Not necessarily with that name but a category for various conflicts such as the Klingon Civil War, the Borg-Species 8472 War, the Temporal Cold War, and of course, the Dominion War. --T smitts 15:20, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. I was just thinking a couple of days ago that MA should have something like this, considering all the wars in Trek. It could contain major wars, various battles (like all the battles of the Dominion War) and even smaller conflicts, like Iden's Rebellion. I suggest Category:Conflicts. Good idea. -Platypus Man | Talk 20:19, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I, too, also think it's a great idea and also suggest Category:Conflicts. Don't forget the Babel Crisis and the Battle of Wolf 359! :P --From Andoria with Love 21:05, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually I'd meant it more as a category for wars but I suppose one could expand it to include individual battles and call it "conflicts"
  • Mild Support For name "Cat: Conflicts", but I'd like to remind people that certain conflicts ("Battle of the Bassen rift") no matter how nicely written, are not named correctly, and their requirement is still being discussed on Talk:Military conflicts. But actually, that list would be a good starting point for this. Well, i'd like it to be discussed, but not many others are interested. - AJHalliwell 02:33, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Armed conflicts (revived)Edit

I'd like to suggest the creation of Category:Armed conflicts, under which we would place all referenced wars, battles, conflicts, etc. There are quite a few pages of this type already created on MA, and, as far as I can see, none of them are categorized. I think this would make a good jumping-off point for someone looking for information on a specific conflict without knowing the actual name of the conflict. Renegade54 23:17, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Here's a demo of what Category:Armed conflicts would look like if created. Let me know what you all think. Renegade54 17:10, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Nice list, but are you aware its essentially the same as military conflicts? --Alan del Beccio 05:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
It is esentially the same list, but the military conflicts list is more or less chronological, with subdivisions for each century. The armed conflicts list is alphabetical, and is the format that would be provided by the proposed category. If we were to create an "Armed conflicts" category (or whatever the name would be), my list would be superceded by the category, and be redundant. The other would still be useful as a chronological reference. As an addendum, one of my goals is to reduce the number of uncatagorized articles, which the last I counted were up around 2000. None of these conflict articles are currently in any category, so this would provide a category for around 80 current pages. -- Renegade54 03:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I should note some of the objections to be above mentioned Category:Conflicts, because we list several conflicts that have names that were "made up" along side those with legitimate names. (And again, in reference to my above comment, the original page should have been reorganized (as a list it shouldnt have been chronological) rather than duplicated in a new article. Secondly this category suggestion should have been included with the above reference Category:Conflicts and not reintroduced in a completely new section.)--Alan del Beccio 21:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, for God's sake... when I made the suggestion for the new category, I hadn't seen the previous discussion about a the military conflicts suggestion. Was I supposed to, somehow, reorganize an existing list that 1) I didn't know existed, and 2) even after I was made aware of it, seemed to have a legitimate use as a chronological listing? And how the heck am *I* supposed to know that lists *aren't* supposed to be chronological but only alphabetical, anyway? Which rule number is *that* one? 5,721,483?? You are picking nits here. I don't really *care* if a few of the articles are improperly named... that's totally tangential to my request for a new category. Whether they retain the same name, are renamed, or are deleted totally is completely irrelevant to the request for a new category so that we can group like pages. Why is this so difficult, and why do these things take so blasted long to get resolved???? -- Renegade54 22:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Archived--Alan del Beccio 04:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetical order Edit

Something I'm curious about: Why are these listed in alphabetical order according to place-name, instead of the battle/conflict itself? Since the category is "Conflicts", not "Places", it seems the conflict itself should be the focus. Was there a discussion/consensus on this, or is that just how it came about? --Sasoriza 00:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


Would it be ok to place this under Category:Events as well? Seems like it fits there eminently. However I've no clue about the proper procedure for this kind of tinkering with the category tree. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:17, June 11, 2015 (UTC)

I agree. This could fit as well. Tom (talk) 17:19, June 11, 2015 (UTC)

Criteria for pages and page names? Edit

Hi. What's the grounds for creating pages such as the ones categorized here? Have pages just been created on a whim and called something noncanonical, also decided on at the editor's discretion (as seems to have been the case)? --Defiant (talk) 14:27, March 31, 2018 (UTC)

Many have been given "logical" but never-used names, yes. And it's been pretty arbitrary, being based simply on people feeling that something needs a page, using the existence of previously created such pages as justification. Two examples of articles created in just the last few months: Battle at Pahvo and Slaver war. -- Capricorn (talk) 22:18, March 31, 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for confirming this. --Defiant (talk) 23:01, March 31, 2018 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+