Talk:Garry's Mod

October 4

Category:Fictional hunchbacks

Category:Fictional hunchbacks

Another "Fictional characters by physical characteristic" category. Can you imagine how many such categories are possible? - jc37 21:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - (Listify if no consensus to delete) - as nominator - jc37 21:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Being a hunchback is hardly some random "physical characteristic", unworthy of notice. It's a gross deformity, chosen by the author as a literary device to convey a sense of grotesqueness. And unlike some characteristics, it's certainly not subjective -- all of these characters are clearly identified as hunchbacks. Cgingold (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep An inarguably defining characteristic for the individual included in this category. I can imagine substantial numbers of such categories, and I would keep them all if they meaningfully characterize articles by a defining characteristic. Why is that an excuse for deletion? Alansohn (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. If it is defining, go get some sources which state it is defining. Otherwise, it is just opinion that it is defining, and we don't do editor opinion on Wikipedia. I'd certainly love to see some sources regarding author intent on each member, because otherwise it seems to me there is serious analysis of primary source going on, something we don't do. If you can't do it in article space, I'll be interested to hear why you can in category space. Why should being able to imagine a vast quantity of categories mean we keep them? Do we just imagine the rules don't apply? Hiding T 20:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• I find the notion that being a hunchback is somehow not a defining characteristic for such characters as Quasimodo to be intriguing, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. It is not original research to determine that a characteristic is defining. It is a function of building consensus through the WP:CAT and the WP:CFD process itself. Keep. Otto4711 (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Being a hunchback does not define Quasimodo. How he is written and portrayed is what defines Quasimodo. That's the basic difference between an out of universe and an in-universe approach, and an encyclopedia takes the former approach. It is original research to voice un-sourced opinion within the Wikipedia encyclopedia. Hiding T 11:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, how the character is written and portrayed defines the character, and Quasimodo is written and portrayed as a hunchback. How can it possibly be original research to simply identify a hunchback as a hunchback? And even if one were to accept the absurd notion that simple identification rises to the level of original research, there are plenty of reliable secondary sources that discuss Quasimodo, his hunched back, and what they mean. Otto4711 (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• You've demonstrated why we should have an article on Quasimodo. I fail to see why we need a category for Quasimodo. Hiding T 15:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• We don't need a category for Quasimodo. I would support the deletion of Category:Quasimodo in a hot minute. This is a category for fictional hunchbacks, of which Quasimodo is a member. Otto4711 (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• But you have yet to demonstrate why we need such a category. At the minute, all I can see in the arguments presented is that we need it because Quasimodo is a hunchback. Hiding T 08:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Technically speaking we don't need any category. However, it is fairly standard to characterize articles based on the defining characteristics of the article's subject and, again, the member articles here are all clearly defined by being fictional hunchbacks. Otto4711 (talk) 09:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• But, and forgive me, this is the bone of contention. How do we define what a defining characteristic is? Personally, and I think this is pretty much supported in guidance and policy, a category should only exist if we can write an article detailing the point of categorisation. So in this instance, would we be able to write an article on hunchbacks in fiction, or fictional hunchbacks, which doesn't amount to anything more than a list of characters? Is there enough published material to support the argument that this is a recognised genre of fiction, or a well utilised trope? Or are we just saying, well, we've got Quasimodo, and look, we've got all these other hunchbacks too, let's make a category? Is it a question of, we like this so let's make a category; or, scholars have noted this theme in a number of works so let's make a category? Hiding T 10:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• But, and forgive me as well, that is why we have the consensus-building process. If we as a community, using good judgment and common sense, feel that something is a defining characteristic, then the category is valid and the process has worked. Yes, there may be times when we decide that a characteristic is defining even if there is no mass body of literature behind it, and per WP:CAT, while usually there should be such a body of literature to allow for writing at least a few paragraphs, CAT is a guideline and subject to the occasional exception using the aforementioned good judgment and common sense. And while you've said elsewhere that you're not in favor of deleting all fictional character by feature/characteristic categories, adopting your line of reasoning would indeed IMHO lead to the deletion of the vast majority of them. Otto4711 (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• I appreciate the consensus argument, but don't we look to guidance and policy to form our views as there is no common sense? I'm grounding mine pretty clearly, and all I'm seeing in return is what to me appears to be I Like It arguments. I mean, are we reducing the argument to being that some people would like to categorise fictional hunchbacks, and that's okay? Is that all we need in category creation, mob approval? Or is there more, is there some sort of agreed standard like WP:CAT. I don;t mind exceptions, but they need to make their case, and so far in this debate the case appears to be that it would be cool to categorise all the fictional hunchbacks together. My question, which doesn't seem to be getting any closer to being answered, is why is it cool to categorise all the fictional hunchbacks together? How does that improve the encyclopedia? What purpose does it serve? What links Quasimodo to Richard III (who by the way is a very tenuous fictional character, being based upon a real person), and what's so good about categories that it is the best way to show that link? Where's the utility, the encyclopedic scope, the sourced opinion which notes that this characteristic is of more worth than any other? Hiding T 11:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Renaming "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" to "The Bellringer of Notre Dame" was the subject of some controversy, so I'd say it's a fairly notable disabililty in fiction. Andjam (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  There are several things wrong with suggesting that as an analogy. But suffice to say that the concerns of purists vs. the concerns of the politically correct concerning a production have little to do with the question of whether a category should exist based upon a characteristic of a fictional character. - jc37 18:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Defining disability for several of the characters included. Dimadick (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• There's only five articles in the category, one of which is a redirect. In what sense is it a defining disability rather than an authorial whim? Hiding T 13:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - My point was that there are a lot of physical charactistics of characters in fiction. Some that immediately come to mind are: Cleft palate, Conjoined twins (aka Siamese twins), Club foot, etc. The Elephant Man (and homages thereof) is another. And that's another problem. Authors (especially in short stories, or serial fiction such as television or comics) often have characters which are based on, or homages of, previous characters. Consider how often that Quasimodo and Igor have been copied or parodied in fiction. Such characters are merely "alternate versions" or depictions "in pop culture", which should be lists, if they should be anything at all. - jc37 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  If there are sourced alternate versions of Quasimodo or Ygor, then put them in an alternate versions list either within the main article (the way many comics articles include sections called "Other versions" and "In other media") or in a separate list article (as, again, many comics characters have in Category:Alternate versions of comics characters). Few if any singular alternate versions will in and of themselves have sufficient independent notability to warrant full-fledged articles so I don't think your concern is, well, concerning. "Quasimodo in popular culture" should of course be destroyed on-site since it will inevitably become a horrible trivia magnet. I can't think of any notable fictional conjoined twins off the top of my head but if there are being a conjoined twin certainly seems sufficiently defining for categorization. We've already deleted a category for fictional characters with facial disfigurements so cleft palated characters would probably fall under that and not be categorized. Otto4711 (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  Why is one "disfigurement" (to use your term) more appropriate than another? - jc37 17:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  "Disfigurement" was not my term, it was in the name of the category. As for why one physical characteristic is more defining than another, again, it's the consensus of the community, jsut like every other category brought here. Otto4711 (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  Thank you for the clarification.

  And I've heard of consensus once or twice, but telling me about it, doesn't actually answer the question.

  But perhaps I should clarify: Why do you feel thatone "disfigurement" is more appropriate than another? - jc37 18:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Kleinzach 03:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Note to closer - I'd like to avoid further copy-pasting comments to nearly every discussion on this page. I request that you please read and take into account all my comments concerning these fiction-related categories. Thank you. - jc37 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Note to closer Please review the rebuttal to Jc37's arguments listed under "Fictional Holocaust survivors", most notably the argument that sources cannot be trusted because quoting them constitutes original research. The arguments Jc37 has put forth are simply unviable in terms of Wikipedia, and the "Fictional Holocaust survivors" argument makes it clearest why. Alansohn (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Fictional cannibals

Category:Fictional cannibals

Well, here we have another "Fictional characters by dietary choice". (smile)

At best, this should be listified in order to clarify the circumstances surrounding the "event" of cannibalism. - jc37 21:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete (Listify if no consensus to delete.) - as nominator. - jc37 21:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - (ahem) We are not amused... by the idea that cannibalism is a mere "dietary choice". Seriously now, jc -- if cannibalism isn't sufficiently distinctive in your estimation to warrant categorization, then nothing is. I couldn't disagree more. And there's certainly no requirement for the circumstances to be noted, either -- that is merely your personal preference (sort of like a "dietary choice"). Cgingold (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - well said Cgingold. What's the point of having categories if someone with a bias opinion (no offense jc) wants to delete everything (s)he disagrees with? I think we should be targeting the most obvious/silly ones, like Category:Fictional virgins, for deletion. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep An inarguably defining characteristic for the individuals included in this category, which goes well beyond the sneering sarcasm of categorization by "dietary choice" and has already included several dozen such articles. Alansohn (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: While I admire the dryness of your nominator's rationale Jc37 there is no reason to delete this category. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. There's no real valid reason that this category defines anything other than Wikipedian whim, much like a category on Fictional butterflies who like blue flowers, or even a category on people with red shoes. If there is significance in this intersection, it needs to be shown in article space through reliable sources. The lack of a well sourced article on Cannibalism in fiction tends to mean there are no sources and this intersection has no significance. If we allow this but not fictional blondes, it's a breach of the neutral point of view. If we allow this because we think it is important, it is breach of original research. If we allow this because it has been written about as important, it breaches verifiability. Hiding T 20:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - seems reasonably defining for most of its included articles. There is rather an enormous difference between consuming human flesh and wearing red shoes, unless you're suggesting that Hannibal Lecter's most memorable character trait is the equivalent of Dorothy Gale's? A quick Google search turns up The Body in Swift and Defoe which notes on page 151 that there have been a number of articles on the theoretical implications of cannibalism in fiction, along with additional sources on the topic. This suggests that such an article can be written for Wikipedia. I see nothing in WP:CAT that forbids this category. Otto4711 (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  You have sources for the portrayal of cannibalism in fiction, not fictional cannibals. Huge difference. Further below you argue that foo in fiction is separate from fictional foo, so if that is the case your argument has no bearing on this category, which based on your comments you indicate has nothing to do with "foo in fiction". Hiding T 11:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep cannibal film is a valid and once popular genre of film... so there should be fictional cannibals for the subject matter of these films. 70.51.8.75 (talk) 06:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, necessarily significant about a character. Cannibalism is such a taboo and extreme practice that it is necessarily going to be tied into other aspects of that character. Vegetarianism (category discussed below) is something that could be dropped into a casual aside in a conversation, and is really a common and unremarkable practice. Cannibalism, not so much. That tends to get noticed and remarked upon. Imagine Jules in Pulp Fiction during the Big Kahuna burger conversation—"My girlfriend's a cannibal, which pretty much makes me one too." Postdlf (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Defining category for the characters included. That dietary choice is what makes them notable. Dimadick (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• You're going to have to run that one by me. Isn't it the coverage in reliable sources which makes the character notable? Hiding T 13:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - The main problem with this category is the problem of Wikipedia's guideines which state that fiction must be presented in literary present tense. So we simply can't categorise a fictional character based upon some choice or preference. Since every event is "now", a character is what they were before they chose to be (or perhaps were forced or tricked into being) a cannibal, at the same time as being who they are after becoming a cannibal. So by its very nature the category is inaccurate. And that doesn't go into the fact that the category doesn't explain the circumstances of the cannibalism. (And would someone eating the flesh of Solomon Grundy (comics) be a cannibal? There is a question of whether that character is "human". How about if the character eats a humanoid alien?) And such determinations would simply be original research. They require sources to define the term, the circumstances, and the application of the term. All of which can't be done in a category, and is another reason that this should be deleted. - jc37 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  Perhaps I'm taking your argument too far, but your interpretation of literary present tense would effectively prevent any categorization of fictional characters apart from their species. Batman could not be categorized as a superhero, detective, or vigilante, because Bruce Wayne as a child and young adult was none of those things. Is that what you're trying to say here? As that would prevent categorization of fictional characters by things that are defining (i.e., what the character is about), such an absolutist interpretation of what literary present tense requires in terms of categories does not seem very constructive. I think your concern about the definition of cannibalism is overly pedantic; it seems clear that it refers to an individual eating members of its own species. You may have a point about this category not separating those who are cannibals by nature (Hannibal Lecter) from those who are forced to commit cannibalism for survival or other reasons, but is that really a problem here? Are there a lot of characters in the latter category, and why or why wouldn't it be a problem to include them in this category? Postdlf (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  "...your interpretation of literary present tense would effectively prevent any categorization of fictional characters apart from their species."

  Not quite, but fairly close to that, yes. I'm affirming that categorising characters by some "in-universe" choice, opinion, or preference is inappropriate.

  We not only have the problem of literary present tense, but also variant circumstance, variant application of a term/label/name, variant interpretations of a term/label/name, and subjective inclusion into a category by editors, without actual sources (WP:OR). And if you don't think that the last is a problem, go look at the subcats of Category:Stock characters. Do you think that every member, or even 10% of the articles in those cats actually have sources indicating that those characters are actually those stock characters? Or do you think that editors simply added articles based on their presumption of what they felt the character was? As I've said elsewhere, if a character dresses like Sheena, Queen of the Jungle, does that make them a jungle girl? And what if they change their clothes? Or what if they "come to civilization"? Should they still be categorised? Why or why not?

  The whole problem of time when dealing with a question of choice, opinion, and preference is simply a problem. And note that we've repeatedly deleted similar cats related to real people (WP:OC#OPINION). With the literary present tense issue, all choices of fictional character become problematic. And further, since those choices are a matter of whim by one or more authors, this is even more problematic (see also retcon). Want a big example? Is Superman, Superboy? Since he may have been at one time, but apparently isn't considered so now, how should we categorise based upon that information? Wikipedia editor choice? Obviously not. Such information needs clarification and explanations and (most important) verifiable reliable sources. And since we can't do that in categories... - jc37 17:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  Whether or not a character fits a generic archetype is a rather different question of whether they are depicted as eating the flesh of their own species; what does or does not constitute cannibalism is not so open to interpretation. I also find the reduction of this to character "choice" rather absurd in this context; the category is not narrowed to "fictional characters who want to eat human flesh" any more than Category:Fictional detectives is for characters who merely want to be detectives. The characters are or aren't depicted as such things, and we can easily identify if a character is depicted as committing cannibalism. Knowing the depicted circumstances of that cannibalism is not necessary to explain why they are included in a category that just requires that it was depicted. Note that the Category:Cannibals by nationality schema for real people includes those who ate human flesh on one occasion or many, for purposes of survival or for anthropological curiosity, for serial killer muderous intent or for sexual arousal. Why they did it does not matter, just that they did. You can argue that a fictional character depicted as committing cannibalism is not significant to that character as a rule (which I would disagree with absent examples to the contrary), but I think your other criticisms just don't apply to this category. Perhaps if you could point out a character who was only a cannibal prior to a retcon we could better evaluate those consequences in this context. Postdlf (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  Even if we set aside the question of choice (or lack thereof), an event is an event. And we shouldn't be categorising characters by some event in their lives. Consider Characters who swam the English Channel, or Characters who circumnavigated the Earth. These should be lists, if anything.

  And personally, it sounds to me that Category:Cannibals by nationality perhaps should be listified if its so broad as to include anyone who's consumed human flesh under a myriad of circumstances. But that's just a personal aside, since, "real life" events and fictional events are simply not comparable. - jc37 18:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note to closer - I'd like to avoid further copy-pasting comments to nearly every discussion on this page. I request that you please read and take into account all my comments concerning these fiction-related categories. Thank you. - jc37 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Note to closer Please review the rebuttal to Jc37's arguments listed under "Fictional Holocaust survivors", most notably the argument that sources cannot be trusted because quoting them constitutes original research. The arguments Jc37 has put forth are simply nonviable in terms of Wikipedia, and the rebuttal to the "Fictional Holocaust survivors" argument makes it clearest why. Alansohn (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Fictional communists

Category:Fictional communists

Another example of opinion about a question or issue. And most of the category members should be merged to Category:Fictional Soviets (one of its subcats). - jc37 20:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Upmerge to Category:Fictional Soviets as appropriate, and Delete the rest. - jc37 20:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep A defining characteristic for the individual included in this category, which is already well populated. Some of the articles should be upmerged, as appropriate Alansohn (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Can see no evidence that this is defining. What defines a fictional character is not something for a Wikipedian to choose and then "summarise". We have policies against that. What defines a fictional character is a matter for research. If people feel this is a defining characteristic of some works of fiction, for after all these characters are not real, so cannot be defined in the manner some people insist, I humbly suggest, in the manner of long-standing tradition, that they publish their resource in a reliable source that we may then summarise. Hiding T 20:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment so are you saying that all categorizations of fictional characters other than "fictional character" should be removed? 70.51.8.75 (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily, although I can understand why you would think so. I'd just rather we categorised from an encyclopedic approach based on appropriate sources rather than by made up intersections. There's no thought going into the creation of these categories beyond that looks to be an interesting distinction to make. Take the hunchback example further up the page. Because we have Quasimodo, we instantly think this means we need a category. It isn;t that simple. I'm never really one for hard and fast rules, though, I tend to approach it on a case by case basis. Hiding T 12:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Upmerge to fictional Soviets as appropriate per nom, although I disagree with the notion that deciding what is defining for a fictional character constitutes original research. Rather, it constitutes forming consensus under WP:CAT and WP:CFD. Otto4711 (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - The main problem with this category is the problem of Wikipedia's guideines which state that fiction must be presented in literary present tense. So we simply can't categorise a fictional character based upon some choice or preference. Since every event is "now", a character is what they were before they chose to be (or perhaps were forced or tricked into being) a communist, at the same time as being who they are after becoming a comunist. So by its very nature the category is inaccurate. And that doesn't go into the fact that the category doesn't explain the circumstances of the conversion. And such determinations would simply be original research. They require sources to define the term, the circumstances, and the application of the term. All of which can't be done in a category, and is another reason that this should be deleted. - jc37 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Kleinzach 03:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Note to closer - I'd like to avoid further copy-pasting comments to nearly every discussion on this page. I request that you please read and take into account all my comments concerning these fiction-related categories. Thank you. - jc37 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Note to closer Please review the rebuttal to Jc37's arguments listed under "Fictional Holocaust survivors", most notably the argument that sources cannot be trusted because quoting them constitutes original research. The arguments Jc37 has put forth are simply nonviable in terms of Wikipedia, and the rebuttal to the "Fictional Holocaust survivors" argument makes it clearest why. Alansohn (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The fact that Category:Nineteen Eighty-Four characters is included as a subcategory should be a tip-off here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Fictional anarchists

Listify Category:Fictional anarchists to List of fictional anarchists

This is another case of WP:OC#Opinion about a question or issue. And the list already exists. - jc37 20:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 20:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep A defining characteristic for the individuals included in this category. As per WP:CLN, the relevant Wikipedia guideline on the subject, the list and category are intended to work together, not to be misleadingly presented as an either/or binary choice. The category should be populated with articles from the list that are not yet included here and cross-maintained. Alansohn (talk) 03:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or Rename to Category:Anarchism in fiction to better define the scope and keep consistent with the manual of style which suggests an out of universe approach. It is the way anarchism is treated in fiction that is of note and it is the fact that the characters represent anarchism within a fictive work which has been commented upon, not the fact that these characters have been referred to as anarchist by other characters within that fiction. Hiding T 20:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose rename, unsure about keeping - Foo in fiction or Foo literature should not be used as dumping grounds for articles about fictional characters. They should be maintained for articles about the actual literary concepts. If it's important to keep the fictional characters within the related in fiction structure, then keep the characters subcat. Otto4711 (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  Don't understand your thinking at all. Foo in fiction or Foo literature would not be used as dumping grounds. Also, I'd rather do what's best for the encyclopedia rather than an in fiction structure, whatever that is. Hiding T 12:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Of course they'd become dumping grounds. Renaming as you suggest tells editors to dump them there, because you've given them nowhere else to put them. But hey, I do appreciate the implication that I don't want what's best for the encyclopedia. Nice assumption of good faith there. Otto4711 (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Don't follow your logic on either point. Any category would be a dumping ground on the logic of the first point. Hiding T 15:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The existance of a list is not a reason to delete the category covering its subjects. Dimadick (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• You've presented no argument to keep. the existence of a list is often a valid reason to delete. Hiding T 13:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - The main problem with this category is the problem of Wikipedia's guideines which state that fiction must be presented in literary present tense. So we simply can't categorise a fictional character based upon some choice or preference. Since every event is "now", a character is what they were before they chose to be (or perhaps were forced or tricked into being) an anarchist, at the same time as being who they are after becoming an anarchist. So by its very nature the category is inaccurate. And that doesn't go into the fact that the category doesn't explain the circumstances of the conversion. And such determinations would simply be original research. They require sources to define the term, the circumstances, and the application of the term. All of which can't be done in a category, and is another reason that this should be deleted. - jc37 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Kleinzach 03:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Note to closer - I'd like to avoid further copy-pasting comments to nearly every discussion on this page. I request that you please read and take into account all my comments concerning these fiction-related categories. Thank you. - jc37 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Note to closer Please review the rebuttal to Jc37's arguments listed under "Fictional Holocaust survivors", most notably the argument that sources cannot be trusted because quoting them constitutes original research. The arguments Jc37 has put forth are simply nonviable in terms of Wikipedia, and the rebuttal to the "Fictional Holocaust survivors" argument makes it clearest why. Alansohn (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Fictional vegans

Listify Category:Fictional vegetarians to List of fictional vegetarians

Merge Category:Fictional vegans to the list target above.

Another category based on what a character may choose to eat. More problems with literary present tense. What if the person changes their mind? This should be a list.

And while there may be a difference between a vegetarian and a "vegan", that can be noted in a list. - jc37 20:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Listify as nominator. - jc37 20:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep A defining characteristic for the individuals included in these categories. I fully support the creation of corresponding lists to match these categories, as recommended in WP:CLN. No policy justification has been offered for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per original research, neutral point of view and verifiability. Take your pick. IF this intersection is more significant that fictional blondes, source it and show that it is fictional vegans and vegetarians rather than the way vegetarianism and veganism is portrayed in foction which is the important thing. No objection to a change in scope for the category or listification providing sources exist. Hiding T 20:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• If the character is described in the associated fiction as vegetarian or vegan, then this does not constitute a violation of OR, NPOV or V. Otto4711 (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yes it does. Talk me through the process. Show me how you determine whether a character is described in the associated fiction as vegetarian or vegan. I'll point out exactly where you breach the thrust of the core principle of Wikipedia, that we do not make assertions of our own, since our assertions cannot be trusted. Hiding T 12:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I read a book called Mary the Vegetarian. In it, Mary the Vegetarian says on page 3, "I am a vegetarian." Boom, fictional vegetarian. Quote the text from the book in Mary's article and plop her in the category. No original research required unless you're suggesting that reading a book and reporting on what's written in it rises to the level of original research (in which case all quotes from books will need to be removed from all book and book character articles, which is clearly absurd). No NPOV problem since the character is clearly and unambiguously identified as a vegetarian. No V problem because anyone who cares to may verify that on page 3 Mary does indeed say that she's a vegetarian. Writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source, per WP:WAF. Otto4711 (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, to start, we haven't got an article on the character Mary the vegetarian, because we don't have any reliable secondary sources discussing the character. I also think we've loaded the debate here by starting with an example in which the title of the work just miraculously contains the magic term we want. But here's where it is original research and giving undue weight to one sentence in a published book, Mary the Vegetarian, a book which contains seven million, three hundred and twenty seven thousand and forty-two sentences. None of which mention she is a vegetarian, but a number of which read "I wear blue shoes.", specifically on pages 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, and so on. The book also contains a number of chapters, titled variously things like "Mary Wears Blue Shoes on Monday" and "Mary Wears Blue Shoes on Thursday". So either we create the category "fictional blue shoe wearers", or you are asserting that being described in a book as a vegetarian is of more importance than wearing blue shoes, in clear breach of the thrust of the three content policies, specifically: not giving undue weight; not interpreting primary source; and the reliance on third party sources for claims. Hope that clarifies. Hiding T 15:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oh, and I'd also point out we're discussing category space here, not article space. There is no need to remove quotes from articles as long as they comply with our policies. You seem to be confusing category creation with writing an article. Hiding T 15:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Who says there are no reliable sources that discuss Mary independent of the book itself? For all you know, there's an entire Maryana out there that rivals the scholarly discourse on the Buffyverse. Otto4711 (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• But anyway, I really don't care if these cats get deleted or not so I'm not going to focus any more time on this discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, trivia. I disagree that this is typically a defining trait of a character. How many of the included entries mention the character's vegetarianism or veganism in the introductory paragraphs? For how many of the included entries is it a recurring and/or significant theme in that character's depictions? Postdlf (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• 'Keep Vegetarianism is not a trivial practice. Dimadick (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• In what sense isn't it? Hiding T 13:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Whether it is or isn't for real people is a different matter from whether it is or isn't for fictional characters. Postdlf (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - The main problem with this category is the problem of Wikipedia's guideines which state that fiction must be presented in literary present tense. So we simply can't categorise a fictional character based upon some choice or preference. Since every event is "now", a character is what they were before they chose to be (or perhaps were forced or tricked into being) a vegetarian or vegan, at the same time as being who they are after becoming a vegetarian or vegan. So by its very nature the category is inaccurate. And that doesn't go into the fact that the category doesn't explain the circumstances of the conversion. (For example, plant-creatures who live on a planet of no fauna would be (presumably) vegetarians due to circumstance.) And such determinations would simply be original research. They require sources to define the term, the circumstances, and the application of the term. All of which can't be done in a category, and is another reason that this should be deleted. - jc37 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Hiding. --Kleinzach 03:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Note to closer - I'd like to avoid further copy-pasting comments to nearly every discussion on this page. I request that you please read and take into account all my comments concerning these fiction-related categories. Thank you. - jc37 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Note to closer Please review the rebuttal to Jc37's arguments listed under "Fictional Holocaust survivors", most notably the argument that sources cannot be trusted because quoting them constitutes original research. The arguments Jc37 has put forth are simply nonviable in terms of Wikipedia, and the rebuttal to the "Fictional Holocaust survivors" argument makes it clearest why. Alansohn (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as trivia. No reason to listify. Why a list would be useful? Again it's trivia. -- 08:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Fictional cryonically preserved characters

• Category:Fictional cryonically preserved characters

Han Solo, Captain America, Philip J. Fry - what do these all have in common? They were frozen "somehow". If kept, this should seriously be a list, in order to indicate how and under what circumstances they were "frozen". - jc37 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete (Listify, if no consensus to delete.) - jc37 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I think the category is pretty much self-explanatory. If you notice, every character listed underwent some form of cryopreservation or hypersleep during some period(s) of their lives. What I'm trying to figure out is whether InuYasha should belong here, given that he was put under a spell which caused him to "sleep" for half a century, and did not age or anything. Is there a better name that could be suited for this category? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep A strong defining characteristic for the individuals included in this category that is already well populated. A corresponding list should be created per Jc37's suggestion, in keeping with WP:CLN's guideline on lists and categories working together in synergistic fashion. Alansohn (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Upmerge to Category:Cryonics in fiction since this category invites speculation and in-universe thinking. These characters are not real. Things which happen to them are likewise not real. Hiding T 21:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose upmerge, unsure about keeping - Foo in fiction or Foo literature should not be used as dumping grounds for articles about fictional characters. They should be maintained for articles about the actual literary concepts. If it's important to keep the fictional characters within the related in fiction structure, then keep the characters subcat. Otto4711 (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  I;ve responded to this comment from Otto further up the page, I can't see any value in cutting and pasting it ad nauseum. Hiding T 12:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Defining characteristic for either of the three, common fictional trope. Dimadick (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - The main problem with this category is the problem of Wikipedia's guideines which state that fiction must be presented in literary present tense. So we simply can't categorise a fictional character based upon some choice or preference. Since every event is "now", a character is what they were before they chose to be (or perhaps were forced or tricked into being) cryonically preserved, at the same time as being who they are after becoming cryonically preserved. So by its very nature the category is inaccurate. And that doesn't go into the fact that the category doesn't explain the circumstances of the cryogenic preservation. And such determinations would simply be original research. They require sources to define the term, the circumstances, and the application of the term. All of which can't be done in a category, and is another reason that this should be deleted. - jc37 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Note to closer - I'd like to avoid further copy-pasting comments to nearly every discussion on this page. I request that you please read and take into account all my comments concerning these fiction-related categories. Thank you. - jc37 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Note to closer Please review the rebuttal to Jc37's arguments listed under "Fictional Holocaust survivors", most notably the argument that sources cannot be trusted because quoting them constitutes original research. The arguments Jc37 has put forth are simply nonviable in terms of Wikipedia, and the rebuttal to the "Fictional Holocaust survivors" argument makes it clearest why. Alansohn (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not inclined to see this as a "common fictional trope" without some evidence of that statement. I would argue that hibernation is a common fictional trope and that THIS category in particular makes a false connection between Futurama and Star Wars where the connection should really be between Futurama and Rip Van Winkle. Protonk (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• 'Delete. A part of a plot that a fictional character may be involved should not qualify for a category. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Fictional Holocaust survivors

• Listify Category:Fictional Holocaust survivors to List of fictional Holocaust survivors

Categorising based on a character's past is probably not a good idea. Often a character's past is merely one of many tools in which the author uses to add conflict and/or tension to a story. And fiction is malleable based on the whims of an author. (See also Retcon.) This should be a list. - jc37 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Listify - as nominator. - jc37 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Listify or Upmerge to Category:Holocaust literature, I'm not sure how you have a fictional Holocaust survivor, nor what makes one fictional holocaust greater than another. Certainly some creators will have created fictive holocausts to deal with issues regarding the actual Holocaust. Look at Maus. Look even at Dhalgren, thought to be in part allegorical on the Jewish Holocaust. Do characters which survive that holocaust become survivors of the Jewish Holocaust, despite not even fictively being a part? Hiding T 21:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose upmerge, unsure about keeping - Foo in fiction or Foo literature should not be used as dumping grounds for articles about fictional characters. They should be maintained for articles about the actual literary concepts. If it's important to keep the fictional characters within the related in fiction structure, then keep the characters subcat. Otto4711 (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• See comments further up page. Hiding T 12:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep If not categorizing by a character's past, categorizations itself seems meaningless. This little detail of their past is usually intended as a defining trait. Dimadick (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - The main problem with this category is the problem of Wikipedia's guideines which state that fiction must be presented in literary present tense. So we simply can't categorise a fictional character based upon some choice or preference. Since every event is "now", a character is what they were before they chose to be (or perhaps were forced or tricked into being) a victim of the Holocaust, at the same time as being who they are after becoming a survivor of the Holocaust. So by its very nature the category is inaccurate. And that doesn't go into the fact that the category doesn't explain the circumstances of the victimisation or survival. And such determinations would simply be original research. They require sources to define the terms, the circumstances, and the application of the terms. All of which can't be done in a category, and is another reason that this should be deleted. - jc37 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  While I thought the argument was ludicrous before, framing it terms of Fictional Holocaust survivors only adds an element of grotesque to the mix. While maintaining a fictive present tense about a work of fiction in articles written about the work, the characters in these works are defined by their author and creator, they are not endowed with some sort of bizarre free will of the kind believed by those moviegoers who are convinced that yelling "watch out" at the top of their lungs will help the slasher's next victim avoid their predestined fate. The characteristics their creators have given them were fashioned specifically for them and certain characteristics will be strongly defining for the character. While, say, a character's hair color might be subject for debate on definingness, notable characters laid out as a Holocaust survivor are not given that trait as a MacGuffin. The argument that Jc37 has cut-and-pasted here and modified to describe that a character "chose to be (or perhaps were forced or tricked into being) a victim of the Holocaust" exhibits a strong misunderstanding of the creative process in general. In this case, it comes across to me as a gross trivialization of The Holocaust and the literature used to describe it. Alansohn (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  This has nothing to do with the topic of the Holocaust. Appeals to emotion are a bit of a red herring, among other logical fallacies in your arguments above.

  This nom has to do with (among other things) the fact that a character may potentially have innumerable events during their life. I've read fiction which discussed the destruction of all life on earth. Should every one of those characters be categorised based upon that event? There are innumerable events in a person's life. And even more events possible in a fictional character's life, all at the whim of the author. There are no "real life" repercussions of assigning these events to a character, and at any time, these events could be changed due to a retcon, especially in the case of characters written by more than a single author with a single vision. - jc37 18:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  This is solely an appeal to recognize an incredibly bad argument. Tossing it into a category on Fictional Holocaust survivors only demonstrates how untenable it is to base category structures for fictional characters on the basis that the characters exercise free will and make their own choices or are thrust by arbitrary circumstances that take place around them, and are not characters designed by an author/creator who has endowed them with a certain number of characteristics that have been intentionally assigned to them as defining. The further argument based on Retroactive continuity, is just another version of the oft-repeated "what about this hypothetical situation that might be a borderline case..." which might be a valid argument for omitting a particular entry from a category, but is a rather weak rationalization for deleting the entire category. If anything, the "retcon" argument is an appeal to eliminate the fiction-based category structure in its entirety, which seems to be taking place as part of a piecemeal effort here at CfD, one category at a time. Alansohn (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

  The effect of retcons on the instability of fictional characters should not be underestimated, and categories for fictional characters should focus on characteristics or traits that are more likely to be integral to characters and that define who they are as characters regardless of what writer takes them over. At least in this case it doesn't appear that this story element is casually or arbitrarily introduced to a character's backstory, so I think I'm at weak keep. Postdlf (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

  Hm, I count 24 noms on this page alone. So somehow I don't think your accusation of "piecemeal effort" flies. This is simply part of a cleanup of the Category:Fictional category tree. They're being nominated as we find them (and not wholly by me, either). Also, "pruning" does not equal elimination. And accusing others of bad faith, especially without clear evidence, isn't productive, and is contrary to the collegial intent of WP:CIVIL and WP:EQ.

  You're of course welcome to your opinion, but it's just that: an opinion. Back it up with verifiable reliable sources. Support it with reasoned argument related to policy and guidelines. Do more than just say "IWANTIT" or "IThinkIt'sDefining". If it is defining, prove it. But merely giving your opinion, without that, and becoming indignant in the meantime, isn't helpful, and is actually a great way to have your comments discounted by the closer. - jc37 01:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  Let's see. An article about Rebecca Kaplan (" 'One Life to Live' axes popular actor of unpopular character") describes the character exclusively as a "Holocaust survivor" ("A role that is being recast is Brad Carlton's mother, Rebecca Kaplan, on The Young and the Restless. Millie Perkins had recently played the Holocaust survivor, and it appeared her storyline was over.") As a side note, Millie Perkins' first major role was as the title character in The Diary of Anne Frank, a real-life Holocaust victim. MTV.com described Magneto (comics) in similar terms, ("'X-Men: The Last Stand': Mutant Strain, By Kurt Loder"), stating that "Magneto, on the other hand, isn't worried — he's furious. A Holocaust survivor, he believes that the cure will be used on the mutant community for what he calls an 'inevitable genocide'." In both of these cases, reliable sources describe the characters as "Holocaust survivors" to define the characters. I can provide more sources if you want them, and there are plenty of other fictional characters that should be included in this category. And as an aside, simply stating that a trait is not defining should also be discounted by the closer. Alansohn (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  Great!

  Now let's look at the content of the sources.

  I don't think anyone was necessarily arguing that at least a few of these characters are noted in their respective fictional works as "Holocaust survivors". And those references, merely note information from the primary source material, the same as we might.

  But we don't necessarily categorise every character by every feature, skill, experience, ability, power, etc. To do so would be simply prohibitive to navigation. And that's the goal of the category structure: navigation - not to note what may be "defining" about a character. Instead, we note that in mainspace in an article, or by inclusion in a list, etc. That's actually stated several times in several ways in WP:CAT (among other places).

  And "Holocaust survivor" is simply an experience.

  That's why Hiding keeps suggesting that categories have related articles like: "The Holocaust in fiction". An article discussing the topic, and which can place it's usage in fiction in the proper context. Lists of characters, while interesting, would still require sources, and further, would also require noting how this event was contextually applied to each character.

  To give the example of Magneto, Your source discussing genocide would seem to be a decent source. (I've actually seem some journals discussing the metaphors and allegories in play in the X-Men, and that includes Magneto.) But the context of the character is the important thing here. Calling a character a Holocaust survivor is merely words, if we don't have the contextual relationship to explain what those words mean. And to presume what they mean, based upon our own personal experience or belief, would be WP:OR. (That's what Hiding was attempting to get across about the various other uses of the term in fiction.) So we need to know how this is presented in the work of fiction. And that will require some interpretation among other things, which means more sourcing. (Because "interpretation" is disallowed per WP:OR.)

  I agree with Hiding, there's some great potential for an article here, but there are simply too many presumptions that we must make in order to allow this to remain as a category. There is simply too much WP:OR involved.

  I sincerely hope this clarifies, and helps you understand. - jc37 09:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  I can say with complete certainty, that your argument is not only not clarified or understandable, but that it has no useful meaning whatsoever in terms of Wikipedia. Previously, you simply insisted that being a "Holocaust survivor" is not a defining characteristic. Then your stance is that a character has free will to choose their experiences, and these characters picked "experience the Holocaust" as their career choice. Next we were told that the character may not have always been a Holocaust survivor, so they cannot be so labeled, regardless of how the character is represented, because at some period in their life they were not a Holocaust survivor. Then we have the retroactive continuity angle (as if all fiction is comic book-based), which insists that the mere possibility of a future re-envisioning of a character could eliminate the characteristic of being a Holocaust survivor and that this hypothetical is an excuse to delete an entire category, not just specific borderline cases. You most recently demanded sources showing the fact that a fictional character is a defining characteristic and I have provided those sources. Now the games really begin. WP:RS demands that we provide information referenced to "reliable, third-party, published sources", which is the standard that I have met. But, now all of these sources, no matter how reliable, "merely note information from the primary source material" and their content cannot possibly be interpreted by us mere humans, because we "presume what they mean". After all, according to your extreme view of reality, the description in a reliable source that "Millie Perkins had recently played the Holocaust survivor" Rebecca Kaplan cannot be accepted at face value because "interpretation is disallowed per WP:OR", and "Calling a character a Holocaust survivor is merely words". One has to be truly disturbed by your off-hand aside that "And Holocaust survivor is simply an experience", say, like riding on that exciting new roller coaster. Wikipedia just doesn't work your way, where semantic games can be used to toss out the most explicit sources describing characters as "Holocaust survivors" because reading words in these sources is original research. Alansohn (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  I think both of you go too far. There are certainly categories to which jc37's criticisms apply. However, I don't think this is one of them, regardless of how it is presented, because this is not something treated casually or something that could fail to otherwise leave a mark on a character (unlike an aside in dialogue that a character happens to be a vegetarian). If it's an element of character backstory it is going to be significant in defining that character, and it will still be defining if it is a story element that the character "experiences", i.e., the stories in which they are featured depicts it in the course of the narrative presented to the reader or viewer. In the latter case, yes, there is a portion of the story in which they have not yet survived the Holocaust (I know that is a strange way to phrase it), but I would expect that the depiction of their survival is going to be a significant part of what that character is about. It's not going to be a casual plot element along the lines of, "remember that Seinfeld episode when Kramer survived the Holocaust?" Postdlf (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  (Note: I have decided at this point, for reasons outlined here, to refrain from further debate/discussion with User:Alansohn. So my apologies in advance for not rebutting his claims - several of which I feel are false, or at best mischaracterising my comments.)

  One thing that I think should be clarified: I have stated on this page in several nominations ""...they chose to be (or perhaps were forced or tricked into being)..." - That applies here as well.

  And postdlf, all of those things you mention in your comments are things which I suppose we may determine, based on our own interpretation, expectation, and opinion. But just because we would like something to be true, doesn't make it true. (I won't paste the quote again, but merely lnk to it: Wikipedia:Verifiability/Introduction.) Hiding notes this when he uses the examples of non-Jewish Holocausts and the survivors thereof. Perhaps you may feel that I am taking a rather tight view of WP:V here. But when it comes to categories (per WP:CAT), I believe that thhat's what we're supposed to be doing. That said, I welcome your thoughts/response. - jc37 00:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  Personally that's why I'd like to see this upmerged to Category:Holocaust literature, because what is important is how the holocaust is treated in fiction, not that these characters survived the Holocaust. Magneto's status as a survivor of Aushwitz speaks to the way the Holocaust is used in superhero comics as much as it does the character itself. I think by categorising this way we're placing the character first in the minds of the reader and the editor, rather than the literary concept. That, to me, is not an encyclopedic approach. Hiding T 19:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  This is a category about characters, not books. The Category:Fictional Holocaust survivors is already within Category:Holocaust literature, as well as other character-based categories. An up-merge loses that entire branch structure. Alansohn (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note to closer - I'd like to avoid further copy-pasting comments to nearly every discussion on this page. I request that you please read and take into account all my comments concerning these fiction-related categories. Thank you. - jc37 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, any and every category used for historical people should be able to be used for fictional characters, so long as we keep them as two cats. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Listify. A list is more appropriate than a category. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:HIV-positive fictional characters

• Listify Category:HIV-positive fictional characters to List of fictional characters who are HIV-positive

While we really shouldn't be categorising characters based upon physical conditions, a list of such characters can should help provide references which indicate notability of this intersection. (Such characters have been written about in the news.) - jc37 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Listify as nominator. - jc37 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Listify, Minded to suggest renaming to Category:HIV in fiction based on the number of sources available to write an article on HIV in fiction. Hiding T 21:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - very defining of the characters included. *Oppose suggested rename - Foo in fiction or Foo literature should not be used as dumping grounds for articles about fictional characters. They should be maintained for articles about the actual literary concepts. If it's important to keep the fictional characters within the related in fiction structure, then keep the characters subcat. Otto4711 (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I think its degining for several characters included. Again fictional representation of an all too common reality. Dimadick (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - The main problem with this category is the problem of Wikipedia's guideines which state that fiction must be presented in literary present tense. So we simply can't categorise a fictional character based upon some choice or preference. Since every event is "now", a character is what they were before they chose to be (or perhaps were forced or tricked into being) HIV positive, at the same time as being who they are after becoming HIV positive. So by its very nature the category is inaccurate. And that doesn't go into the fact that the category doesn't explain the circumstances of the afffliction. And such determinations would simply be original research. They require sources to define the term, the circumstances, and the application of the term. All of which can't be done in a category, and is another reason that this should be deleted. - jc37 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  That the category doesn't explain how they acquired the virus is irrelevant. Anyone interested in how a particular character or characters became infected may read the article. As noted aaaaalll the way up at the top of the day's CFD, the problem with your extreme interpretation of the literary present-tense is that it would allow for no categorization of fictional characters by any trait whatsoever because there was some point in the character's backstory when they didn't have the trait. Anything that isn't established on page one of the very first published material is off-limits forever. The excellent example of Batman was given above. Under your interpretation Batman could not be categorized as a superhero or a detective because he was neither a superhero nor a detective as a child. Otto4711 (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  I responded to that post "aaaaalll the way up at the top".

  But yes, these should be lists for the reasons you name. And for one other: Should we categorise characters by every virus or disease or affliction that may have not or have had in the past, present, or future? Cancer springs immediately to mind. Alzheimer's, MS, and MD are a few others. There are just innumerable events that may happen in a character's lifespan which are all at the whim of one or more authors, and which may change at the same whim (see retcon). I understand the want to have such information. And I suppose I should now note that no information is lost by making this a list, and in fact much more may be gained. - jc37 18:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Fictional characters certainly can be defined by being people with cancer or Alzheimer's or whatever. I'm not going to delve any further into the hypothetical than that. Regarding your interpretation of the literary present-tense, I am quite comfortable with taking a Tralfamadorian approach to fictional characters. Otto4711 (talk) 07:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep A defining characteristic of the fictional characters involved. If the character is described in the work as HIV-positive and this is a relevant characteristic, the fact that we don't know whether the character acquired the disease at birth, by sexual contact, a contaminated blood transfusion or an infected toilet seat or door knob is irrelevant, other than as potential candidates for subcategories. Should we categorize by other diseases? Absolutely, but only if the disease is a defining trait, as it is here. The argument from retroactive continuity is simply an argument to undermine the entire fictional attribute category structure, as anything can change, and has no specific relevance to this particular category. Playing the hypothetical retcon game might be an appropriate point in discussing the use of this category for a very limited number of articles, and is no excuse to toss out the baby with the bathwater. The objection that the category can't work because they did not have the disease before they "chose to be (or perhaps were forced or tricked into being) HIV positive" only makes the argument sound even more ludicrous. Alansohn (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  Please see my comments at the "Holocaust survivor" discussion above. - jc37 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note to closer - I'd like to avoid further copy-pasting comments to nearly every discussion on this page. I request that you please read and take into account all my comments concerning these fiction-related categories. Thank you. - jc37 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Note to closer Please review the rebuttal to Jc37's arguments listed under "Fictional Holocaust survivors", most notably the argument that sources cannot be trusted because quoting them constitutes original research. The arguments Jc37 has put forth are simply nonviable in terms of Wikipedia, and the rebuttal to the "Fictional Holocaust survivors" argument makes it clearest why. Alansohn (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Alansohn for the most part. Postdlf (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)