Statistical Categories (Wiki Question)

For any issues that need raised, be they with the engine, the website, or the forum. We're here to help, but keep the whining to a minimum.
Ratiphex
Forum Rookie
Posts: 29
Joined: May 20th, 2014, 8:15 pm

Statistical Categories (Wiki Question)

Postby Ratiphex » September 24th, 2014, 5:37 am

So, last night I started to add categories to players based on country of birth. Currently, these have been created, though really, it can be done for any country.

[[Category:Players Born in United States]]
[[Category:Players Born in Canada]]
[[Category:Players Born in United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Players Born in Argentina]]
[[Category:Players Born in Italy]]

I'd appreciate it if you call could take a moment and put an appropriate category on any of your players who are either current or retired (Not doing RFAs, but if people feel they should be, feel free to), if they haven't been tagged already - it looks like Pac did a lot last night, and a very hearty thanks to her for that.

The question I have on this is probably going to touch off a figurative s**tstorm, so please, please, PLEASE try and be civil in responses.

Should categories be added for things like Class (Avian/Mammalian/Pisces/Reptillian), Order (Canidae, Felidae, Rodentia, etc) Gender: (Male Players, Female Players), and GLBT identified players?

The plus is getting more player data, the minus is that it could start us into trying to pigeonhole every statistic about their off-court life (vegetarian/carnivore/omnivore, religion, over or under roll TP preference*, etc.), which may not be a bad thing but some participants might feel it's burdensome.

So, please, feel free to provide your feedback, but again, do so civilly.

*yes, that was an attempt at humor

User avatar
Pac
Taco Shack Owner
Posts: 43
Joined: May 16th, 2014, 9:33 am
Location: san antonio, tx
Contact:

Re: Statistical Categories (Wiki Question)

Postby Pac » September 24th, 2014, 9:45 am

my personal opinion is whatever is useful and pertinent could be categorized. i don't think it's necessary to hyper-categorize every detail, but there are a few things which observers and contributors might find useful.

since players are required to be represented as a binary gender/sex, they should be categorized as such. additionally, i personally don't find categorizing player's sexuality necessary or useful. while sexuality is a valid aspect to a developed character's identity, i do not feel like it is essential (or even possible) to be tracked. categorizing sexuality alone is a messy business and never as straightforward as it seems. it also seems like it would push the wiki into the realm of "dating database", though that's just my personal observation. however there have been many characters who have been pinnacle in changing the paradigm in the league when it comes to acceptance of homosexuality, so maybe that is something that folks are interested in tracking.

i feel like "species" categories should be whatever yardstick the FBA uses for the underwood rule. that can be pretty broad (folks wanting to find just all dogs, rather than all canines, for example) but inevitably the most useful.

i had a question to tack onto the countries categories, that seemed to not be an easy answer outright. how should we categorize territories of other countries, like puerto rico and american samoa? there are probably many socio-political arguments that could be made for one way or the other, but i think what it comes down to is what it more useful and what makes more categorical sense. would seeing a player from puerto rico listed under USA make sense?

the long and short of my view on categorizing is this: the things that make the most sense to categorize are certain things in the ID boxes (country of orgin, species, etc... things that are reasonable and logically categorized in this method we're using) and whatever is most beneficial to those who utilize these characters (like GMs/coaches and contributors).

speaking of categories, this topic could probably be moved to the questions board, seeing as this is an in-character board.

Ratiphex
Forum Rookie
Posts: 29
Joined: May 20th, 2014, 8:15 pm

Re: Statistical Categories (Wiki Question)

Postby Ratiphex » September 24th, 2014, 9:02 pm

however there have been many characters who have been pinnacle in changing the paradigm in the league when it comes to acceptance of homosexuality, so maybe that is something that folks are interested in tracking.


That's my reason for thinking it should be added as a demographic... not to turn it into a dating service.

i feel like "species" categories should be whatever yardstick the FBA uses for the underwood rule


That sounds like a reasonable consideration.

how should we categorize territories of other countries, like puerto rico and american samoa


I'd say they'd be categorized as Players born in Puerto Rico and Players Born in American Samoa. Same for Guam if there are any.

itsamadworld919
Forum Rookie
Posts: 32
Joined: September 23rd, 2014, 10:39 pm
Location: Los Angeles area
Contact:

Re: Statistical Categories (Wiki Question)

Postby itsamadworld919 » September 24th, 2014, 10:40 pm

"By allowing up to 5 of the same family (canine, feline, lapine, etc.) teams that wish to market themselves toward a particular species family are allowed to build a starting line (or roster) of one family, but must keep the rest of their team diversified."

