Name Edit

There is no reason to disambiguate the title with "Unnamed". - Archduk3 03:52, February 2, 2017 (UTC)

Category:Unnamed individuals, the precedence in naming conventions is that lists of unnamed individuals of a species are so tagged, unless you are changing the rules again. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 03:56, February 2, 2017 (UTC)

Precedence that isn't written, and isn't necessary. Considering I'm the one following the rules here too, there is no consensus for the current title. - Archduk3 04:07, February 2, 2017 (UTC)

Don't fool yourself. You do your share without concensus.--Alan del Beccio (talk) 04:11, February 2, 2017 (UTC)

Silence is agreement, and yet the silence here seems somewhat louder than nominal. If you're saying I don't need to bother with with this though, I'm more than capable of fixing 22 links without help. - Archduk3 04:19, February 2, 2017 (UTC)

When I moved the page, I was following the precedent of Unnamed Corvallens, Unnamed Cytherians and many other pages where the word "Unnamed" is included in the title even though every member of the species is unnamed. I don't know whether or not this goes against the rules, but it would be much easier to change the rules to conform with the precedent, than to rename a whole bunch of pages to conform with the rules. --NetSpiker (talk) 04:30, February 2, 2017 (UTC)
If strong arming with silence is the precedence for your own personal motivations, then you're really not making a very good case for future endeavors. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 04:38, February 2, 2017 (UTC)

That's quite a trick to be accusing me of strong arming when spur of the moment in-universe page moves backed up with a bot would seem to fit the bill for that much better than waiting a week to confirm no one cares or creating a maintenance category that spurs no comment after the fact. Then again, what do I know, I haven't been here as long as the top four contributors to the site, and I'm sure those pots would never call the kettles black. - Archduk3 05:21, February 2, 2017 (UTC)

From what I can tell, "unnamed" is used when the page is created to document nameless members of the same named species; those members of unnamed species are listed at "List of ____'s species". Groups consisting of members of multiple species are classified by the planet/location they work on/in or inhabit. An exception would be List of Vilix'pran's species, which I named in conflict with this apparent rule (unknowingly, I assure you - should it be changed?). Technically, it's not a list - there's only one entry on it. --LauraCC (talk) 16:59, February 2, 2017 (UTC)

Actual rename discussionEdit

Since the suggestion has gotten horribly off-topic above... restarting it here.

Disagree. Precedence (and even if not written in policy, has created a de-facto policy) is keep this with "Unnamed" at the start of the article name. -- sulfur (talk) 17:06, February 2, 2017 (UTC)

Technically, my comment above was intended to steer it back towards the original intent, too. Oppose and let's maybe put this in policy somewhere? --LauraCC (talk) 17:10, February 2, 2017 (UTC)
[edit conflict] You would have more of a leg to stand on if this page had "unnamed" anywhere in the title before the page move, which it did not. Had it been tagged correctly or even mentioned in the discussion that happened for the species page, this could have all happened weeks ago, when the de-facto position was different. Also, MA allows what it doesn't condone, and actual written policy is for simpler titles. Sticking "unnamed" on pages that don't need it is blind adherence to a non-decision from the dark ages. - Archduk3 17:18, February 2, 2017 (UTC)
The word "Unnamed" helps to disambiguate the list of individuals from the species article. --NetSpiker (talk) 04:31, February 3, 2017 (UTC)
By that logic, Humans should be moved to "Named Humans". This page covers all Hanonians, the fact that they happen to all be unnamed in this instance isn't a good reason to narrow the scope of the page and ignore the naming conventions by sticking an unnecessary word in front of the natural title. - Archduk3 16:09, February 3, 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we have a whole bunch of "Humans" articles in the first place. All other species just have a Category page for named individuals.
I still don't agree with your assertion that the word "simple" in the naming conventions outweighs the precedent of the 40+ pages that have Unnamed in their title even when every member of the species is unnamed. Do you really want to rename more than 40 pages? --NetSpiker (talk) 03:14, February 4, 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I have no problem doing that, and more. I'm not here to change this one page and leave, I plan to change them all. - Archduk3 17:19, February 5, 2017 (UTC)
Well, if it is done, a bot will make short work of part one of the task. --LauraCC (talk) 19:05, February 5, 2017 (UTC)
It would be even shorter work to update the naming conventions page. I don't see how removing the word "Unnamed" from a bunch of page will improve Memory Alpha. --NetSpiker (talk) 03:38, February 6, 2017 (UTC)
The amount of work or time it will take to do something right isn't a good argument against doing it, and your lack of vision is more a failure of imagination on your part. You've failed to see how forcing personnel pages to conform with an unnatural scope would impact almost all location based personnel pages and make MA worse for it. Also, by admitting there needs to be an update in the naming convention to support your side of the argument, you're pretty much admitting that the naming convention does agrees with me.
That said, there currently are no unmitigated points for using "unnamed", while there remain a few unmitigated points for not using it, and since I can do all of the work to these pages while using maintaining the current titles as redirects, there isn't even a good reason for me not to so those of you who disagree can actually see what I see. It will take me about a day or two to move the pages and make the changes to the pages themselves, and only about an hour's worth of work with rollbacks, page moves, and a bot could change it all back, so MA doesn't really have anything to lose by letting me. - Archduk3 05:16, February 6, 2017 (UTC)
There's still the problem of disambiguation. If two articles have almost identical names, a casual reader that types a species name into the search bar may get confused about which is which. And there are some species where the plural name and the singular name are exactly the same, so those pages will need to keep the word "Unnamed" in their title even if every member of the species is unnamed.
Can you explain what you mean by "impact all location based personnel pages"? --NetSpiker (talk) 08:20, February 6, 2017 (UTC)

Except that there's a pretty clear disagreement with your proposal and for me, it has nothing to do with "allowing" you to do make this change. This (like many of the others) is a list of "unnamed" people. It should stay as such. I have no issue, when there are also named people, for them to become more general pages, such as you suggest, but where there are no named people... the differentiation is better for the reader. The other issue there is that we get into a lot of poor edit habits, where a link to the species page ("Hanonian") becomes a lazy link to the list of the species page ("Hanonians").

Finally, with the redirect/linking project, the final name of this page does not need to be "simple", and it in no way makes "MA worse for it." -- sulfur (talk) 10:54, February 6, 2017 (UTC)

Are we to merge the species pages with the named and unnamed lists, then? Like so?
The '''Insert species name here''' were ______________

blah blah blah
===23d century===
yada yada yada
===24th century===
== Culture ==
yap yap yap
===Joining the Federation===
oink oink oink
See "Category:Insert species name here"
*''Unnamed space station personnel''
*''Unnamed starship personnel/species member''
====Unnamed guy one====
This '''guy''' did stuff. (citation)
====Unnamed guy two====
This '''guy''' did different stuff in a different place.(citation)
====Unnamed woman one====
This '''woman''' once lived somewhere and was related to so and so. (citation)
--LauraCC (talk) 16:08, February 6, 2017 (UTC)

Please no. The list of members should be separate from the species itself. -- sulfur (talk) 16:31, February 6, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for re-formatting my example. While it might flesh out smaller species pages, it would undoubtedly pose a problem for longer ones... --LauraCC (talk) 16:33, February 6, 2017 (UTC)
Consensus actually doesn't require agreement sulfur, though generally the mitigation of points in arguments from the parties involved tends to lead to that naturally, and since consensus is clearly related to getting consent, this is about allowing these pages in general to be changed, and this page in particular to be changed back, to a more natural and uniform title structure that doesn't require unnecessary division of named and unnamed personnel. This page should have stayed at a title that didn't have "unnamed" in it. You can try and wrap this up in all the implied "standard" that monkey see, monkey do has created over the years, but since Alan created this page nearly 8 years ago it hasn't needed "unnamed" in the title, and it still doesn't need it today. There is pretty clear disagreement with the the proposal that the current title is fine, and the unnecessary differentiation is harmful, since an "unnamed" list implies a named list at the natural title. There is no page at that title, and creating redirects for every single species from the natural titles to the unnatural titles, or categories, would be just silly, but pretty much required to solve some of the problems with using "unnamed" unreasonably. Finding this page using the search bar should be a priority, but searching by the species names doesn't even suggest unnamed pages, and MA is worse for that when a named version doesn't exist. The redirect/linking project will also actually make finding "lazy" links easier than ever, and "lazy" links haven't been such a problem that we need to change the title of every list that uses the plural of the subject, so why did we need to change this one?
As for how requiring "unnamed" to be used for pages with unnamed personnel listed on them, simply check the title of almost every, if not all, personnel pages based on a location (stations, starships, etc.) that aren't big enough to warrant a split between named and unnamed personnel. It should become clear we would have to make a whole bunch of pointless splits to satisfy any such requirement. - Archduk3 02:52, February 7, 2017 (UTC)
No one is saying that starship personnel lists are required to have the word Unnamed in their titles. This discussion is about species-based lists.
An "Unnamed" list doesn’t imply that there has to be a corresponding named list.
I'm not sure what you're saying about "creating redirects" from "natural titles" to "unnatural titles" or categories. Can you give an example to explain what you mean? --NetSpiker (talk) 05:49, February 7, 2017 (UTC)
Umm... can someone please move this topic to where it should be, as it's clearly a more general discussion than just talking about this specific page (I'm not exactly sure why it's been tolerated for so long to be at this namespace, but it definitely needs moved!) --Defiant (talk) 09:39, February 7, 2017 (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+