Talk:Matsuri Washuu/@comment-10733658-20170311180041/@comment-27247962-20170311195929

I've got time & I want to type, so here's my thoughts, regardless of the decision being final for this week, this discussion isn't final by a longshot. ^^

@ anon It would've be okay, if they actually followed-up on the statuses: unknown & had a principle going along with this 'unknown' status.

I'm sure they'll follow-up on Matsuri, but then you've got stuff like this: http://tokyoghoul.wikia.com/wiki/Mutsumi_Chino

He's unknown/Declared dead.

So what would I get from this:

Unknown is the status the fandom put on him.

Declared dead is the additional given data from the manga.

So what the readers think has a seperate value on someones status, besides what the context in-story shares, is what I get from this.

From the moment a reader points out how there has been a case where it didn't result in death, the status becomes warped for every character that found himself/herself in such a similar unknown-type situation.

Since many of the more prominent characters have been confronted with death together with their less relevant third&fourth-rate character colleagues in an attempt to give the story a more realistic feel. By making it seem like the prominent characters can die in a similar situation as their fodder colleagues, makes it so that every fodder present in that situation has access to that 'unknown' status, when a prominent character miraculously survives the ordeal he was put through together with his colleagues. (because the hierarchical importance of character's is ignored for a change & everyone is suddenly equal in being ghoul or human)

There's a myriad of ways to describe someones status, but this wiki works with the most ambiguous one. There's no clear answer, but there's a lot more known about someones state of being, then nothing at all in almost every case. To take Matsuri's example here: 'cut into ribbons' gives you an abundance of information. To say that Matsuri's state of being is 'unknown' is leaving out a few very descriptive things said solely about the character: Matsuri & for what? What do you base it on then?

The fact that another character didn't die when everyone thought he/she was in state that he/she couldn't return from? (Since when does one character's faith apply & influence the faith of another character?) The euphimistic opinion of a reader that states the wounds or the situation is very similar to another character? (Another character is the proof for what this character can take? When we haven't even seen how bad this character's wounds are...) A reader's confidence when he/she claims to know how Ishida handles these kind of things? (A reader's voice has more value, then an omniscient voice in the story?) Because Ishida's previous consistency on what kills & doesn't kill a human/ghoul is getting blurry, so we as a wiki should definitily mimic that inconsistency & vaguenes, instead of for example trying to define a norm for what a human can take & what a ghoul can take & base your statuses on that?

It's just so chaotic & all over the place this 'unknown'-status & is barely based on the situation of the character who's status is being analyzed. So more then the status: unknown being wrong, it's the approach of the wiki-editors. You either make some groundrules & averages on which you can base the likeliness of a character (human/ghoul) being alive/dead or you just describe it exactly like it has been shown or said in the story.

The status Unknown is just a form of lazyness at this point. You've got fans willing & even already sharing their analysis on these statuses, so why not take them on on their zealous offer & ask them if they can discuss these statuses, but keeping in mind a few groundrules to force them to a conclusion eventually. Let them figure out a scaling that would work & prevent further discussion. It's very much possible.

Even now I can come up with something more appropriate then 'Unknown' when i'm being lazy about it. 'Deadly wounded'. A status = the condition a character/person is in, which is much broader then just 'alive/dead/unknown'. And since i'm constantly hearing how simple it is to change a status, i'm sure changing a more thought out status is just as easy as changing one where you barely put in any effort & just categorized it haphazerdly.

I wonder if the wiki-editors or admin's going over the final decision couldn't already have come up with a more satisfactory status with the time they now have put in calming readers down that aren't satisfied with status 'unknown'...

<p style="font-weight:normal;font-family:"helveticaneue",helvetica,arial,sans-serif;">