Category talk:Inhabitants

I am strongly of the opinion that this category should be called "People" instead, since not all articles about people are articles about 'characters' but all articles about characters are articles about people. To me, 'character' refers to someone who plays a plot role in a novel or computer game, but not necessarily someone who is mentioned in a source book. Still, these people deserve to be documented here. Fw190a8 00:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No objections? Great! I'll begin the move. Fw190a8 02:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think thats a good idea. Also I would suggest splitting them up into two main categories. One canon and one non-canon section for the people from the games and so forth. Johnnyriot999 21:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think every category needs to be split up into subcategories. We've already got categories like "Non-canonical" that such characters belong to separately. What's next, creating a subcategory for "Non-canonical" called "Characters"? I think it's enough for an article to belong to several categories without those categories having subcategories for each other. And the canonicity division isn't meaningful with the characters that have both kind of versions. "Inhabitants", in turn, is problematic because not everyone clearly belongs somewhere. But it's usually clear that someone belongs to "Characters" at least.
 * I'm not sure what to say about the category "People" here, except that I don't think "Characters" is an inappropriate term for any fictional person. Ville V. Kokko 07:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with this statement: "Inhabitants", in turn, is problematic because not everyone clearly belongs somewhere. As you can see from all the existing subcategories of Category:Inhabitants, including every location and creature type a person/character/inhabitant can exist within, every inhabitant can be clearly included somewhere. It's because of this that I am very in favor new inhabitant form of categorization, but then again I favor many subcategories. As for the non-canon bits, I really dont care THAT much, it just seems they should be categorized differently from articles that are 100% legit. Johnnyriot999 08:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My concern with the term "Characters" is that it implies a detachment from the game world, but the rest of the articles are written from an in-game standpoint, ie "Waterdeep is a metropolis" rather than "Waterdeep is a fictional metropolis in the Forgotten Realms". The problem with "People" is that it doesn't really describe individuals of certain races such as dragons. I appreciate Ville V. Kokko's concerns about having too many categories, and I think that some of them look really empty at the moment, but suppose you were looking for Wizards in general. It's slightly more trouble to click on Wizards, then on 1st level wizards to find what you're looking for, but you will find it. If they're all in one large category called Wizards, there's no way of telling which of them are 1st level, so you would potentially have to go through all of them! I don't believe there needs to be a "non-canon" category, because I find it unlikely anyone would be specifically looking for non-canon articles, especially since there are already categories for Baldur's Gate II, etc. Fw190a8 08:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Some categories treat their items as fictional anyway, for example as belonging to a specific computer game. Since some of them must, I don't see any difference in which reasoning you use for a particular category. Ville V. Kokko 11:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Another thing: suppose you were looking for wizards in general. All of them. It's not only slightly more trouble to click on Wizards, then 1st level wizards, then back, then 2nd level wizards, then back, then on 3rd-level wizards, then back... How about categories that contain articles as well as subcategories that contain part of the list of articles each? Of course, that's very overlappy too. Ville V. Kokko 14:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If I can offer some ideas. "Some categories treat their items as fictional anyway, for example as belonging to a specific computer game." I agree that should be avoided. My main concern is the canon/non-canon dynamic be dealt with.
 * As for this point:"Another thing: suppose you were looking for wizards in general. All of them. It's not only slightly more trouble to click on Wizards, then 1st level wizards, then back, then 2nd level wizards, then back, then on 3rd-level wizards, then back... How about categories that contain articles as well as subcategories that contain part of the list of articles each?" To adress that concern we could always do a "wizards by name" category or portals for classes that show and highlight all those who are of that class. Johnnyriot999 17:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I accept Ville V. Kokko's point about a user looking for a list of all wizards. Could we place, for example, a 3rd level wizard in the "wizards" category and the "3rd level wizards" category? As for non-canon articles, can we put "(non-canon)" on the end of their article names, so for example, "Foo" becomes "Foo (non-canon)"? This would help identify them in a category, but then what would happen with articles that have both canon and non-canon sections? Fw190a8 19:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with having one category for "Non-canon" and another for "With non-canon sections", I just don't want other categories divided into sub-categories according to that as well. Saying it once is enough, so to speak. Ville V. Kokko 21:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "I don't see a problem with having one category for "Non-canon" and another for "With non-canon sections"..." Can you give an example of what you mean here?
 * What I know is that if you put the tag "this is about computer game x so it may not be canon" in an article, it is put in "Category:Non-canonical". (Presumably also if you use the "non-canon" tag.) If you use the "this section has been deemed non-canonical" one, the article gets put in "Category:Articles with non-canonical sections". This works fine and I don't think you also need to divide other categories according to canonicity. Ville V. Kokko 22:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Disco. Johnnyriot999 06:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Could we place, for example, a 3rd level wizard in the "wizards" category and the "3rd level wizards" category?" That sounds good. Johnnyriot999 21:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Move
Can I get an okay to begin the move of all these articles exclusively within the various subcategories of Category:Inhabitants? Johnnyriot999 04:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you should just go ahead. If there are any strong objections which lead to a change in consensus, the articles can move category again. Fw190a8 08:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Will do. Johnnyriot999 17:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to pop in and say good work guys - I missed most of this discussion when I was without internet, so sorry I didn't participate beyond deleting redundant categories :) Zerak talk 07:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

New Sub-Cat
I was thinking of adding Category:Inhabitants by alignment as another sub-category and a means of being able to find more obscure characters easier. Last week I was trying to thinking of some good solid LN characters and it was a bit tricky to do so. As such I think this would really help with cross-referencing needs. Any objections? Johnnyriot999 09:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's been a bit over a month now so I'm going to go ahead with this. Johnnyriot999 19:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have another idea for a subcategory. Something along the lines of Category:Inhabitants by ability, and I plan to incorporate both Category:Planewalkers and Psionics in them. My reasoning is such that planewalking hardly seems like an "occupation" (idea came from here) and "Category:Psionics" is currently uncategorized. Johnnyriot999 06:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How is planewalking more like psionics than an occupation? Maybe it's not how one makes their living, but it's definitely not an ability to do something, it just means travelling the planes a lot. Ville V. Kokko 09:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought planewalking could only be used by an exclusive few. Hmm, my mistake. Johnnyriot999 15:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)