Category talk:Characters

Category Name Change

Please see/join the discussion at BattleTechWiki talk:Project Biographies regarding changing the name of this category to Major Characters. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:55, 15 August 2008 (CDT)

The decision has been made to rename this category Characters, return all character articles to the category and require all future character articles to be added. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:40, 25 August 2008 (CDT)

Clan names

(Not sure where this belongs so I'll put it here for now. Perhaps a "Policy: Clan Names"?) How do we treat Clan Bloodnames? After all, the Clan naming system is radically different from the commonplace namegiving in the Inner Sphere. You cannot (imho) treat "Ward, Vlad" like you treat "Davion, Hanse" if you get what I mean. Ward is only his bloodname, and the closest thing he has to a family name is his origin from Clan Wolf. This is not only style, but also important for sorting characters as we're currently doing this by second names. "Joanna" is under "J" because she has no bloodname and Vlad Ward should really be mentioned under "V" and not "W". Perhaps the entry format for Clanners should look something like "Joanna, Clan Jade Falcon" or "Vlad (Ward), Clan Wolf". Not sure if they should be sorted by Clan or by first name. Frabby 04:01, 25 August 2008 (CDT)

There are actually several cultures this could apply to (at least, apply different measures): technically, names from the Draconis Combine should be handled differently, as the Japanese culture places family names before given names, so that even if the English presentation gives it to us given-family, in reality their names are family-given. (Ignorance prevents me from saying the same about the Cappellan Confederation.)

I state the above only as an example, not a suggestion. I agree that the use of varying names structure is actually more valid with the Bloodnames, as you mention, but my POV is that we adapt the naming structure as it is recognized within the presentation of it: Joanna is handled differently, because that is all we have to go on. Vald Ward is handled the same as all others, because he does have a Bloodname that allows the convention to remain. I wasn't involved, but I believe the consensus with characters who have names that changed was to go with Wikipedia's policy of the most well-known name, and have redirects from other versions. If Vlad were to lose his bloodname, for example, I'd think then it should go back to Vlad with a redirect from Vald Ward. My secondary criteria for a common-usage is simplicity. When people think of the character, in their mind they'll be thinking Vald Ward rather than Vlad (Ward), Clan Wolf, and that has implications for Editors using wikilinks. Afterall, characters can change Clans too. My stance is that we continue to employ common usage and leave the explanation of the character's current name status for within the article.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:15, 25 August 2008 (CDT)

I agree with Revanche in the interest of simplicity. --Scaletail 18:43, 25 August 2008 (CDT)

Me too. --BigDuke66 17:28, 29 August 2008 (CDT)

Playing devil's advocate once again, I stumbled across the summary from the back of Malicious Intent. And there (in a Canon source mind you!) he is actually referred to as "Vlad of the Wards". This is not to say I am opposed to the approach taken so far. I do not actually have a strong opinion here but I do see a possible issue down the road and we want to be sure that we're adressing the issue in the right way while there is still a chance to change course without too much hassle. Frabby 08:24, 2 September 2008 (CDT)

If it's not already there, then create a redirect. Referring to a warrior as "of the [Bloodhouse]" differentiates him from other Vlads. Of course, he later became Vlad Ward when we won his Bloodname. This does make me wonder of "of the [whatever]" is a viable naming convention.... See below. --Scaletail 18:41, 2 September 2008 (CDT)

Name v. Name of the Bloodhouse

Frabby raised a good issue above. For Clan warrior characters without a Bloodname, such as Joanna, should the article title be in the form of "Name" or "Name of the Bloodhouse"? I am mixed on this, so I will not weight in yet. --Scaletail 18:41, 2 September 2008 (CDT)

Nameless Assassin?

What about the assassin who killed Melissa Steiner-Davion, Salome Ward, Ryan Steiner and Omi Kurita? He is definitely a major character. What should his article be named like? [[Assassin (person)]]? [[nameless assassin]]? --Detlef 04:50, 24 November 2008 (PST)

I favor something like [[The Assassin]], but [[Dancing Joker]] seems to be the most common reference here in BTW at least in the novel character lists. Cyc 04:54, 24 November 2008 (PST)

I'd prefer a neutral term like The Assassin. AFAIK Dancing Joker is just one of his codenames. Are there other newsworthy nameless assassins? (The murderer of Morgan Hasek-Davion can be charted under Lucas Penrose or Honda Tan, the would-be-assassin of George Hasek-Davion doesn't deserve it's own article...) --Detlef 05:15, 24 November 2008 (PST)

I noticed the Dancing Joker reference too and questioned it but decided to leave it for my betters. However, even if it's one line, with sources, article it up baby! Locis 08:06, 24 November 2008 (PST)

I used Dancing Joker since its how he is referenced in the forums by both moderators and members of the demo team. Since the assassin has no official name, I figure this is about as canonical as we can get. --Ebakunin 12:31, 24 November 2008 (PST)

The only name I can ever remember seeing him referred to as besides "that guy from the Stackpole novels that killed Melissa" is "Dancing Joker". --Scaletail 17:09, 24 November 2008 (PST)

Only Sub-Categories?

Okay:

Issue: There are currently 19 sub-categories for the main category of Characters. However, there is not enough room -because of the individual articles that are categorized in Characters- to display all 19. Right now, only 10 show, and as new characters get added (and they will), that amount of space will go down. At the same time, the number of sub-categories will increase.

Solution: As Ebakunin has noted, some larger wikis solve this problem by sub-categorizing all the individuals, with none listed in the main category. Right now, we have 362 character articles listed in the main category.

Proposal: 1) All character articles that are already sub-categorized, but are also listed in the main Characters category should have the main category removed. 2) All characters that are only listed in the main category must have it replaced with an appropriate sub-category. I'm willing to do this myself, but I want to be sure no one has an issue with this major change in how characters are handled.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm good with that. --Scaletail 22:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You're suggesting that "Characters" should exclusively be a meta-category. I am basically fine with that, but I see a possible problem in that many characters do not seem fit well into any category, and I really would not want a "miscellaneous" sub-category - that is the one point that we need to rule out. (I take it those characters who changed allegiances several times will appear in several sub-categories.) Frabby 08:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Won't this be confusing for someone searching the character category? How would these new sub-directories be divided. Dividing the into subsclasses like Mechwarrior, Politition, Spies, etc, instead of their nationality? Or These subclasses would be rooted into nationality, then speciality? -- Wrangler 19:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we can talk about how to categorize characters after we come to a general agreement that this is the right way to proceed. There are currently sub-categories that seem to work just fine. --Scaletail 23:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Scaletail regarding the timing. How do you feel about "Characters" becoming a meta-category, Wrangler? (As an aside, charcaters can belong to more than one sub-category...as long as they belong to the largest inclusive one (ex: House Liao), as well.)--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If its done right, it could work. I think only thing is it takes away choices from the person looking person up if they resort to the category. By having major Character listing, it would help someone whom isn't sure of character's name/spelling or even what faction their in. I know I've had to resort to that. Sometimes things don't come up in general search. I would prefer that major characters would have kind of affilitation or job there known for. Morgan Kell, is a Baron/Grand Duke of Arc-Royal, Mercenary Commander, & politician (Being noble doesn't necessary mean your active in politics. -- Wrangler 11:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Having a "miscellaneous" subcategory is not inherently a problem. When in doubt, put the character in that subcategory, and later on people can discuss which subcategory is more appropriate. --Ebakunin ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe in "Uncategorized," instead of ""Miscellaneous," so that it doesn't become a habit and indicates (much like {{stub}}) that it needs to be fixed. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

How about Noble, Military and Civilian/non-military as the main categories. The Noble and Military being tied to respective nationality possibly?. I imagine their are very few nobles or military characters who would fall outside of this system. --Dmon 07:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Only problem by going way your suggesting is that, Dmon. That your suggesting nobles can't be military or it would be rare. Thing is, there alot noblity in military thus you'll have duplication of character entries. I personnally, like way its listed now. There are not that many civilian, non-combatants of high regards in much of the BT fiction. I created spies as being part of new sub-category. They are neither military (not usually) nor they really civilian. Thus you run into that what do we do with them? If we need realign things it should be nationality, then primary and perhaps era. We going to have alot characters (still growing) from least two eras of Battletech current fiction covers. -- Wrangler 11:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean instead of either "Uncategorized" or "Miscellaneous"? --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus: The appears to be no concern about removing all multi-categorized Characters from the top-cat, "Characters." I'll start removing those (which should allow my page count to catch up with Ebakunin ). Please continue discussing the placement of those characters that only exist in the (now) meta-category "Characters".--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)