Forums: Index > The Wizengamot > Mortals Category

On behalf of Belac Reteet, I'm creating a place for everyone to provide their opinions on whether a category for Mortals should exist. I'm on the fence about it, personally - while it would be a tad broad, we have categories for immortals and amortals, so why not for mortals? Second, it wouldn't be too broad if we only added it to species and not to individuals within the species. So I don't really care what happens to it. --Hunnie Bunn! 19:03, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

It would a tad broad but, like you said, if we have categories for immortals and amortals, why not one for mortals? Whatever decision is made, I'll be okay with it. -- PerryPeverell 20:44, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
The problem is what has been stated, that by definition that it's too broad. It was Nick O'Demus, by the way, who removed the articles in question from the category. I then deleted it as being empty, based on my general agreement with his ruling that it was too broad. I can see the point for having a category such as Immortals or Amortals because these things are special in some way, and thus notable. But Mortals is the standard. For example, we have the category "Fire-based magic," but we don't categorise all other magic as "magic not based on fire." Another question is, is there a need for the category? I can see people being interested in browsing specific categories of articles regarding subjects that are "Immortal" or "Amortal," but I don't see category for "Mortal" really serving much purpose. And that is why I am against this idea, not for any personal reasons that might have been suggested. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:38, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
Okay, sorry. And honestly, I think everyone's getting too hyped up over all of this (at least, Belac saying that he needs to build up a team to argue against you because you never let him do anything (or so he says) makes it seem that way). Anyways, you and Nick are for no, Belac's for yes, and Perry and I don't care. At all. What happens with this category. --Hunnie Bunn! 23:10, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
The reason I removed the category from the character pages it had been added to was that, applied individually, it would cover over 99% of all characters and creatures on the wiki. This would dwarf even our largest and broadest existing categories. As it is, it's just too broad to be practical. Now, I have no problems with the Immortals and Amortals categories he created (as long as they're applied correctly), since these cover the exceptions rather than the rule. - Nick O'Demus 23:24, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem with Immortals and Amortals either-- both are fine. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:46, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
Okay, how about this; the category is used for groups, not indivisuals.  That way it wouldn't become ginormous.  I still don't understand the consept of it being "too broad for practical use" though.  By the way, I'd like to appolagize for losing it, I was a bit distraught.  However, I still am determined to win this one by a hair if need be.belacreteet (talk) 02:33, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
You need to stop worrying about getting "wins." Nobody here has any interest in who "wins" and who loses. And I'm still against the idea, simply because I still can't see any practical purpose for it. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:48, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
I think that at the very least it would be worthwhile noting the mortality of a species on the species pages. A category could also fill this role, but I think that a note on pages would be better. We cannot assume that readers can just tell if a species is mortal or not as some fictitious species have a mortality that varies between fictions. Of course, there would still be cases that we don't know so would have to not submit anything for either. --SnorlaxMonster 13:40, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
How about adding it to the species infobox? ProfessorTofty (talk) 16:55, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
      Okay, I guess that's good enough for me.belacreteet (talk) 19:49, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
I didn't specify infobox? Because that's where I meant for it to go, yes. --SnorlaxMonster 06:15, March 13, 2013 (UTC)