Forum:New Category Proposal

Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > New Category Proposal

Hello Nukapedia community! I'm here to propose an idea that I hope will fare better than my last one! We have numerous categories used to put characters into ever more exclusive categories (Category:Rivet City characters, Category:New Vegas Strip characters, Category:Fallout 3 human characters, etc.). So, what I'm proposing is a category for deceased characters. My official definition is characters who actually appear in the game as skeletons, or as corpses who can only be saved with the resurrect command, so for example, Gourd would not qualify, because even though its very hard to save him, his first appearence in the game is as a living person. Characters like Randall Clark, Jill (Fallout: New Vegas), and Ed (Fallout) would go in the newly proposed category because they are either named skeletons or corpses who are placed in the game as corpses. I'll take any questions from the community now and on the subject of whether or not to break it up into individual game sub-categories, that's debatable. 17:03, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

The Goal with categories is to link things that are related in both subject, and because people looking at one are likely be be interested in another... Someone looking at a strip character I think has a reasonable chance of being interested in other characters on the strip... Can we expect a similar level of interest between dead characters? Agent c (talk) 17:17, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it will help create those connections, like between Jill (Fallout: New Vegas) and Luke (Fallout: New Vegas). 17:25, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Those two are already connected by being in the sewers, and being on the same quest. Agent c (talk) 18:42, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, their deaths are directly connected because they died in a similar pursuit, the category could further emphasize that. As it could with other characters. 18:51, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

The emphasis though gets negated by all the other dead characters... On one hand, theres no cost to having an extra category, but this category doesnt seem to deal with the objections raised last time - it seems to have them all over again. Agent c (talk) 18:56, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't see a purpose for this. As Agent c said, categories are for connecting related characters for ease of browsing. Would someone who is interested in Randall Clark want to know about Owen and Beru from Nipton? (I know they are WW, just using an example) ^{nihil novi sub sole} 21:18, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

I am totally with this category. I do not see how it is deemed useless. It in fact makes things far easier and better than reading the article to see if such a character is dead or whatnot. I guess it helps from my point of view since I just accidentally made this category without knowing this discussion was currently going on. Since many characters actually have not died, this category will also not be all over the place either. I personally would like to know which characters from Fallout 2 did not make it, I would like to know which characters from New Vegas that are mentioned are indeed dead. I would spend a lot of time gathering this information up and putting it into the category (at that, are all the Maxson's dead because they say Arthur is the last one). The only problem in here is Van Buren and it's dead characters would not exactly belong in the game. So a separate category would have to be made for that. And as a wiki, I don't see why everything should be ordained by interest. Here you guys are saying that there wont be enough interest, and when I put the deceased symbol on the war pages, apparently there will too much interest? --Mr. Youtube (talk) 23:56, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

• Gourd is extremely bad example, because from the technical point of view (GECK) he's dead from the beginning and resurrects only due to a bug. The same applies to numerous NPCs/creatures in both games using Gamebryo engine. Get ready for unending edit wars.
• The fact that person is dead, should be clearly stated in the body of article, we don't need extra note in a form of category.

--Theodorico (talk) 00:43, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

The issue with this is that we have to follow series canon. This category would only contain characters that appear as corpses in-game; not necessarily characters who have died since games have ended. There will be much confusion because although it can be inferred that a character is deceased, we cannot confirm it without conformation in succeeding games. ^{nihil novi sub sole} 00:44, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

If a category is to be made for the singular purpose of listing characters that are deceased, we must keep these points in mind:

• Age means nothing. With the science involved throughout the Fallout universe, it's entirely possible for anybody to find a method of prolonging their life. Whether this means ghoulification, FEV experimentation, technology such as what Mr. House uses, etc.
• Just because a character is shown to be dead in-game doesn't necessarily mean that it's canon. Gourd was used as an example above, and is a perfect example for this point, as well. Yes, he is found killed by cazadores just outside of his business. Does this make his death canon? Not unless it's confirmed by in-game sources (Such as dialogue.) or by the developers.
• Deaths as a result of non-optional quest-lines are considered canon unless specified other-wise by a reputable source. For instance, in Fallout 3 the Lone Wanderer is forced to escape from Vault 101. As a result of the panic, it has been confirmed that Old Lady Palmer died along with Paul and a few others.
  • However, even the non-optional quests aren't necessarily considered canon unless confirmed by the developers or future content. For instance, in Fallout 3 Liberty Prime is destroyed no matter what. However, nothing so far has confirmed much more canon that the Lone Wanderer escaping from the Vault. (And even this can be debatable.) So how do we know that the actions leading up to Liberty Prime's destruction even happened? We don't. Not yet, at least.

^{Some Assembly Required!} 08:19, February 7, 2013 (UTC)``````````````````

Okay. First of all, Theodorico, your points are completely invalid. Was Gourd ever called dead by anybody? No. He died in the most recent game. If he IS dead then we will have to wait for an answer from the next game to be sure, but until then, we don't know. The ONLY characters we can list as dead are those who have been confirmed as deceased. Secondly, why include a category when it should be mentioned clearly in the article. Oh if that is the case, lets get rid of the mentioned only characters category, because you know, it's mentioned quite clearly in the article if they are mentioned or not. Next, whatever your name is, Follower something?, series canon, hard to follow? Is that not why we are here, to enforce what is canon. Like I said, such a category needs to be made only for characters that are confirmed deceased. Here is what I'm saying, Tandi is alive in Fallout 1 and 2, but she's not confirmed as dead in New Vegas. We don't know, like Mr. House she could still be kicking it, she's not confirmed as dead. Some old lady character from Fallout 1, no mention of her in Fallout 2 or New Vegas, not confirmed as deceased, so won't fall into that category. However, let's say Dogmeat, is alive in Fallout, but confirmed as dead in Fallout 2, this character would fall into the category because in the game after it, it is confirmed as deceased. Such a category would be mostly for Fallout and Fallout 2 characters since we don't know exactly what happened after Fallout 3, but characters mentioned as deceased in those games would fall into this category. And Garoux how is the Lone Wanderer's escape debatable? --Mr. Youtube (talk) 23:33, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Debatable because none of the Lone Wanderer's actions that I'm currently aware of are re-iterated upon to confirm canon. Even returning elements like the Wasteland Survival Guide don't necessarily point to the involvement of the Lone Wanderer. (Moira could have written a sloppy version herself or gotten someone else to enact her research.) ^{Some Assembly Required!} 23:41, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Well, you see if such is the case, then like I said, this category will be limited when it comes to characters from Fallout 3 and New Vegas, as no game has come out explaining what happened. So this category would be more for characters confirmed dead from Fallout and Fallout 2 either by each other or by New Vegas. --Mr. Youtube (talk) 00:04, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Any category listing over this subject will end up being extraordinarily small. ;) ^{Some Assembly Required!} 00:07, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Theres 80 years from F1 to F2, and another 40 or so to NV IIRC... So basically anyone "human" in F1 is dead in NV... I think we need to as much as possible have the wiki timeline neutral. Agent c (talk) 00:09, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

• "Age means nothing. With the science involved throughout the Fallout universe, it's entirely possible for anybody to find a method of prolonging their life. Whether this means ghoulification, FEV experimentation, technology such as what Mr. House uses, etc." ^{Some Assembly Required!} 00:10, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Tandi lived for over 100 years. In science fiction, you can't really say anybody is dead. So right now, this section should really be limited to those confirmed dead. We should make it, enforce it and then determine when we need it, oh I don't know, after the announcement of Fallout 4. Because I'm not seeing any real objection to the category, just requirements if we do make it. --Mr. Youtube (talk) 00:22, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

I can say, I don't see any real purpose for it. Stars and Stripes Forever's original proposal, which is different than your proposal, at least may have some use for the interest in skeletons, but people wanting a category for dead people is as likely as wanting a category for living people. What's your definition of people confirmed dead? Other people talking about it? Then Joshua Graham would've been in this category before the release of Honest Hearts. Also, as Garoux said, this would probably be a very small category, which don't we usually avoid? Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 00:34, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

@ Mr. Youtube.

• Your replica is a perfect example, of edit wars to come! Thing is that he was meant to appear as a dead body. His editorID is "GourdDEAD", his base health is zero and he is lying face down in front of his shack. But due to bug, he respawns alive, but with zero health. So, yes, I call him dead, because initially he's dead, and may come alive only if the Courier walks in.
• The Mentioned only cat is based on a simple differentiation - something appears in-game or not. Deceased category will require multiple criteria to differentiate dead from alive, as such, it will be quite confusing for anyone unfamiliar with canon. --Theodorico (talk) 01:08, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

• "it will be quite confusing for anyone unfamiliar with canon."
  • I'll go ahead and mention that such a tedious category will more than likely require Sysop protection. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:13, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am quite aware that my category proposal is different than that other guys. But characters like that, who are already dead by the intention of the game developer are technically and canonically dead. But let's ignore that and get back to MY POINT, characters that have been confirmed dead. Confused with canon, what you talking Teddy? And a small category, if you guys let me make this category, I swear to you that it will not be a small category. I have already compiled a list of names that proves that this category is anything but small. Let me address you first Paladin. If a category for dead people is useless, then would not the category for mentioned only characters be useless too? After all, this only adds more flesh to the article without taking anything away from it. Now Theodorico, like I said, that is not my proposal, but characters that are dead like that are dead by intention and hence are dead in the universe's canon. On to canon, whether or not it will be confusing with canon will be something we will have to decide once the category is created. And you claim multiple criteria, I've only listed two (Have been confirmed dead in game, only appearance is as a skeleton). How much is multiple? And Garoux, again with the canon thing... and what is sysop protection? --Mr. Youtube (talk) 02:24, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

If you notice, the canon bit was a quote. As for Sysop protection, what I mean is that it should be patrolled and properly regulated. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 02:33, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

I've been absent for a few days, so this discussion has clearly advanced without me. I'd be willing to limit my proposal to skeletons, if that is deemed appropriate by the community. 02:36, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Garoux, get a Patroller for this then. Why else did you create them? Give me the chance to make this category and I will show you that this will not be a short category. Just give me the chance. I've already listed my reasons. It will make one part of the wiki a little easier and will put all those dead guys in one section. The only real problem with what I have been suggesting is that the category will be too small and hence irrelevant. I can protest that it will not be as such. Give me the chance to make my mark! --Mr. Youtube (talk) 04:31, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Really, I'm not arguing as long as you do this properly. It would be a good category to have for the occasional lore masters looking for specific directories. We'll just have to make sure to do our jobs and keep the riff-raff from messing it up with speculation. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 04:38, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Although I still see this as somewhat of a make-work project, the arguments presented show some merit for it's inclusion. I agree with Leon it would need Sysop protection in order to maintain accuracy. To Mr. Youtube - We are here to enforce canon, but what may seem to be canon often has yet to be confirmed in subsequent titles. Judging from your comments in this discussion you yourself have confusion in the matter. Other categories are black and white (is this a location in New Vegas, or not?). The issue with this category is that some users may classify something as black when in reality it is white, thus requiring sysop protection or going even further and appointing users who are well-versed in canon to monitor and contribute. ^{nihil novi sub sole} 20:48, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

After reading through the convo. and doing some evaluation, I'm going to bring forth a new, revised proposal. We take out the corpse plan, and include only skeletons and characters confirmed dead by other games such as everyone on-board the Posideon Oil Rig and Dogmeat from FO1. No exceptions. 23:31, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Not good either. For example: these guys are surely dead, but we can't add them to the Deceased category because: a) there are no skeletons and b) I don't expect any confirmation of theirs deaths in any future games. --Theodorico (talk) 23:57, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Would the Yangtze Memorial not be a confirmation of their death? That's why they are listed as dead, is it not? And, Garoux, does this mean that if I do this properly, I have your permission to create the category? Or does Gotham have to be in ashes first? --Mr. Youtube (talk) 01:05, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

My reply was about: "... include only skeletons and characters confirmed dead by other games ..." – Stars and Stripes Forever. Following that logic, YM guys are not qualified as dead. --Theodorico (talk) 01:24, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest. I think a subcategory for deceased characters is or anything of the sort is just silly. I feel that it's a waste of time, and I don't see an interest. I agree that it seems like a make-work project. I feel like it is unnecessary, as I feel our existing categories do a good job as is, and I see no reason to add one for the dead. Especially a cross game scale. I don't see that there is a real need for this category, even after reading over all the arguments on the page. It just seems silly, plus if it is something that will require sysop protection just to edit it, I already see it as unnecessary, the goal here is for the community to contributes to articles, help build them, if we have a category that most of the community can't do anything with beyond looking, it sort of defeats the purpose in my opinion. I also don't see this as bringing interest to other characters that are dead. If I'm looking at Randall Clark's page I could care less about other people who are dead, be it characters from different Fallout games or characters from Honest Hearts. In my opinion, anything related to a character, directly at least is covered in the body of the article, that's the kind of stuff I'm interested in. Richie9999 (talk) 01:23, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

So then I'm guessing that you suggest that we get rid of all mentioned only characters as well, right? Because if I'm looking at a mentioned NCR soldier from New Vegas, I'm not going to care about Mr. House's brother. --Mr. Youtube (talk) 01:26, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

@ Mr. Youtube Why exactly, do you want a category? If you want to list all dead characters, then make an article for that. --Theodorico (talk) 01:33, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say get rid of all the characters, or even the category. You're taking great leaps in logic here. I've enjoyed reading about mentioned only characters, the category serves to clarify that they don't appear in a game as well as what game they were mentioned in.. We already have pages for the dead characters, and the pages should say clearly whether or not they're dead. A category for that is sill. Besides, mentioned only characters are on a game by game basis, not on a cross game basis. Richie9999 (talk) 01:34, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

Theodorico that page would get deleted very quickly. RichieRich: I'm not taking great leaps of logic, I'm saying the truth. The truth is that the only reason that is on a game by game basis is because of all the mentioned characters. I ask you, would a category like this hurt the article? Would it take anything away from the article. No, it would give a perfectly good place to show that you will not be seeing the character again. All I'm looking for is the thumbs of from Garoux, the admin, and I will prove that this can become a big and relevant category. --Mr. Youtube (talk) 01:43, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

This is just getting silly then. We're going to have to declare almost every single Fallout 1 character as "Dead"... Agent c (talk) 01:48, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary header because the page is too damn long

I'm leaving on vacation for a bit, but after keeping up with this thread, I wanted to add a few comments. Using the rationale outlined by Agent c about why we make categories, I clearly feel this category would serve no real purpose. People will not want to navigate the site from one dead character to the other. Categories are navigation/page management tools. If there is some great desire to clarify who is deemed dead from a canon standpoint, find some other way to do it, but using a navigation management tool to make these distinctions is, at best, superfluous. There's no consensus on this issue. Look for alternate ways to achieve the desired results and see if a consensus can be gained on one of them, but the idea of adding a category for deceased characters is a no-starter. The Gunny   01:55, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to revise my opinion and agree with Gunny here. A category is not appropriate in this situation as it won't be used to further serve navigation and ease of browsing. I will go a step further and say that there is no purpose to having any kind of navigational linking to this whatsoever, simply because it is stated within the body of the article and related deceased characters are often linked as well. ^{nihil novi sub sole} 09:09, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the opposition to this. We have always struck down ideas that are "superfluous." Why? Who's hurt by having an extra category at the bottom of the page. Nobody, and anybody who pretends to be is doing it out of ignorance. You may not like it, but it most certainly doesn't degrade you, or the quality of this wiki. We are an encyclopedia! Our goal is to strive for the most, accurate content possible. Maybe this category will help somebody some day, maybe it won't. But isn't that chance worth it, especially when there are no draw-backs? Many of our categories are superfluous anyway, and we made them! If anything its another oppurtunity for something to do an edit train. That's what Jspoel does! He edits a page, and then edits every page with a connection to it. Now, for some reason, some people treat this as a bad thing (I'm not referring to anyone in particular). As for it being too much work, that's, in my humble opinion, absurd. We have a user further up this page begging for permission to do this, one who has already compiled a list of names. I have nothing better to do and look at my edit count, I'd be more than happy to have some extra work. I have a mentee, who'd be more than happy to set it up. I don't understand all this complaining about work. We have around a dozen people who do serious editing any given day, that leaves a whole lot of people who don't that could do this. And in the meantime, there are about 15 able-bodies sitting in chat who could help set this up. Since when are we over-flowing with work? We haven't had a release in over a year, and it'll likely be that long before we get the next one. That's more than enough time to get rolling on this. I'd be happy to watch this category, its my idea and I'm a patroller. My mentee's on that track. So, I ask you Nukapedia, who does this hurt? I hope you know the answer, its not like its hidden in the writing. 16:20, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

• The presence or absence of this category does not alter the accuracy of the encyclopaedia aspect of the wiki. Article pages still say that dead people start dead. For the user, there is no impact
• Draw backs have been identified - the work required to implement, and disputes over several characters who may unintentionally start alive.
• The work requirement isnt absurd... There are better, more informative things we could be working on. For example, a refresh of our community section, revision of old articles that have not been walked in a while (for example, I was on Herve Caen's page the other day and noticed that it was incredibly biased against him, and I'm one of his critics!), etc.
• "Maybe it will help people", whom could be interested in going through all the dead characters in game? What plausable reason would there be? Other than the fact their dead what links dead ed, and the dead scavanger in the Deathclaw playground in FO1? Nothing. As Gunny said in chat last night, do we follow this with a category for people who wear red shirts?
• Perhaps rather than add a lot of Categories, you and your mentee should be looking for new content opportunities... Believe it or not they do exist. There's a lot required in the VB section, etc. Agent c (talk) 17:37, February 9, 2013 (UTC)