New Feature Addition · Articles & templates · Created by
Polyduces
closed
functionality
What functionality is missing? What is unsatisfying with the current situation?
This is my first suggestion so I apologize if I don't formulate my thoughts appropriately.
I'd like to have the functionality of the "AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS, EXTENDED" descriptor in the character articles extended so that the character appears listed as "members" (or something to that effect) in the appropriate organisation.
I'll use Skyrim as an example. A character may be part of the Blades organization as their primary aligned organisation but they can also be part of the Thieves Guild. In the current system they will only appear by default under the Blades organization and not the Thieves Guild.
I can of course add them to a membership sidebar but if the functionality existed by default it would certainly help me organize my characters and keep things consistent between characters.
How does this feature request address the current situation?
The two most obvious solutions I see are
1) Allowing a character to have multiple "AFFILIATED ORGANIZATION, PRIMARY", this strikes me as misleading considering the wording but it would solve my issue.
2) Adding another field in organizations called "Members" to link to the "AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS, EXTENDED"
What are other uses for this feature request?
I see this as useful for organization the overlapping aspects of a characters identity (Political affiliation, employment, social groups, etc).
I'm sorry once again if I've not formulated this correctly (or misunderstood the functionality), I'm very much enjoying the site. Thanks for your time.
Follow up
After reading the comments I've come around to the view that option 1 is the best with "AFFILIATED ORGANIZATION, PRIMARY" having multiple fields to represent the most important affiliations in the characters life , with "AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS, EXTENDED" being limited to more peripheral affiliations that don't warrant auto-inclusion into organization lists.
The Team's Response
Hello everyone.
I have kept this request up for an additional 15 days to see how this will go and if it will gather enough support to become a good reason to make the change. It did not.
This suggestion - the way it is proposed - will require a absolutely massive change on the database that will affect millions upon millions of articles, and as you understand I take the security of your data more seriously than literally everything else in the world. This is a very risky process.
We can introduce a 3rd option like "Members" as it was partially suggested that will allow you to add to an organisation a big list of people you'd like that organisation to be linked to and linking from, but since this was only hafl-asked and not voted for specifically we should have another voting.
So, I am declining this one but OP feel free to suggest a new vote for a more specific, safe and viable solution right away if you wish. If the OP does not and someone else wants it badly, please wait for 3 days and then do so <3
Current score
99/300 Votes · +21212 points