FANDOM


  • I would like to start a discussing on outlining regulations and use for Family Categories. In the past several months there use has exploded and while I think there are several good uses for this, I think we have a reached a point of just giving anyone and everyone a category such as Category:Jones Family (Angelica) which currently only includes all alternates of herself and one other family member or others such as Aer Family which seems to include only one person and Lilith herself, so probably could all be merged together.

    I think we need to set out guidelines for when this content required and how to best use it as not to confuse everyone, especially as these now seem to becoming full of every alternate version rather than helping discern familial links

      Loading editor
    • Since everyone has been at the family category game for a while now which I stayed out of it except for today, why is it finally being brought attention to after I did the Firestar family which you clearly pointed out in your previous post but didn't address the other editors who were plowing through it today like users Dimadick and others which I consider to be low effort edits but only my actions is put on display.

        Loading editor
    • It's not trying to be an attack on anyone, I didn't even see the user was you, I just saw the Firestar one most recently since they were all for the same character, But lets not derail the discussion with personal feelings, if you feel they are useful please contribute a comment as to why

      EDIT: And note this isn't the first time the AdMod team has discussed it, we have previously made passing comments to each other about it

        Loading editor
    • I just did it to establish Firestar's family from others with the last name like what was done with Category:Williams Family (Riri).

        Loading editor
    • Gijimu wrote: [...] why is it finally being brought attention to after I [...]

      From just a cursory review of only the first page of AdMod chat log search results tells me this was a plurality of the daily discussion on 24th July 2018, 20th August 2018, 3rd December 2018, 8th June 2019, 17th June 2019, and 23rd July 2019, so it dominated policy focus at least six times over the past year, i.e. the need for addressing it has little to do with today's edits.

      Anyway, as for a potential solution to the subject at hand, maybe start with an easily distinguishable limit to this type of category creation as those with a minimum number of unique family members, say four perhaps?

        Loading editor
    • Copeinator123 wrote: I think we have a reached a point of just giving anyone and everyone a category such as Category:Jones Family (Angelica) which currently only includes all alternates of herself

      Basically useless, yep.

      For the Aer example, which is my creation, it could be indeed merged back. To be noted it includes also the category "Lilith family", which is why I created the category. I created it while doing some work on deity stuff, where having almost a category by character makes way more sense (for example "Panhellenios family" or worse "Odinson family" doesn't make much sense for entire tree families, while adding both "Zeus family" and "[whatever he mated wich] family" and having nested categories is more accurate and correct).

      AnnabellRice wrote: Anyway, as for a potential solution to the subject at hand, maybe start with an easily distinguishable limit to this type of category creation as those with a minimum number of unique family members, say four perhaps?

      Like for the Aer example, I believed or three objects (pages or categories) were enough, and I think it's still valid. Exceptions like Category:Palatyne Family could be kept or not...

        Loading editor
    • I think another solution is to include only main version of direct blood-related members (or adopted members) and all versions of in-law members. For example, Category:Summers Family should include:

      This way categories would be less crowded, and it would be much simpler to decide if it is even needed or not.

        Loading editor
    • As of right now, those categories are nearly useless because hundreds of alternate characters simply drown out any actual relatives. I believe most of them can be cut down completely, with only exceptions being the notable extended family trees (Summers and the like). Or keep them limited to 616 characters and characters who were at one time displaced to 616, don't bring every single aternative into them. HBK123 (talk) 13:28, July 31, 2019 (UTC)

        Loading editor
    • I actually like both suggestions, limit it to the immediate family of the main reality and only add any noteable/different alternate versions

        Loading editor
    • There would need to be a clear community consensus on standards of what's considered noteable since that's a very subjective term. For example, I think the zombies are boring, but they're certainly different...

        Loading editor
    • I'm of the opinion that family categories shouldn't be a thing to begin with.

      While more work having to manually update it on each page, the relatives sections on characters' infoboxes are good enough, and are more informative with things like relations and living status, than with categories which only state members and nothing more.

        Loading editor
    • KalKent wrote: I'm of the opinion that family categories shouldn't be a thing to begin with.

      While more work having to manually update it on each page, the relatives sections on characters' infoboxes are good enough, and are more informative with things like relations and living status, than with categories which only state members and nothing more.

      I think family categories are useful for big, messed up families like Summers, Howlets, etc. that have dozens of members in the main reality and countless descendants in other realities. Actually, the messed Summers family was the thing that brought me into comics, I loved all these countless relatives and how pretty much every major family is related to Summers in one reality or another. And it was all thanks to Category:Summers Family that I've learned about them.

      But I think family categories should be trimmed down to be useful and informative, instead of turning them into disambiguations.

      As for small families, like, for example Category:Williams Family (Riri) the categories might be really excessive. It is basically just a list of all versions of Riri Williams with addition of her parents from the main reality. In this case, information in the relatives section in the infobox is more than enough.

        Loading editor
    • I don't think we need this categories at all or at least 90% of them, Summers family are probably one of the few exceptions I wouldn't mind sticking around, but you can also just go to the character page and check the family section.

      I've been saying for years now, this and the killed by categories would be gone as far as I'm concerned.

        Loading editor
    • I agree with the deletion of family categories. Most of these categories are populated (and clotted) by alternate reality versions of a single character, which defeats the purpose of the category to list characters that are relatives to each other. I think a prime example is the recently-created Hill Family. Out of 27 articles, only one isn't an alternate reality version of Maria Hill. The contents of the category read like a disambiguation for Maria Hill in category form.

        Loading editor
    • Mark me down in favor of deletion of both Family and Killed By categories as their value is extremely diluted in their current forms.

        Loading editor
    • I support nuking both Killed By and Family categories. Really complex stuff like Summers family can go onto pages like Summers and Grey Family Tree. HBK123 (talk) 05:13, August 7, 2019 (UTC)

        Loading editor
    • The mess that is the Summers/Grey family alone is enough to make me want to ditch family categories.

        Loading editor
    • I agree with the excess of family category, but strongly disagree with the complete deletion of those categories.

      The point about the families being clotted to alternate versions of mainstream characters is problematic. On my side, I don't work much on the kind of characters (Williams, Hill, Category:Rankin Family -this last one was recreated by me and now includes 6 different characters when the original one included only 2 different characters- among others) mentioned up here.

      The family categories are a way for me to keep track of complicated family trees (I'm notably talking of the Elder Gods and their many progeny, who expand from the Demiurge to many creatures -including giants and gods among others- of the Nine Realms, many races of Earth and almost all its pantheons), while (still) looking for a way to find them a better presentation. In the cases mentioned, the "relatives" field should stick to relevancy, and consequently, navigating the categories could be a clearer way to operate for one interested in those matters (I myself does it, though I don't know if many do it as well)

      (as other stuff that can considered "editors-relevant categories", just like the invocation category, I haven't a problem with those categories being hidden from the non-editor readers, though I see myself an interest in them) (BTW: if anyone known of a simple and efficient site to create family trees, I'm interested)(as well as one for timelines)


      Concerning the Killed By category, I'm still considering it relevant, but have really (at least for now) no strong opposition for deleting or preserving it, though I think it's a trivia information that can interest many readers.

      If the Killed by category remains, I have two notes:

      • It was never clear if the category name relate to the alias or to the main wielder of the name (people added all Venoms' victims, when other including myself sticked to the main or most acknoledged Venom, Eddie Brock) (IIRC, the headlines of the category used inconstently one or another option, and users still kept adding pages based on the option they preferred)
      • (IIRC) The category used to appear on its own on pages using the name in their currentalias field, but it doesn't now.
        Loading editor
    • I agree with Undoniel about Family categories.

      As for killed by categories, I think they should be divided for specific characters, instead of general name/alias; the same way as appearances, images and other categories. I.e. "Killed by James Howlett (Earth-616)", "Killed by James Howlett (Earth-1610)", etc. instead of just one "Killed by Wolverine".

        Loading editor
    • I don't if that subject is starting to need its own thread or not, but:

      Harasar wrote: As for killed by categories, I think they should be divided for specific characters, instead of general name/alias; the same way as appearances, images and other categories. I.e. "Killed by James Howlett (Earth-616)", "Killed by James Howlett (Earth-1610)", etc. instead of just one "Killed by Wolverine".

      I thought about it as well, but that would lead to an excess of categories as well? (rules could be made to made them need a certain number of pages, etc.)

        Loading editor
    • I think the main problem with Killed by categories is not their number, but that they are messed up and not very useful in their current state. It is as if we would have one category "Wolverine/Appearances" for all his various versions in comics, movies, etc. - it would have been useless. Some of his versions maybe appeared only once, but their appearances category is still useful and informative.

        Loading editor
    • Based on Undoniel's points, I'm okay with keeping family categories that are relevant due to the complexity or notoriety of the family tree. I know it sounds vague to suggest keeping something based on notoriety since it's subjective, but I doubt any of you would find issue deleting any of the categories that are in the level of Category:Todd Family (I'm not linking it directly to avoid the hussle of editing this message to remove the link once the category is deleted).

      I would like to propose to go ahead with the place an embargo on the creation of family categories and the deletion of the categories that are outright superfluous (like the aforementioned Category:Hill Family). I'm suggesting this because I just noticed that only today we've got eight new family categories.

        Loading editor
    • Sounds fine to me. If there's some worthy of keeping, I suppose they should be easily noted.

        Loading editor
    • Agreed, I would like to revisit the suggestion of culling the categories of all alternates as well.

        Loading editor
    • ADour wrote: Based on Undoniel's points, I'm okay with keeping family categories that are relevant due to the complexity or notoriety of the family tree. I know it sounds vague to suggest keeping something based on notoriety since it's subjective, but I doubt any of you would find issue deleting any of the categories that are in the level of Category:Todd Family (I'm not linking it directly to avoid the hussle of editing this message to remove the link once the category is deleted).

      I would like to propose to go ahead with the place an embargo on the creation of family categories and the deletion of the categories that are outright superfluous (like the aforementioned Category:Hill Family). I'm suggesting this because I just noticed that only today we've got eight new family categories.

      Agree on that.

      Copeinator123 wrote: Agreed, I would like to revisit the suggestion of culling the categories of all alternates as well.

      I'm not fond of that proposal, notably as alternate versions of characters can have different family categories.

        Loading editor
    • Undoniel wrote: I'm not fond of that proposal, notably as alternate versions of characters can have different family categories.

      Alright, I'll bite. Please tell me how this is useful?

        Loading editor
    • AnnabellRice wrote: Alright, I'll bite. Please tell me how this is useful?

      It isn't, this category is pretty useless currently. This is more useful.

      I assume there is a problem of comprehension here:

      • Does Copeinator wish to remove all the alternate realities versions of characters of every page (which I'm not fond)
      • Does Copeinator wish to remove all the alternate realities versions from "their categories" (= Thor Odinson (Earth-616) would be the only Thor Odinson page in the Category:Thor Family, for example) (which I have no problem with, as long as there is a clear rule for including alternate versions of "more or less minor members of a family" into the category: for example the Category:Guthrie Family, in which case I prefer to have them all listed rather than having an arbitrary rule removing some here and there).
        Loading editor
    • I don't know if my suggestion counts but I don't see the Maria Hill Family category being relevant either, but I do agree with Undoniel about larger families like the Guthries. All the Ultron, Vision etc. categories wouldn't they all fall under the umbrella of the Pym Family category?

        Loading editor
    • Copeinator is suggesting we remove all the alternate reality versions that don't actually have any relatives seen, so for Maria Hill, only the Earth-616 iteration has any on-panel relatives, thus it would mean purging 25 of the 27 current articles in there; however, for the Guthries, it would mean purging 48 of the 121 current articles in there (i.e. Earth-161, Earth-1030, Earth-1081, Earth-2122, Earth-2149, Earth-5423, Earth-5692, Earth-5701, Earth-7642, Earth-7964, Earth-8101, Earth-8510, Earth-8545, Earth-8591, Earth-8720, Earth-9105, Earth-9112, Earth-9140, Earth-9151, Earth-9511, Earth-9997, Earth-10003, Earth-10223, Earth-11052, Earth-12101, Earth-13133, Earth-13729, Earth-21993, Earth-37072, Earth-42466, Earth-58161, Earth-61610, Earth-70105, Earth-71202, Earth-77640, Earth-80521, Earth-84309, Earth-89721, Earth-93074, Earth-95169, Earth-98193, Earth-121193, Earth-600123, Earth-807128, Earth-TRN627, Earth-TRN656, and Earth-TRN657) none of whom have any on panel relatives.

        Loading editor
    • AnnabellRice wrote: Copeinator is suggesting we remove all the alternate reality versions that don't actually have any relatives seen, so for Maria Hill, only the Earth-616 iteration has any on-panel relatives, thus it would mean purging 25 of the 27 current articles in there; however, for the Guthries, it would mean purging 48 of the 121 current articles in there (i.e. Earth-161, Earth-1030, Earth-1081, Earth-2122, Earth-2149, Earth-5423, Earth-5692, Earth-5701, Earth-7642, Earth-7964, Earth-8101, Earth-8510, Earth-8545, Earth-8591, Earth-8720, Earth-9105, Earth-9112, Earth-9140, Earth-9151, Earth-9511, Earth-9997, Earth-10003, Earth-10223, Earth-11052, Earth-12101, Earth-13133, Earth-13729, Earth-21993, Earth-37072, Earth-42466, Earth-58161, Earth-61610, Earth-70105, Earth-71202, Earth-77640, Earth-80521, Earth-84309, Earth-89721, Earth-93074, Earth-95169, Earth-98193, Earth-121193, Earth-600123, Earth-807128, Earth-TRN627, Earth-TRN656, and Earth-TRN657) none of whom have any on panel relatives.

      Sound good to me.

      The only exception I could see is a character in a reality clearly tied to a known family, but other family members are never mentioned or depicted (I didn't managed to find back an example I though existed), but that can be resolved by a sub-rule for the guide-line: in such case, a note or a mention in the history text (regarding which is relevant) could allow to derogate.

        Loading editor
    • I agree with this proposal.

      As another rule for these categories - if all relatives are from the same reality (not counting alternate versions of the same characters), then there is no need for a category.

        Loading editor
    • Harasar wrote: As another rule for these categories - if all relatives are from the same reality (not counting alternate versions of the same characters), then there is no need for a category.

      That makes sense for small families with no ties (not creating or related to subcategories or other categories), and considering the exceptions proposed by ADour.

      For example, Shuma-Gorath (Multiverse)'s family includes only Shuma-Gorath, Quoggoth, Quoggoth's Spawn and Cthuma-Gurath (Earth-5311) (on the basis he could be Shuma). Apart from Cthuma, the other can be considered of one reality (they are of the same true breeding line). Despite being eligible on the basis of notoriety, the possible category met the rules of too few characters, and all of the same reality. So far, I see point creating the category.

      On the other hand, Category:Dweller-in-Darkness Family seems relevant to me despite including only a few characters (4 different), the main character having a few alternates (4 or 5 versions depending on interpretation).

      • It is related to two categories, by category description and by being a subcategory.
      • It has relevancy by notoriety
        Loading editor
    • SunGodKizaru wrote:

      but you can also just go to the character page and check the family section.

      Many of them don't actually include known relatives, or have not been updated in years. I typically use the categories to update the articles, not the other way around.

      One of the reasons I prefer categories such as "by family" is that through browsing them I can locate articles than need Wikifying, editing, or updating.

      I've been saying for years now, this and the killed by categories would be gone as far as I'm concerned.

      No problem with deleting the killed categories. They are less significant for most characters than categories about their team or family affiliations. That character X was killed by Wolverine is not that important in learning who X was.

        Loading editor
    • I just want to see if we have reached some kind of consensus to this.

      Currently standing we have as a general plan:

      • an embargo on new categories being created
      • all categories that are superfluous (broadly speaking we need to agree on what this entails, but above a certain number of unique members) are to be deleted/merged into already existing categories.
      • These categories should be trimmed down to 616 versions and any alternates that contain known (i.e. have a page) family members.

      Any one have any major issue with this, since from what I can tell we seem to be largely in agreement with this

      As for Killed by, the largest consensus is for straight up deletion, with Harasar proposing to switch to being associated with each specific reality version

        Loading editor
    • Copeinator123 wrote:

      • an embargo on new categories being created

      Agreed. We could use the same rule as for TRNs: An user must (for now) ask an admin before creating such categories.

      Copeinator123 wrote:

      • all categories that are superfluous (broadly speaking we need to agree on what this entails, but above a certain number of unique members) are to be deleted/merged into already existing categories.

      Agreed. So far, the only exceptions would be:

      • Notoriety/complexity of the family / clarity of the information.
        • That includes divine/primordial monsters/royal families (the three being linked).

      Other exceptions might remain, so I guess we'll see it in the way.

      The rule could be: Apart from the exceptions, no category can be under 5-6 items?

      Copeinator123 wrote:

      • These categories should be trimmed down to 616 versions and any alternates that contain known (i.e. have a page) family members.

      Agreed.

      Copeinator123 wrote: As for Killed by, the largest consensus is for straight up deletion, with Harasar proposing to switch to being associated with each specific reality version

      Disagree with the deletion of all, but agreeing on deletion of all categories including 3 or less characters (or any other rule of limiting those categories). Unsure about the reality-specific categories (but I don't disagree strongly, so if the majority is in board for any of the mentioned proposal, I'll go with it).

        Loading editor
    • To clarify my position(s), I'm in favor of deleting both category types en masse, but won't object to a framework for stipulating why some "Family" categories should exist as exceptions to the embargo; meanwhile, I'd contend that in their current state, the "Killed by" categories are completely useless and as such it would be easier to completely delete them than to try and fix them, since categories cannot be renamed regardless. (This is due in large part because they make no distinction between who was using the alias when the articles populating them died and at times even include characters who have never used the alias. For example, Murdock-65 has never been Daredevil, yet users have added the "Killed by Daredevil" category for that reality.)

        Loading editor
    • Since we are at least in rough agreement on deleting, both deleting minor families and the Killed by Categories, (though revisiting per Annabells suggestion is possible if people were interested)I'm going to start deleting deleting the killed by's but For Families I'm going to start adding delete tags to them. With a note to not delete them straight away, in case I tag a family that is important. I'll then start culling the categories of those without any alternates. Do we need to add the embargo on new families without Admod approval anyway specific?

        Loading editor
    • Can we keep the category Scourge victims? This was a major way that writers killed off terrible bad guys back then, and its not like a list of random kills

        Loading editor
    • All Killed By Categories have been removed, for future notice, if people wish to see them return, they should be proposed so people are in agreement on the details before they are created again, and clear rules for when they are to be added and how they are to be added should probably be decided

        Loading editor
    • Okay

        Loading editor
    • While u r at this, does anyone else think other death categories such as death by accident should get deleted? These are also pointless

        Loading editor
    • Copeinator123 wrote: All Killed By Categories have been removed

      Just to note: Killed by Categories are still being linked to from Character pages, creating a bit of a mess on Special:WantedPages. Someone with Admin rigths should edit Marvel Database:Character Template to remove the part that does it.

        Loading editor
    • HBK123 wrote:

      Copeinator123 wrote: All Killed By Categories have been removed

      Just to note: Killed by Categories are still being linked to from Character pages, creating a bit of a mess on Special:WantedPages. Someone with Admin rigths should edit Marvel Database:Character Template to remove the part that does it.

      Done. Links should disappear from Special:WantedPages with the next server update.

        Loading editor
    • To-do-list

      • In progress
        • A: Straight-up deletion done, pages removal from kept categories and mergers to do
        • E: Straight-up deletion done, pages removal from kept categories and mergers to do

      (finishing Attuma and Elder)

        Loading editor
    • AnnabellRice
      AnnabellRice removed this reply because:
      Vandalism.
      06:42, September 12, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Bring Your Marvel Movies Together