Welcome Edit

Rufus holding the Kimmunicator

Welcome to the Kim Possible Wiki, and thank you for your contribution to the American Starmaker page! There's a lot to do around here, so I hope you'll stay with us and make many more improvements.

Whether you made edits before without an account or if this really is the first time you've edited here, I recommend that you read our "New to the Wiki?" page. It will give you an overview of how things are arranged here, what we expect from our contributors and explain why edits are sometimes changed or undone. When you're ready to learn more, check out the Community Portal.

The next things you should read are the following:

  • The Manual of Style for details on how a page should look.
  • The FAQ for answers to common questions.

These pages will help you avoid making many common first-time editor mistakes and make the job of the administrators easier.

Other tips:

  • Please make sure you're signed in! It will help you get proper credit for what you contribute, and it makes it easier keep track of all your edits.
  • Every time you make an edit, please fill in the Summary line immediately to the left of the Save page button. This will help everyone see why you made the change. To help you remember, go to Special:Preferences and click the Editing tab. Make sure there is a check mark in the box next to "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" and click Save.
  • Recent changes is a great first stop each time you visit, because you can see what other people are editing right this minute, and where you can help. Additional guidance on what needs updating can be found on your "My Home" page.
  • Get Involved! Once you've edited a couple of pages, check out Wade's Room to weigh in on issues pertaining to the site. A wiki is a democratic place and your input is very much encouraged.

Glad to have you here, and I look forward to working with you!

-- RRabbit42 (Talk) 01:20, May 23, 2012 —

Note: This is an automated message, please be patient while waiting for a response to questions as there may not currently be an admin logged in.

Category overhaul Edit

Before you go any further with changing the categories, we should talk about your reasoning behind those changes. Categories like Kids, Teens and Adults are pretty much standard on shows and cartoons. And usually, each character has the Characters category on their page.

We can overhaul and streamline the categories, but let's not get rid of them until we talk about it. (I did delete the "Imprisoned" category because it's not that relevant to the series.) –RRabbit42 (leave a message) 16:02, June 30, 2012 (UTC)

I also agree that the categories need an overhaul, but I disagree with your, Syalantillesfel, contention that there is no need for the top level category if a subcategory tag is included. There is a huge benefit in having a single view of all members of a top category available, as well as providing subcategories for search refinement.
Thoughts on this, or reasoning for not needing a single view for all characters? Is there a reason that the characters category shouldn't be like the episodes category?
Mknopp (talk) 15:56, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

RE: "What is the benefit of listing all the characters on the primary character category?"

The benefit is a better navigation layout and user interface. Why make a user execute an extra click through and make guesses as to how a character would be categorized when there is no need for them to have to do so. By relegating all characters to some subcategory it makes more work for the user, and by eliminating an overall list of all characters it introduces more room for error and confusion.

For example, say I want to find Dr. Drakken. I click on the characters category. Now, how do I find him? He is an adult, but when I click on the adult subcategory he isn't listed there. Does that mean that the wiki doesn't have a page for Dr. Drakken? Perhaps I should look under the Mad Scientist category? Again, he is not there. So, I finally click on Male and there he is. Now, keep in mind that this is a singular example of the problem, not the end-all of the issue.

By only listing by subcategory we are attempting to predict every single subcategory that a user might possibly list a character under. For another example, is DNAmy listed under scientist? If not, why not? Should Monkey Fist be subcategorized as deceased? We have no way of predicting if a user would categorize him as deceased or not, thus introducing complexity into the user's search.

Subcategories should be a way for a user to help narrow a search, not act as an impediment to their search. For instance, a user who wants to quickly see all of the Middleton High Cheerleaders could click on the Cheerleaders subcategory and have a nice simplified view of these characters, but they shouldn't have to click on this to find Tara, for instance.

I hope that this outlines and exemplifies the many benefits that I see to listing all characters on the primary page and highlights the many problems that I see with only listing them under a subcategory.

Note: I will cross post this to the forum so that others can see this discussion at a later date. Just in case it comes up again.

Mknopp (talk) 16:46, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

RE: "Team Go page in the Members of Team Go category"
I can see that, and agree.
Mknopp (talk) 16:50, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

RE: "Link the characters to the correct sub-category"

That is just my point. What exactly are the "correct" sub-categories for each character? There are many times that the subcategory that a character belongs to my be questionable. This statement presupposes that each user is going to think the same thing as the editor who adds the subcategory. This comes up more than you might think. Just a few examples:

Is Warhok actually a male? He is an alien and there may not be a simple male/female split in their species.

Should Shego be listed as a hero? For a time in her life she was a hero and part of a hero team, and at the end of the series she helped save the world and received a medal for it.

Is Dr. Fen a villain, a scientist, a mad-scientist, all of these, or only some of these? He isn't a good guy and definitely did something illegal, but does that make him a villain? For that matter is an engineer really a scientist? Some would say yes, and some would tell you no.

Then bringing back up my earlier question. Is Monkey Fist deceased?

Please do not focus solely on these few examples that I gave, since they are only given to illustrate a point, but I hope that I have made it clear why I don't believe that it is even possible to place things in the "correct" subcategory since so many subcategories are not absolute or known.

And this doesn't even bring up disagreements between editors. By listing under subcategories only a character can appear and disappear from a controversial subcategory depending upon who last edited the character. Thus, when a user finds Warhok under the male category because Editor 1 believes he should be listed as a male, but when the user later returns and Warhok might not be listed under the male category because Editor 2 might have removed the subcategory because she believes that it isn't definite that he is a male. This only adds to the confusion and frustration of the end user.

By not providing a single list of characters we only make it more difficult and possibly confusing for a user to find what they are looking for when the beliefs of the editor don't exactly match the beliefs of the user or even when the beliefs of two editors don't match, and only have subcategories for navigation.

RE: "Drakken listed as 'Drew Theodore P. Lipsky'"

This is a moot point and a strawman argument distracting from the real issue. Please focus on the topic on hand and not the exact accuracy of any examples given. You could have easily replaced Drakken in my statement with 'Drew Theodore P. Lipsky' and the content of the message would not have changed, and I believe that you know this.

RE: "Your reason for the character category is valid"

So, getting back to real topic being discussed, does this mean that you agree that we should categorize all characters under the top-level character category?

Mknopp (talk) 18:00, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.