So looks like the species families are the metric/yardstick. So that would be Canine, Feline, Lapine, Cervine, Ursine, Bovine, so forth and so on.

User avatar
Pac
Taco Shack Owner
Posts: 43
Joined: May 16th, 2014, 9:33 am
Location: san antonio, tx
Contact:

Re: Statistical Categories (Wiki Question)

Postby Pac » October 23rd, 2014, 7:55 am

it occurred to me: should players/characters be categorized by universities? i had thought about what to do about the dead links to university pages and how to keep track of who attended various colleges. "Attended [University]" categories might be helpful, especially when there is no additional information on any particular college, yet.

itsamadworld919
Forum Rookie
Posts: 32
Joined: September 23rd, 2014, 10:39 pm
Location: Los Angeles area
Contact:

Re: Statistical Categories (Wiki Question)

Postby itsamadworld919 » November 3rd, 2014, 1:35 am

So, I've taken ownership of the Wiki Categories job on the jobs list, and I've done an analysis of the categories we have. I've grouped them into themes:

- [Team] draft picks
- [Team] players
- [Status] players (i.e. Active, Inactive, Deceased, Retired, Undrafted, etc.)
- Species players (this is very incomplete; we only have Avian, Feline, and Canine)
- [Status] teams (Current, former)
- Players born in [___] (thanks to Ratiphex)
- Walk-on "Positions"

Then we have a bunch of other categories that are geared more towards the game results, and some "stranded" categories that shouldn't exist anymore. There are some that need to be regrouped, but it's mostly sensical.

Here's what I propose we add to the "themes" above, based on what we have commented above:

- Species players (continue with groups: Reptile, Amphibian, Ungulate, Marsupial, etc.)
- Attended [University] (per Pac's suggestion)
- [Position] - We don't have this simple categorization, but it would be helpful. Players who can play multiple positions would simply be listed under both categories. There's also a "Free Agent [Position]" categorization started that I think would be great when people are looking to sign new players.
- [Year] Draft Class - For anything 2010 or earlier. This will help with another project that's going on (doing historic draft lists)

And here are a couple other suggestions that I want feedback about:

- Players born in [state/province] - Since we have majority Canadian/American players. May be more interesting to see the connections in locale between players for story purposes.
- OOC Creator: [creator] - I don't know if people want this. But it may help in knowing who was created by who. Perhaps Actor as well.

I really don't think Gender should be categorized since there's only two possible options and most people would not need a list of all male players (I would only see female being useful, since its a smaller population.)

Anywho, that's what I got after about an hour of perusing. Please give feedback! I want to start working on categorizing soon =)

User avatar
Pac
Taco Shack Owner
Posts: 43
Joined: May 16th, 2014, 9:33 am
Location: san antonio, tx
Contact:

Re: Statistical Categories (Wiki Question)

Postby Pac » November 4th, 2014, 1:37 am

here's my thoughts on some of the category topics:

for the draft class category, there is some semblance of that in the infobox already. it's not a category persay, but it does link to their corresponding draft pages. though a category may be more useful, as the draft pages only seem to report the results of the draft and not everyone who entered the draft (example: http://furrybasketball.com/wiki/index.p ... _FBA_Draft). once the draft is over, the page which usually houses the list of available draftees (example: http://furrybasketball.com/wiki/index.p ... Candidates) is purged, leaving no true list of draft year candidates that i know of. additional downsides to only using draft pages to link to are that there are only a few made for recent years. we can more readily put categories on all players without worrying if there's an active draft page to link to. in short, categorizing players as to what year they entered the draft would give a more definitive list, though it'd be nice if we could use both elements (i like having players link to their draft year page, but a category for the draft year is needed none the less.)

side note: the "undrafted" link in a player's infobox should probably link to the "undrafted players" category, rather than an unused page link (unless that page link went to, or displayed, the "undrafted players" category) example: http://furrybasketball.com/wiki/index.p ... Aisha_Card note how under the "FBA draft" section of the infobox, the draft year links successfully to the corresponding draft page, and the undrafted link is dead.


