Forum:Reorganizing rank and classification

To reiterate, I don't think we should be putting ANBU inside of the Rank property. Not from a "ANBU is an organization" perspective, but from a organization perspective, ShounenSuki already noted the databooks consider ANBU a rank, but a rank outside of the normal ranks (Though I'd like to see the actual statement, could it have actually said that ANBU is a rank within ANBU, rather than a Ninja Rank in general?)

From a good semantic organization perspective considering ANBU a rank just doesn't work out. Someone can be ANBU, but they don't have to have attained Jonin, theoretically someone could be ANBU and later become Kage, someone can also be Jonin or Kage and never have been ANBU. Thus ANBU doesn't fit within a normal hierarchy. The purpose of Rank was to define the hierarchical rank, the reason why we never listed "Genin, Chunin, Jonin" and instead just listed "Jonin" was because Jonin implied Chunin which implied Genin which also implied Academy Student. It was a hierarchy, even if you technically skipped Chunin and jumped to Jonin you could still say that person had reached Chunin rank even though they really just skipped it and went to Jonin. That doesn't work with ANBU, and as a result we get characters like Kakashi who were once ANBU but we list Jonin, and some characters where we list ANBU but never state what actual rank they once had if we knew it.

I'm thinking of redefining Rank and Classification:
 * Rank will be for the highest hierarchical rank that someone has attained as given by a village; Academy Student, Genin, Chunin, Tokubetsu Jonin, Jonin, Kage.
 * Classification will be for other specialty classifications like titles and memberships in ANBU; Sannin, S-Rank (s-rank criminals), ANBU, ANBU Captain, Per village Kage title (Hokage, ...)
 * ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Jun 10, 2009 @ 17:01 (UTC)


 * It will avoid a bit of confusion and reverting, but I dont think ANBU fits into classification, as it is technically still a rank...I think for anbu something like Other Rank or something along those lines better suit it...And i think Hokage should also go under Rank..its better suited to Rank than it is to Classification.....Other than that, this seems like the right way to go..AlienGamer | Talk 17:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If I remember correctly, there was a debate months to a year ago about if Kakashi's classification or something was ANBU, and ShounenSuki showed up with databook knowledge that it was a rank and not a classification. I can't remember for sure, but ask yourself this: Why would I have a false memory of ShounenSuki giving us information? Exactly.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep....Its in Kakashi's talk page..Talk:Kakashi Hatake..AlienGamer | Talk 20:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ya. It's written there. It has to be a rank. As it could be seen that it is only for exetremly powerful ninja's. Also in many sites they have said ANBU is a rank. So it is most likely a rank. Cooltamerboy (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC).


 * That's not what's been debated, ShounenSuki already said ANBU is a rank separate from the normal rank hierarchy. What is being discussed is the organization because Rank is supposed to be hierarchical, and because we are including ANBU within rank it's destroying the ability to properly search for characters as some people who were once ANBU aren't listed as ANBU, and some who were ANBU cannot be found by the hierarchical rank they had once. Classification is a catch all term, the actual definition of classification is "one of the groups or classes into which things may be or have been classified." frankly classification could be any sort of group or rank. When setting up the semantic stuff I used classification to refer to any sort of category something could be put into that didn't fit as something else. Like the Jutsu classification which tags Nin/Tai/Gen jutsu, but also tags things that don't fit there such as Kinjutsu, Life transfer techniques, and so on. But I don't think Hokage is something we want in the hierarchical rank, Kage is the rank, Hokage is a title for someone who has become a Kage rank ninja in Konoha, it's closer to something like Sannin. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Jun 13, 2009 @ 02:59 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be less confusing to simply state both ranks in someone's Rank property if they were both an ANBU and a regular shinobi? If you put ANBU under classification, it would seem as if ANBU wasn't a rank and would actually leave certain people (like Zabuza, Yamato, and Sai) without a rank. --ShounenSuki (talk 11:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just put the rank like Jonin, Chunin, Genin. Then we can put in parenthesis next to it like ANBU ,Sannin, S-Class or other things? Cooltamerboy (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC).


 * Sannin and S class arn't ranks...I think Shounsuki hasthe right idea...Say for Kakashi, we put His rank as Jounin, as thats what he is in the current story line, and Under it put ANBU (Former)...AlienGamer | Talk 14:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ya it's much more better and organized. Cooltamerboy (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC).


 * Meh, ok, even though I'll have to modify the infobox to support that. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Jun 13, 2009 @ 18:54 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the source is, but if you look at Classification while browsing, you'll see the quantities are off. 14 tailed beasts, 4 Sannin; something is getting doubled somewhere. ~SnapperTo 19:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Its the subcategories double linking messing it up, i fixed the tailed beast part categories, gonna look how to fix sannin. 74.236.92.133 (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If that was the problem then it's probably Category:Villains. ~SnapperTo 20:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And I see you already figured that out. Good for me for being five minutes behind. ~SnapperTo 20:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of subcategories I'd love to get rid of those. The Animals category could be handled using the Species annotation, and I suppose we could add another annotation for Villans. I'm going to kill the teams category since it doesn't belong as a subcategory. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Jun 13, 2009 @ 20:56 (UTC)
 * Why not make teams a subcategory of Category:Villages. Also how do you want to go about changing category villans to another annotation? 74.236.92.133 (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll probably send a bot to fix the villans tags. For teams I think we'll stick with Teams as it's own category. Special:BrowseData/Teams looks nice. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Jun 13, 2009 @ 21:20 (UTC)
 * Yah but, now while in the browsing .. thingy .. ninja clans is appearing with 0 and clans has all the clans in it? 74.236.92.133 (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's because that box lists all categories which are not a subcategory of another category. Because the Ninja clans category was turned into a redirect it was not a subcategory of anything and ended up listed there, I swapped it for a category redirect template which subcategorizes it under Category:Category redirects which will fix that issue. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Jun 13, 2009 @ 21:27 (UTC)

Why don't we just put in the infobox a Classification section and a Rank Section. Also if some characters use to have old ranks or classifications then we can put Former Classification and Former Rank. That way is much more organized. Cooltamerboy (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC).


 * No formers. They exist in the old infoboxes, however I plan to drop "former" in the new ones. Former does not fit in with a wiki that is supposed to be documenting a series completely independent from any timepoint in the series, it's basically the same as using "current" in articles. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Jun 14, 2009 @ 10:25 (UTC)

Ok, but their has to be a Rank and Classification sections in the infobox. Cooltamerboy (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC).


 * Section? Row? ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Jun 15, 2009 @ 20:02 (UTC)

I mean that their has to be these two names in every infobox. Cooltamerboy (talk) 08:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC).