Forum:Reorganization of Historical/Legendary characters categories

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Reorganization of Historical/Legendary characters categories
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 4 May 2016 by Liquidhelium.

Do we really need categories for both Legendary characters and Historical characters for characters who have died? Wouldn't it be simpler to have one category for all deceased or presumed-to-be-deceased characters, especially given there really are no definition for which characters are defined as legendary, and which are not, as at the moment the category includes several very obscure characters who most certainly are not legendary, and excludes many other legendary characters.

Likewise, historical characters has the problem of excluding a lot of characters who have died recently, as well as many arguably historical characters who are alive today.

After all, a few years ago we had the category Deceased characters for NPCs who died, which would be a lot more clearer than either of the existing categories. Likewise, the argument that doing so would be spoiler-based is rather invalid considering the fact that the wiki does not have any spoiler tags to begin with and a lot of articles automatically spoil a lot of story content.

I'd recommend that Historical characters should be changed to Deceased characters, given that the two are basically the same, except that Historical characters excludes recently-deceased NPCs and can cover NPCs who are alive currently but lived during the time periods that are generally speaking considered historical, which is very confusing.

As for Legendary characters, personally I'd propose deleting it as well, although there have been people who have suggested trimming the page down, which I can agree with. For instance, Gaalsien and various gnomeball players are hardly considered legendary by most players, whereas Signature Heroes and Seren probably are.

So, to put it short, would it be fine if we begin to reorganize Legendary characters, and replace Historical characters with Deceased characters, which covers all dead NPCs, including characters who die during the game's events?

AquaMage2459 (talk) 16:28, April 27, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Comment - How would this even work for NPCs like Zanik? She can be dead or alive based on the player's choice. --Jlun2 (talk) 16:37, April 27, 2016 (UTC)

I'd assume the cases where character's status depends on player choice are up to debate. Personally, I'd go so far as to create a brand-new category for characters whose status depends on player choice, which would cover NPCs such as Zanik, Korasi, Jessika, Veldaban, Eluned, Fiara, Thaerisk, et cetera, who are either alive or dead based on player's choices. But, if you want to propose another solution to the corundrum, feel free to. AquaMage2459 (talk) 16:46, April 27, 2016 (UTC)
We can call it Schrödinger's category. cqm 20:48, 27 Apr 2016 (UTC) (UTC)
^+1 Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 23:43, 27 April 2016‎ (UTC)

Just do it Doesn't really need a forum. MolMan 00:29, April 28, 2016 (UTC)

We still need to get people to do it. After all, it'll take a while to go through all character pages and mark all dead NPCs to a new category alone. With multiple people doing the work at the same time, it'll be significantly easier.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AquaMage2459 (talk) on 11:10, 28 April 2016‎ (UTC).

Comment - I believe the intention for [[:Category:Legendary characters]] was for characters that have never existed in the game, but are mentioned by NPCs in their dialog or by some other lore. NPCs that have have been removed from the game because of an update (or world event) are a different thing. NPCs that are killed during a quest (so whether they're alive is different for every player) are yet another different thing. Yeah, it could probably use a lot of clean-up. --Saftzie (talk) 18:24, April 28, 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I'd add a category for the characters who do not exist in the game as NPCs as well. Basically a category for all characters who, even if they are mentioned in the game, do not make an appearance in the game and do not have a NPC. While legendary characters serves this purpose, the problem with this is that "Legendary" does not really suit the description of "NPCs who do not appear in the game" well: after all, most of the characters who do not appear in the game are hardly legendary. Not just that, but the term also raises more confusion due to the fact that Legendary characters can also cover characters who are in-universe considered legends, but might very well have a NPC in the game. Therefore, it'd be suitable if Category:Legandary characters is renamed as well. AquaMage2459 (talk) 09:56, April 29, 2016 (UTC)
"Characters who do not appear in the game" would include characters from the books. Legendary doesn't include those, either. There's a separate category for them. --Saftzie (talk) 22:08, April 29, 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that would. By definition, all characters who exist in RS Universe but do not have a NPC would belong to the category. However, not all book characters are characters who do not appear in the game, so there is not complete overlap between the two categories, meaning that it would not make sense to exclude book characters from the category simply because they are from the novels. For instance: Kara-Meir and Jerrod count as both book characters and in-game characters, whereas Sir Theodore and Gar'rth count as book characters and characters who do not appear in the game. AquaMage2459 (talk) 17:42, April 30, 2016 (UTC)

Support - Renaming might be the best, otherwise I'm not sure what would be done with Historical Characters. The category Legendary should be for characters only ever mentioned, per saf, and maybe that category of 'maybe' up above could be category:Characters who can die during quests? Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 18:31, April 28, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Category:Deceased_Characters What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 19:20, April 28, 2016 (UTC)

Well, times have changed a lot since then. After all, we have moved to the Sixth Age, which changes how we perceive character deaths: for instance, Guthix and Bandos is dead for everyone even when they are featured alive in Fifth Age content. AquaMage2459 (talk) 09:56, April 29, 2016 (UTC)
Besides, the example provided in the original argument is from the perspective of a player who has not done the quests, whereas the category would only be concerned of the grand storyline - once a character dies in a quest, they would qualify as deceased even if they're alive to people who have not done the quest yet. It's kind of like how we treat character deaths in books: we know they will die at a specifically assigned point in time during the events of the game, therefore they count as deceased at the end of the story. Kind of like how a character would qualify as a god for the purposes of Category:Deities if they ascend during a quest, even if they are not a god for everyone who has not done the quest. The same logic applies here: the player's progress does not matter, the progress of the story does. AquaMage2459 (talk) 09:56, April 29, 2016 (UTC)
Likewise, although people argue that this would spoil all character deaths from quests, the wiki cares very little of spoilers to begin with as of now, neither does the game itself nowadays, as a lot of character deaths were all intentions spoiled due to the Sixth Age (Lucien, Guthix, Bandos, Tuska, etc). Therefore, I find the arguments against the Category:Deceased characters that rely on spoilers to be false. AquaMage2459 (talk) 09:56, April 29, 2016 (UTC)
I was merely linking tae a previous discussion that I felt was relevant tae provide extra background, nae trying tae add tae the discussion What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 15:56, April 29, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Neither legendary nor historical really make sense to me as category names -- they're confusing, as you rightly point out. Perhaps it's in our best interest to have a category for "Characters that do not appear ingame", and a category for "Characters that die during the game". I would do away with weaselly category names and make the meaning explicit, even if the names get a bit longer. ʞooɔ 10:31, April 29, 2016 (UTC)

Suits me. Well, the "Characters that do not appear ingame" at least does. I'm not so sure about "Characters that die during the game" though, as it excludes the characters who lived so long ago that they have to be dead by now, as well as characters who die off-screen and characters who are long dead before the events of the game. AquaMage2459 (talk) 11:16, April 29, 2016 (UTC)
It's also possible to state explicitly what the category does and does not include on the Category: page itself. --Saftzie (talk) 22:10, April 29, 2016 (UTC)
That is also a possibility. However, that could still lead to misunderstandings and the misuse of the category, if its name does not accurately describe what kind of articles belong to the category. Therefore, it is important to have an accurate category name. AquaMage2459 (talk) 17:42, April 30, 2016 (UTC)

Closed - There is consensus to change the category names. --LiquidTalk 19:44, May 4, 2016 (UTC)