It doesn't seem to me that we need a page for every piece of evidence because a lot of them are rather inconsequential. People are free to disagree, but if there's no objection to this opinion then I think that the potential slippery slope (Names List?) should be dealt with. capefeather 23:14, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with you. There are things that we just can't make a good article with, like this Names List. That one phrase is everything we know about it. Maybe we should establish what evidences possibly can't have a page about it, like, for example, Mia's lamp's receipt. Jessica Ilha 00:17, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
I agree.I realized it was really weird that I added the Names List.Though, I do think some evidence is crucial enough that it deserves to be on here.But thats just me, anyone who agrees or disagrees is free to post. 70.161.157.82 00:29, March 24, 2011 (UTC)A wikia Contributor70.161.157.82 00:29, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
I agree. If we were to create articles for minor stuffs like the Hydroxy-thing we could end up creating 1000 one-line stuffs. Articles like Maya's Cell Phone should be exceptions, though they can't be possibly expanded with much details, they are linked from evidence lists and serve the "Click here for details" purpose. Names List, however, does not seem to have any more details. --AceAuror 05:54, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
Everyone seems to be agreeing with each other, which is nice! :D I don't like having tiny pages like "Names List" that cannot really be expanded upon. I think that, as a general rule, if the evidence lists cannot provide all the necessary information on a piece of evidence, then it should have its own page, which the list should then link to (Maya's Cell Phone and the Sacred Urn being good examples). As for "Hydroxyacelunodosetrase"; unlike other wikis that cover vast in-universes (such as Memory Alpha, a Star Trek wiki) we cannot really justify everything mentioned in-game with its own page. Especially, as mentioned before, if they have little chance of expansion. Strabo412 00:19, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
- As for giving Fingerprinting Powder and Luminol their own pages...I'm unsure. That might be partly because all the old links would have to be redirected to the new pages. Urk. Strabo412 00:23, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
Evaluating subcategory: falsified evidence[]
The same person who made "guilty clients/defendants" made this category. It has the following members:
I feel at this point that both categories are ill-conceived, but the other one at least seems workable, maybe, if anyone cares to comment on it. This one, I don't really see it. The bloody ace and notebook page are clearly the motivating examples, as they're the most clear-cut examples of clearly forged evidence. Beyond that, there are a lot of unanswered questions. Evidence is falsified all the time in the series; that's kind of how the culprits even get any chance to hide their crimes. So immediately the naive definition is too broad to be workable. One might think that the most intuitive definition would be evidence that's modified or created by the lawyer submitting the evidence to make it say something that isn't true, but then even the motivating examples don't qualify. The person making these categories evidently isn't interested in discussing this based on the rest of their edit history, so unless someone else has any ideas, I'll probably just remove this soon. I'll probably still wait a while on the off chance that someone has a concrete idea for this, because maybe there is one... Capefeather (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
As of now, I don't think the falsified evidence category is workable. I've been investigating this for a while, and I was actually going to address this a little earlier, but I haven't had an opportunity until now. This is my evaluation on the existing examples added to the category:
- Bloody Ace & Notebook Page - The motivating examples. They're pieces of evidence submitted to and by the defense, premeditated by the original submitter as entirely fake evidence. They're not merely real evidence that's been modified, but evidence that's been completely fabricated. Only these two seem to fit these criteria, which doesn't seem enough to justify a category.
- Autopsy Report (The Return of the Great Departed Soul), Killer's Autopsy Report, Klint's Autopsy Report - A bunch of autopsy reports that have been knowingly falsified. These are admittedly similar to the above two in terms of being submitted to and by the prosecution, premeditated by the original submitter as fake evidence, but they're not completely fabricated. In each case, only a specific detail is fabricated. Genshin's autopsy report is the only one that could be considered completely fabricated, since it's from when he was supposedly executed, which didn't happen. Maybe these could be argued to be similar enough to the motivating examples to warrant them all sharing a category, but ultimately the reasoning for including them seems more similar to the below examples than the above. Unfortunately, the below examples demonstrate an egregious slippery slope...
- Karuta Cards, Tape Recorder, Omnibus, Unstable Jar, Knife (Farewell, My Turnabout), Switchblade Knife - This seemingly greatly expands the category to include any evidence that's been altered at all to throw off an investigation. Having the culprit tamper with the crime scene is a feature in basically every case, so if merely rearranging some cards, writing "Maya" in blood, or stabbing an already dead victim with a wrong murder weapon counts as creating "falsified evidence", well, that's an awful lot of evidence that potentially qualifies.
- Strip of Cloth, Mr Asogi's Ring, Lighter, Contract - This is where the main problem arises. None of these pieces of evidence are fabricated in any way; they are simply taken out of context. The strip of cloth shows that Ema pushed Neil, but this is construed to imply that Ema pushed Neil to his death. Genshin's ring is stolen and claimed to have been found during Klint's autopsy. The lighter has fingerprints that are claimed to belong to Athena Cykes, but actually belong to Clay Terran. These items have basically been arbitrarily chosen as the "source" of the fabricated claim, even if the other evidence also contributes to the justification of the lie. It could just as easily be Lana's picture that's considered "falsified evidence", especially considering the contract also seems to count. Another example is when Horace Knightley switches the two guns he has, and loads a bullet so that the ammo counts match. So are both guns falsified evidence? Is the bullet falsified evidence? What about Jack Cameron's photo? It just goes on and on like this. At this point, we're so far away from the ace and diary page that it strains credibility to think that all these items and more could be meaningfully lumped into a single category.
So at this point I'll probably just purge the category. Capefeather (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Evaluating article: Curare[]
Honestly it's probably fine to have this article, just because its specific effects are part of the logic of the case that the substance is in. Unfortunately, with the way kitten charmer operates, there's really no way not to have a bad feeling about major contributions like this. I'll have to see if I feel better about it over time, because the article itself seems serviceable enough. Capefeather (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
The poisons category in general[]
I've been trying to hash out a working definition of the poisons category to address the awkward situation that the atroquinine page in particular was in. In doing so, I'm starting to lean away from the curare page being worth keeping. Since it's a real-life substance, it seems a lot like if we had a page for potassium cyanide separate from the piece of evidence Potassium Cyanide. The main difference is that the mechanics of curare poisoning factor into the logic of the case, but even then the contents of the article could just as easily be subsumed into Jezaille's Report and/or Carbonated Water Bottle, which much of its content is drawn from, anyway.
The other issue I want to bring up is kind of the opposite of the curare page, which is the substance applied to Dahlia's Present (the necklace) and Coldkiller X. The substance has no name, and the mechanics of the poisoning don't factor into the logic of the case, so it seems like it's correct that there isn't an article about it. At the same time, the poison is used in two different pieces of evidence from two different incidents, so it seems like neither page should be in the category... Capefeather (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)