Currently, we have categories "Humans" and "Nonhumans", with the latter one being a mix of species subcategories and a list of various individuals of different origin. This is "human-centric", as such doesn't really reflect the in-universe setting, and also makes the categorization scheme more complex than it needs to be. I'm suggesting Category:Individuals, basically by "renaming" the current "Nonhumans" category, and want to move the "Humans" categories to this category, just like subcategories for other species already exist. -- Cid Highwind 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Wow, this page is becoming a mess, I missed this when I noted the following above in the "Unnamed Humanoid" section:
    Category:Humanoids would be the likely alternative, as I am sure 80-90% of the individuals linked here are Humanoids (a term I believe has been used by aliens as well), the rest would seem to fall under the Category:Nonhumanoid. This of course I am basing, in part, off of humanoid at Wikipedia. Otherwise, we could just do as we did with the categorization of images and create/move to a category called Category:Individuals (a la Category:Memory Alpha images (individuals)) for either the Nonhumans category or the People category. --Alan del Beccio 16:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • So yeah, I support this (and volunteer to make the move). That is if I can also amend Category:Unnamed individuals to this for all those "list of"'s that are composed of unnamed individuals. --Alan del Beccio 23:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't it be better to create a cat "Bajoran" and a cat "Individuals" and then put an article about a bajoran individual into both categories? The Bajoran cat would be all article relating to things bajoran, and the individuals cat would be all articles about individuals. You would find bajoran individuals by cross referencing the two. I dont like having a cat "Bajorans" that is a sub cat of "Individuals". We have distinct categories for every combination leaving one category per artcile. This makes using sets impossible in any meaningful way. --Bp 05:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I have re-thought this a little, and I guess the cat "Bajorans" is kindof like the "virtual cat" that Cid and I have discussed before. It can be in a sub-cat of cat "Individuals" and cat "Bajoran" instead of putting each article in those cats. By adding the one cat "Bajorans", you put it into both. But the "Bajorans" cat needs to be added as a sub-cat of cat "Bajoran" (or "Bajor" or something) because, right now, there is no category connection between Bajorans and anything else Bajoran. --Bp 05:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Individuals, subcategories

I think that this site has gotten big enough that we can stretch our categorizing borders some. Considering the size of Category:Individuals, many of those within belong to the same species, we can create more subs for it for species that have a minimum of 4 or 5 members (vs. 10-12 as we previously limited it to). I've noticed several categories on Wikipedia with as many articles assigned to it as I can count on one hand, and really don't see why we can't do that here. With that said, Mintakans/Category:Mintakans and List of Vori/Category:Vori seem like a good starting point for this. --Alan del Beccio 14:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Support Kennelly 15:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support for all known species with at least one member (sure, why not), as long as the category name is plural (to avoid some of the problems we already encountered with Category:Borg). -- Cid Highwind 22:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Various individuals sub-categories

There are many individuals cats which have 6 members (Vori; Yridians). Using that precedence, I believe the following would also qualify as cats:

That's just what I got by going through the "A" names on Category:Individuals.--Tim Thomason 20:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Support, for the moment six entries should be minimum requirement. Kennelly 19:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Species sub-categories under Individuals

I've seen several references to some minimum number of members a species has to have to get a category. I think this might actually be the reversal of a previous suggestion here, a blanket allowance for all species categories with more than X members.

Thinking about it, it actually makes sense for a proper "categorization" to either have all possible species categories, or none at all. Even if some species only has one known member, that member would still be properly categorized as "species X" - whether other articles in that category exist or not. -- Cid Highwind 15:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

So then the stragglers, those without a known species would be left under Category:Individuals or are we going to include "X individual's species" as a category too? I'm not too keen on that, but don't have anything against lifting the limitations you speak of. --Alan del Beccio 10:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think those might best be left under "Individuals". I know we already have at least one "PLANET native" category, but "NAME's species" seems a little too random to build a category on. -- Cid Highwind 10:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Suits me. --Alan del Beccio 11:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I haven't decided if I support this idea or not,(so I need more information) but if a species only has a single member, isn't having a category for a species of one redundant, especially if that species has an article? We also have articles such as Kelemane's species where the name was not established. Would that have a category as well? 31dot 00:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
It wouldn't be redundant, because people might search from either end of the option. They might search from the character, or they might search from the species. Its justifiable that they hit a result either way. Remember, this isn't a book, thats read from beginning to end, and duplicated sections become difficult to read. Its a wiki, and any person who searches for something, and doesn't find any information (especially if we did have that information on the site, just not categorized properly) on that subject... we've failed. Are we concerned with the bandwidth of having a few extra pages of data?Hossrex 00:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm convinced. Your answer makes sense to me. I would wonder where and how the concept of a 'cutoff' came about in the first place, but this sounds like a good idea. 31dot 02:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, both questions had already been discussed above. a) No, this suggestions would not extend to unnamed species, those would be listed under Category:Individuals (which would become a much smaller category, but with much more subcategories, following this suggestion). And b) This cutoff originally wasn't meant as a cutoff (as in "you mustn't create 'Individual' categories with less than X members"), but as a general allowance for all 'Individual' categories with more than X members. We're just reducing X from 5 to 0, now... ;) -- Cid Highwind 11:31, 14 November 2007 (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+