Wikia

Avatar Wiki

Fire Nation Royal Family

10,834pages on
this wiki

Forum page

This Forum has been archived

Visit the new Forums
Forums: War Room Fire Nation Royal Family
Note: This thread has been unedited for 811 days. It is considered archived – the discussion is over. Do not edit this thread unless it really needs a response.
This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:
Category will not be expanded, no new categories will be created.
Please do not edit this discussion.

I propose that the category, Fire Nation Royal Family, should be apply to objects that belong to the royal family. Objects like Crown Prince Head Piece and Fire Lord Head Piece should be included in this category because they are passed down and worn by only members of the royal family. ThebigOfan 16:12, August 16, 2012 (UTC)

I oppose. I always thought the category applied to actual members, forgive me if I am wrong.108.3.151.74 16:26, August 16, 2012 (UTC)
You are correct that the category only applied to actual members, that is why I made this proposal. ThebigOfan 16:29, August 16, 2012 (UTC)
Right. I fail to see why we should change it, as I cannot think of any other article that could fall under that category.108.3.151.74 16:33, August 16, 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to propose the creation of two new categories, Non-benders and Upper-class citizens. ThebigOfan 23:32, August 16, 2012 (UTC)

Since you are proposing this, please outline how many articles you would expect each new category to have, as well as some examples of this. It would make for a much easier decision. KettleMeetPotwall 13:24, August 17, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with those categories. HenryJh 98 (talkAvatar:The Sole WoodbenderFanon Detective!) 16:07, August 17, 2012 (UTC)
For the Non-benders category, I suppose it would be added to characters that are confirmed to be non-benders. For the Upper-class citizens, we just add it to the characters who are Upper-class in society. I hope that clears up any confusion.ThebigOfan 16:16, August 17, 2012 (UTC)
I proposed the non-benders category a while ago and it was agreed to not implement it.  Technology Wizard  Wall  Contribs  18:53, August 17, 2012 (UTC)

I oppose implementing a non-bender category as there will be too many articles in it to be constructive or helpful. However, I would probably support adding categories based on fighting style (Swordsman, chi blockers), but they may be restricted to a far too limited amount of people to be needed. Upper-class would also be a difficult to implement and make it beneficial, because it is hard to tell if some people are upper class, what constitutes as upper class, and would they have to be upper class at the end of the series or just if they were in the upper class at any time? I think the proposed categories have too many flaws for them to helpful. WEFAang (wallcontribs) 00:49, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

I support your proposal adding categories based on fighting styles. To reply to your comment about the non-bender category, disagree about having too many articles in the category. We will just add characters that are known to be non-benders. For the Upper-class, characters who were upper-class at anytime will be included in the category. ThebigOfan 01:30, August 19, 2012 (UTC)
I oppose the non-benders category, as well as the Upper-class citizens category. The bending categories (Firebending, Waterbending etc.) make it bending and non-bending mutually exclusive anyway; a person who is not part of any bending categories are always non-benders - thus the category is absolutely redundant. For the Upper-class citizen category, there are not enough articles to warrant its creation, and also, there really is no practical use for navigation of such characters, which is a big strike against it. KettleMeetPotwall 03:30, August 19, 2012 (UTC)
Actually, KettleMeetPot, your second sentence is untrue, because Toza is a bender of some sort yet he is not listed in any of the bending categories. Yet, I still oppose a section for non-benders for my reasons said above, and I agree that an Upper-class section is unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WEFAang (wallcontribs) This note was added on ~~~~~.
Toza's not listed of course because we don't know what bending he is. But that is the only exception; certainly not enough to warrant a category for non-benders. Also yes; the upper-class citizens category - it's a bit speculative and up for grabs on some characters. The rest is per KMP above.
As for the original proposal itself, I think the FNRF category is fine as is - we should keep it limited to the members of the family itself. It seems a bit unnecessary to add objects in. PSUAvatar14 Want to have a word? Katarasprite1Ty Lee KW 05:06, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

I oppose the creation of both the non-bender and the upper-class citizen category. For the non-bender one, that's just speculation. It's not because someone wasn't shown bending -and thus would be listed as a non-bender- that s/he isn't one. Take Kuei for example. He was never been shown bending as he was never put in a situation where he would have to bend, thus we don't know whether or not he actually can bend. It would make sense since he's the Earth King, much like the Fire Lord is a bender, that he also is an earthbender, but that was never confirmed. As for the upper-class category, I oppose per WEF, it's just too ambiguous to have a category for it. "Upper-class" is something that changes over time and is hard to be defined in general.

In regards to the other proposed categories based on fighting style, I oppose as well. When is someone categorized as a swordfighter for example. Lee picked up Zuko's swords and swung them around and he later confronted Gow with a dagger. Would we list him as a swordfighter? It's all too ambiguous, too many exceptions or conditions would have to be made which would likely make it more confusing than helpful.

As for the original proposal about expanding the FNRF category to the objects that are undoubtedly linked with them, I can support that. Lady Lostris vstf (talkHotN) 09:02, August 21, 2012 (UTC)

For the Non-bender category, I said for characters we know that can not bend. I don't mean that if we never seen a person bend they would added to the category.Just for the ones that we know can not bend. And finally someone supports my original proposal. ThebigOfan 14:15, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
Only listing the ones know that cannot bend will create a very awkward situation, as then we would have listed benders, non-benders, and... random people we don't know what they are. That's much weirder than having benders and the rest. Lady Lostris vstf (talkHotN) 19:07, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
I'm not an equalist, but we can't discriminate the non-benders. Just saying, SixMoodyDwarves Sokka Sprite Season 1 Voltorb Is Back! Sokka-wolf-c1 19:10, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
@ Lady Lostris: The ones who are unknown will be left unknown, they won't be added into the non-benders category. ThebigOfan 19:14, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
That's the thing, then we have benders, non-benders, and what, undefined? That doesn't look good. It's clear enough when you look at the categories that you have your clear benders as it is obvious, and then the rest. Logic tells us that the rest would either be non-benders or people we don't know can bend and will likely be seen as non-benders until revealed otherwise. So why then make a distinction that will set a large group of "undefined" ones aside, as there are only a few people that are confirmed to be non-benders, but a whole lot that are considered to be non-benders as they were just never seen to be bending. It will just be easier and have less discussion to just divide the characters between fire/earth/water/airbender and the rest. Lady Lostris vstf (talkHotN) 09:41, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose OpposeFire Nation Royal Family should just be people. User:IncubatedDucks/Sig

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki