Category talk:Playable characters

I just created this page because I saw it was in the wanted pages section. I know it's kind of long and that's because I don't know how to put the H, I and J section to the right of the A, E and F sections. Could someone please tell me how to do that? DragonPower 14:20, 23 February 2011 (CST)DragonPower
 * A category page like this actually builds itself with the links to the articles when you add at the bottom of the article for each page that is a playable character. What you did just now was to actually create a category page whose summary includes links to the character pages, while having nothing in its actual category section below the summary. I'll add the Playable Characters category to the articles to show how it's done. Erik the Appreciator 14:26, 23 February 2011 (CST)


 * (Edit conflict) Actually, the articles in a category aren't entered on the category page itself. Put a link to the category in an article and that article will automatically appear in the category. Just give me a moment, then check the recent changes and you'll see. The World&#39;s Hungriest Paperweight 14:27, 23 February 2011 (CST)

* Comes to a screeching halt* Wait, do we even need this category? We've already got one called Protagonists, which already includes all the playable characters... The World&#39;s Hungriest Paperweight 14:31, 23 February 2011 (CST)
 * Yeah, but now that I think about it, maybe "Protagonists" should actually be the category that's removed, because it feels more subjective, somehow. Characters shouldn't be categorized as straight-up heroic or villainous, after all. Erik the Appreciator 14:33, 23 February 2011 (CST)


 * Eh, got a point there. Especially in the case of the TLA team, which are seen as villainous in the first game... The World&#39;s Hungriest Paperweight 14:37, 23 February 2011 (CST)
 * Actually, the term "protagonist" is used to refer to the character that is the focus of the story. It says nothing about their alignment. Although rarer, there are instances of Villain Protagonists. Although I will agree that "protagonist" is generally associated with "hero". I just think this warrants a little more though. The World&#39;s Hungriest Paperweight 14:42, 23 February 2011 (CST)
 * Sure, but using a category to call a character the main focus of a story isn't so hot either. That comes across as something that the reader ought to see for themselves by reading the article's content. Categories are best when they are focused strictly on what's statistical and objective, like whether a character is playable or not playable, what element they are as Adepts, etc. Erik the Appreciator 14:48, 23 February 2011 (CST)
 * On the same train of thought, I realize this means that the Antagonists category would have to also be removed from pages like Dodonpa. After all, labeling the various characters throughout the series that can be inferred as "antagonistic" with this category doesn't truly tell much, since antagonists here range from each game's duo of warriors you always fight against, to someone who's always involving himself in these plots to gain power for himself, to separate parties that are heroes for their own reasons but are opposed to each other, to an outwardly immoral and ruthless leader of an empire of thieves, to the king of a culture seeking retribution against other kingdoms via an ancient war weapon but realizing his mistake and folly when he causes all hell to break loose. And is Babi an antagonist for taking imperial control over Lalivero and having its workmen work for him by holding Sheba captive, even though his page didn't get the Antagonist category before? I think this sufficiently demonstrates why there shouldn't be categories for subjective things like what "good", "protagonistic", "bad", or "antagonistic", so I'll remove the Antagonists category too. Erik the Appreciator 15:00, 23 February 2011 (CST)
 * I feel the need to point out the current clash with the character nav template. the template still lists them as antagonists and protagonists. I already know the direction these edits will go in, and I should say that navigation is every bit as important to a wiki as pure factual correctness. There's no need to remove something just because it can't be cited if it is useful for navigation purposes and isn't controversial (which this obviously isn't). But meh, its not my call, just making sure people are consistent (which is even more important than being factual). Slax 15:42, 23 February 2011 (CST)
 * Hmm, well, it could be said that navigation templates are more informal than categories that focus on cold hard facts, which is why arranging the characters in the nav template like that is more acceptable. On Wikipedia and other wikis, nav templates get restructured, reordered, added to, and taken away from all the time, while the only way to modify the contents of a category is to add or remove tags of code on individual pages. Erik the Appreciator 15:56, 23 February 2011 (CST)


 * You forgot to mention a guardian spirit driven to insanity, a nation that resorts to crime when their food supply dwindles, an insensitive witch doctor who steals an ally's key home, the warmongering rightful heir to an empire who was denied his throne because his subjects wanted peace... My point: I get what you're saying. The Golden Sun games tend to blur the line between right and wrong, so we need to be careful when using such labels. The World&#39;s Hungriest Paperweight 23:24, 23 February 2011 (CST)