and I think that will work for members of the various governments, i.e. Imperial citizens, Old Republic citizens, New Republic citizens, and so on. Enough of this character crap. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I agree with Yrfeloran's comment on the vote. It's fine so long as it makes sense, but if it must be forced then it shouldn't be done.--The Erl of the Forum talk What I do 00:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.