i think it might be worth categorizing players by state (US) or province (CA) since it does seem like a healthy majority of the FBA player pool is from these two countries. i certainly don't think this is a overkill, but at the same time, just using countries might be enough none the less. i would kind of like to see what states/provinces have what kind of representation, but i can go either way with making it a category.


i'm on the fence about creating an OOC creator category. most active wiki users have made a habit of listing their contributions on their wiki userpages (which is then linked from the character page, or can be). then again, not all player creators have a wiki or are active on the wiki. i question the necessity of needing such a category in the first place though, as i do not see an immediate need to know all characters someone contributed. rather then asking "what players did [contributor] make?", i think more folks ask "who made [player]?" which is easily viewed on the [player]'s page and not need of categorization. however, i do think making a sort of "players with no creator" or similar would be very helpful (if there is not one already), for the use of looking for orphaned or adoptable characters. many of the inactive characters are subject to phasing out, so knowing who is sitting in the basement with no owner would be useful for general player maintenance as well as for anyone looking to pick up a character. similarly, maybe there need not be an "actor" category, but perhaps a "needs an actor" category, or something to that effect. characters that OOC creators want to keep active in some way, but are in need of someone else's input.


i am not sold on any gender or sexuality category either. since the gender option is binary, i think you WOULD need both, since categorically, it's not meant to be "female" and then "everyone else", or vice versa. i also don't like the idea of having one gender or sexuality being perceived as the "default" (and there for categorically unnecessary and undocumented.) if you want to categorize one gender, i feel you need to categorize both. that is easier to do with gender (again, because it's a binary option in the FBA player requirements) and nearly impossible to do with sexuality (which is one of the reasons i am not entirely on board with categorizing players this way.)


other thought: is there, or should there be, categories for certain distinctions? categories for who has won a championship, for example? or who was at the "[year] all star" game? again, some of these types of things are already listed in a player's infobox, and linked to pertinent pages (again, lots of dead links i am noticing), so the question is whether or not it would be helpful to have these players listed.

itsamadworld919
Forum Rookie
Posts: 32
Joined: September 23rd, 2014, 10:39 pm
Location: Los Angeles area
Contact:

Re: Statistical Categories (Wiki Question)

Postby itsamadworld919 » November 11th, 2014, 2:18 am

For the time being, I fixed the Aisha Card issue by creating a redirect to the proper page.

(EDIT: I'm reading up on how to use Semantic MediaWiki functions; categories may be over-complicating the process and there exists functionality to list tables rather than just lists of names... so hold tight! :mrgreen: )

Arthropod Players (Insects, spiders, etc.)
Avian Players
Aquatic Players (this is where we'll put any species that would normally live underwater)
Amphibian Players
Canine Players (includes the subcategories "Vulpine Players" and "Lupine Players")
Feline Players
Herpestid Players (mongoose get their own family I guess)
Hyaenid Players (same with hyenas)
Lagomorph Players (rabbits/hares)
Marsupial Players
Mephitid Players (skunks)
Mustelid Players
Procyonid Players (raccoons)
Primate Players
Reptile Players
Rodent Players
Ungulate Players
Ursine Players (bears)
Viverrid Players (civets and genets)

Moles (Soricomorphs), Elephants (Elephantid), Pangolins (Pholidota), and several other species kind of float off and do their own thing. So we can definitely categorize them as such, but don't accidentally put them in any of the other categories.
Last edited by itsamadworld919 on November 14th, 2014, 12:31 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Pac
Taco Shack Owner
Posts: 43
Joined: May 16th, 2014, 9:33 am
Location: san antonio, tx
Contact:

Re: Statistical Categories (Wiki Question)

Postby Pac » November 11th, 2014, 12:16 pm

perhaps spider and insect can be combined into an "arthropod" category? it's a little more broad, but would give a home to all of the rarer species like insect, spiders, prawns, etc. "invertebrate", though not taxonomicaly accurate, would also include some other rogue species like octopus.

again, i am willing to forgo what is technically correct taxon in favor of what is applicable to the underwood rule (even if the likelyhood of, say, six octopi being on the same team in the future is slim to nil.)


Return to “Questions/Comments/Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest