Talk: Female Characters

This category is far too large and general to be of any use to anyone. Oni Dark Link 07:18, October 18, 2017 (UTC)

I also don't see the purpose of male and female character categories. Emperor Hardin (talk) 07:31, October 18, 2017 (UTC)

Someone adding it has already proven that it is of use to someone. On a more important note, a user brought this up in a discussion post and it received some supports, including me. You can also know the exact number of characters present in the series through these 2 categories. -- Khang (talk) 11:14, October 18, 2017 (UTC)

Someone adding it doesn't really prove it's of use. People do just edit to raise their edit count you know. At least that's the only reason I can conceive that categories like this one exist. The basis of that discussion is "It's strange that this thing doesn't exist, should I make it?" "Sure I don't see why not." Personally I question the premisis of that. Is it odd that it's amiss? And what does Heroes even have to do with it? I just don't see how this category would benefit anyone searching for anything. Maybe they have a Fire Emblem character in mind and don't know they're name, they'd still have to trawl through hundreds (thousands?) of pages to find the one they're searching for. Category:Characters With Blond Hair or Category:Characters With Brown Eyes would be more useful than this. If it's only use is to record the number of characters in the series then a characters category would do that just as effectively. But it's not really my place to argue. I'm not an active editor on this wiki. It just seems quite needless to me. Oni Dark Link 14:36, October 18, 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware that some ppl just edit to raise their edit counts, but that's obviously not the case here. (As far as I can see, wikis that have this issue tend to be the ones with Achievements enabled.) "Is it odd that it's amiss?" Then I'd love to hear your explanation for why every other wiki except this has such categories. I can fully understand what works for others doesn't work for you, but does that mean the majority have to obey an individual? No, that's just not how communities work, nor the society. -- Khang (talk) 15:34, October 18, 2017 (UTC)

Does every other wiki though? I'm a bureaucrat of the Zelda wiki and we don't do it there. I also frequent the Final Fantasy and Smash Wikis for information and they don't do it either. Wikipedia itself certainly doesn't do it. What major wikis do? Oni Dark Link 16:04, October 18, 2017 (UTC)

I feel like categories like this will cause flame wars on the wiki. Emperor Hardin (talk) 21:09, October 18, 2017 (UTC)

Nintendo, Marvel, DC, Pokemon, Starwars, Sonic, Cardfight, Resident Evil, Halo, Streetfighters, King of Fighters, Xenoblade... You sure about Wikipedia? While it is an enclopedia, meaning it already had a different structure from this wiki, providing not just info about games but many other hubs such as lifestyle, tv, sports..., it still has categories for genders, even more specific, such as "Male singers", "Male actors", "Female models"... So there you have it. --Khang (talk) 12:02, October 19, 2017 (UTC)

And wouldn't that be the equivalent of listing Male Myrmidons, Female Cavaliers etc? Wikipedia certainly doesn't pointlessly categorize every noteworthy human in existence by gender. Oni Dark Link 20:32, October 19, 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'll drop the debate here, did I ever mention making categories such as "Male Myrmidons, Female Cavaliers, or Characters with Blond Hair, Brown Eyes..." for you to bring up? And you haven't provided an answer to my early point, "why we can't have gender categories while many other wikis had?" You personally can't see its use or use it doesn't mean others can't too. That is all. -- Khang (talk) 11:27, October 20, 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that as much as a point. I see it as pointless on those wikis too. And the Male Myrmidons etc was a counter point to wikipedia's style of doing things. That would at least be more useful than lumping thousands of names together. But really there's no argument here. I have no stakes in this decision. I'm not part of this wikia. It doesn't matter what you do. I do think it's a waste of time however. Oni Dark Link 11:45, October 20, 2017 (UTC)

Lets put it this way, there's already been vandalism and flaming here covering characters with ambigious gender. Emperor Hardin (talk) 21:03, October 20, 2017 (UTC)

Removing the Female Characters section would make it very frustrating for people who are new to the fandom (like myself).  There are probably more than a few people like me who saw a picture of a pretty female and wanted to know if there were other women from the same world who might also make for good portrait subjects. 

Or what about fanfiction authors?  Or people who are just trying to count how many characters there are of each gender?  

I think that the Zelda wiki SHOULD include gender options.

Dealing with gender ambiguity has several options. 

First, cross-list any ambiguous characters.

Second, create a third "gender-ambiguous/unknown" category.

Third, look around on the Japanese sites or contact the developers about the question.

Employing any mixture of the above would help solve the issue. 96.245.7.4 21:09, May 4, 2018 (UTC)

A gender article covering how gender effects the gameplay would be worthy of a page and could cover female characters. Fire Emblem has a much larger male cast in general.

What is the need to do so, when they can just look at anyone of their characters lists here and decide for themselves.

I think the Zelda wiki is good as it is.

Cross list, how so?

Possible, I suppose.

Japanese developers don't always handle issues like that in a sensitive manner. For example, there are characters in the franchise who use female pronouns and speech patterns, but are referred to as male by the rest of the cast and the developers due to their body type. Emperor Hardin (talk) 21:23, May 4, 2018 (UTC)

This category needs to be kept, even if its too much work. Its not pointless at all, since these distinctions serve people to find out characters easier. If I want, for example, a male or female character picture to save for roleplaying, I can easily do so by checking out the gender I'm interested in. If I want to look out for a especific character in an especific game, and I only remember its gender and clothes, this can save me time. If I'm playing one game as a female and I want to check out the male characters in order to choose the handsome one for marrying, I can do so. The same for the opposite gender. Its ok if there are characters with ambigious genders, just as it's also ok if there are female characters and male characters. Maybe someone is looking exactly for that type of characters.

A wiki should be indexed as much as possible for easy access to its knowledge, it should offer people the tools to find and organize characters. "It being too much work" its not really an argument strong enough to destroy already done work and to disorganize the characters. Easy acess to knowledge is the key, guys. And gender distinctions is a categorization really, really basic and tremendly useful. As it's already being pointed out, almost every other wiki about particular series offers a category to distinguish characters based on their gender. Because its useful. Be it for fanfiction, portrait search, especific game search, a lookout of a specific gender candidates for marrying.. whatever! There are many, many reasons why one would need to look out characters by gender. Its a tool to allow people easy access to the knowledge they're looking for. And this is why wikis exist in the first place. 

Also if Fire Emblem has an imbalance of male and female characters, there more reason for us to distinguish the female chars that exist. One could say a century ago that females are not allowed to vote because there are no females in the political class, and because of that, why allow them to vote, to be seen? That's simply sexist. Duh. There being more male chars than female doesn't mean that females can't have a category for them.

Bombermans (talk) 09:41, October 5, 2018 (UTC)