All Of Them... Edit

Is this really all the named people in Federation Personnel? 'Cause I always thought there was more... The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Well, there are 1500+ of them. Named. That's quite a number. And there are yet a number of articles to be created. -- sulfur 18:24, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Starfleet personnel by division Edit

From Memory Alpha:Category suggestions

This would break up Category:Starfleet personnel by the three main divisions (command, operations, and sciences) by placing the division between Starfleet and personnel in the name. In some cases, this means someone would end up in more than one category, but there aren't that many people who were in more than one division. Also, admirals who weren't seen should probably remain in just Starfleet personnel, since there are admirals from other divisions lurking out there apparently. - Archduk3 00:41, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Starfleet personnel by universe/reality Edit

From Memory Alpha:Category suggestions

Categories for mirror universe personnel, who are currently not in Starfleet personnel for some reason, and alternate reality personnel. - Archduk3 21:50, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Starfleet personnel Edit

Moved from MA:CS.

So... I haven't been here in a bit, and do not know this... but why are some of the Starfleet personnel being categorized by division? Wouldn't it be easier to just have them all in one big category, "Starfleet Personnel" or something? I realize that there are a lot of names to go there, but this seems a bit... much. I agree with separating the alternate reality and mirror universe personnel though, but divisions? --Terran Officer 23:24, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

I think all the personnel are being categorized that way, unless they were not seen or had their position described. That's fine with me, but I'm wondering why there couldn't be both. Wikipedia has, as an example, a "Recipients of the Medal of Honor" category and an "Army Medal of Honor recipients".--31dot 23:31, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I could probably accept it if they were in both, I think I considered that myself, I am really wondering why they were being removed from the "parent" category. After all, they are first and foremost, "Starfleet personnel" their division assignment relates to their duties/career paths, and it has been shown, that this can change. --Terran Officer 23:35, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Why do we want to clutter the bottom of the page with redundancies by having them in both? It only makes the top category harder to navigate, and that's the whole reason it need to be broken down into something more manageable. - Archduk3 23:41, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

I certainly do not want things to be cluttered, but I am expressing confusion as to why people are being sorted by division assignments, they probably should be mentioned in "Starfleet personnel" as that's their employer, with their career paths being the next link. It's that, or these steps should probably be taken with the alternate reality and mirror universe versions as well, but really everyone else employed by different agencies are listed in such a "parent category" this is why I felt Starfleet personnel too (but then I wondered why enlisted were separated as well, but whatever). It's no biggie, I just kind of felt that maybe this was being a bit... much, or perhaps excessive or at the very least this shows "career path" and not "employer" (as weird as that sounds). --Terran Officer 00:04, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

The idea is that a page doesn't need to be in the parent category since it's already in the subcategory, so things in subcategories are already in the parent category. Enlisted personnel are still in both but they don't need to be, and those in the mirror and alt cats are already in a division category, but there just isn't enough people yet to make it worth it to split them right now. - Archduk3 00:11, February 15, 2011 (UTC)