Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Characters by affiliation"
Supermorff (talk | contribs) |
Supermorff (talk | contribs) m (sp) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
In these categories, are we including all members of a group (even former members) or only current members. This is inconsistent at the moment ([[Brentwood]] was removed from [[:Category:Labyrinth Clan]], and yet both [[Fox]] and [[Dingo]] are in [[:Category:The Pack]]). It's further complicated by the existence of future articles like [[Samson]], which are included in their appropriate articles. | In these categories, are we including all members of a group (even former members) or only current members. This is inconsistent at the moment ([[Brentwood]] was removed from [[:Category:Labyrinth Clan]], and yet both [[Fox]] and [[Dingo]] are in [[:Category:The Pack]]). It's further complicated by the existence of future articles like [[Samson]], which are included in their appropriate articles. | ||
| − | I prefer including all members (past, present and future), for several reasons. If we include only present members, then we have said that there's something special about "the present" - this becomes a huge problem if and when ''[[Gargoyles 2198]]'' or ''[[Gargoyles: The Dark Ages]]'' are released. Also, if we only include "current" members then what do we do about groups that no longer exist (e.g. [[:Category:Wyvern Clan]]) or for characters that have died (e.g. [[Canmore]]). I doubt anyone would suggest that we don't | + | I prefer including all members (past, present and future), for several reasons. If we include only present members, then we have said that there's something special about "the present" - this becomes a huge problem if and when ''[[Gargoyles 2198]]'' or ''[[Gargoyles: The Dark Ages]]'' are released. Also, if we only include "current" members then what do we do about groups that no longer exist (e.g. [[:Category:Wyvern Clan]]) or for characters that have died (e.g. [[Canmore]]). I doubt anyone would suggest that we don't categorize Canmore as a Hunter? |
I don't think this would cause too much confusion, as long as we state somewhere (e.g. in the intro for ''this'' category) that all members are included. The character articles would state that they have left the group, and they would be listed as "former members" in the group article as well. I think this is the best solution. -- [[User:Supermorff|Supermorff]] 12:02, 27 December 2007 (CST) | I don't think this would cause too much confusion, as long as we state somewhere (e.g. in the intro for ''this'' category) that all members are included. The character articles would state that they have left the group, and they would be listed as "former members" in the group article as well. I think this is the best solution. -- [[User:Supermorff|Supermorff]] 12:02, 27 December 2007 (CST) | ||
Revision as of 10:02, 27 December 2007
Former members
In these categories, are we including all members of a group (even former members) or only current members. This is inconsistent at the moment (Brentwood was removed from Category:Labyrinth Clan, and yet both Fox and Dingo are in Category:The Pack). It's further complicated by the existence of future articles like Samson, which are included in their appropriate articles.
I prefer including all members (past, present and future), for several reasons. If we include only present members, then we have said that there's something special about "the present" - this becomes a huge problem if and when Gargoyles 2198 or Gargoyles: The Dark Ages are released. Also, if we only include "current" members then what do we do about groups that no longer exist (e.g. Category:Wyvern Clan) or for characters that have died (e.g. Canmore). I doubt anyone would suggest that we don't categorize Canmore as a Hunter?
I don't think this would cause too much confusion, as long as we state somewhere (e.g. in the intro for this category) that all members are included. The character articles would state that they have left the group, and they would be listed as "former members" in the group article as well. I think this is the best solution. -- Supermorff 12:02, 27 December 2007 (CST)
