Talk: Unnamed settlements

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Unnamed settlements article. It is not for general discussion; for that, go to Memory Alpha's Discussions or Discord. Click here to start a new discussion on this talk page.

List of missing unnamed settlements - partial[]

TNG:
- "Homeward" (a village on Boraal II)
- "Thine Own Self" (a village on Barkon IV)
- "Journey's End" (a village on Dorvan V)
DS9:
- "Shadowplay" (a village on Yadera II)
VOY:
- "Tattoo" (a village on the Sky Spirits' homeworld)

--Memphis77 (talk) 22:43, August 29, 2018 (UTC)

Angosian capital city[]

We don't have entries for the capitals of Bajor or Ferenginar, which are currently under Unnamed settlements, so this should go there as well. Kennelly (talk) 17:01, October 27, 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense. Merge. -- LauraCC (talk) 17:03, October 27, 2016 (UTC)

Merged. Tom (talk) 12:30, December 13, 2016 (UTC)

Lactran city[]

The city was never named as such, there's just vague talk about there being a city, and it's on Lactra. In fairness, the Unnamed settlements page did not yet exist when this article was created, but these days, cases like this one go there, not on their own page. -- Capricorn (talk) 16:05, August 24, 2017 (UTC)

Seems logical. --LauraCC (talk) 17:45, August 28, 2017 (UTC)

However, we know where it is, even who it belongs to. While this title is both simple and more precise it is a better than "unnamed settlements", which is only a simpler title, not any more precise: as it was never named as an "unnamed settlement". This, or renaming it to something else that contains the planet name, is following the rule of both being precise and simple as possible, as well as actually being useful to readers. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 12:07, September 21, 2017 (UTC)

That's an argument that's very big picture, well beyond the scope of this discussion. Let me try to define a background for this first: fact remains this city is unnamed and the title conjectural. That's to be expected from time to time and doesn't have to be an issue. In fact there's basically two ways fiction documenting wiki's have been dealing with this. There's model 1, the method we've essentially gradually settled on, which is to (with a few rigidly defined exceptions) collect all unnamed planets, species, etc - and in recent year as we've managed to document in more detail also things like unnamed cities - at various unnamed stuff clearinghouses - the logic I guess being that you don't have to "guess" where to look for them. Several other wiki's take an alternative approach, call it model 2: absolutely every species, planet, etc gets an article of their own, regardless of if there is a name. This through fan-created descriptive names. (examples: [1] [2] [3])

Personally I much prefer the first model while you seem to lean distinctly towards the second, but let's not even get into positions right now. The point I'm trying to make is that this might very well be a discussion that people are willing to have, but it has to happen on a higher level. It's not a good idea to just try to shift from model 1 towards model 2 through case by case discussions. That will just result in a yet more complicated patchwork of rules and exceptions applying to highly specific cases. I kinda get that you look at this specific case with an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it attitude", but the fact remains that other subjects just like this are treated differently, and there's no reason for that besides whatever we might come up with here to rationalize keeping this article separate. -- Capricorn (talk) 16:26, September 22, 2017 (UTC)

For reference this is the dialogue that refers to the city:

SCOTT [OC]: There is a large concentration of life forms ninety eight point five kilometres north east of you. Apparently a city, or a central gathering place. Nothing else yet

(later)

MCCOY: We've been travelling for hours. Where are they taking us?

KIRK: Towards the north-west, toward the city Scotty reported.

(later)

KIRK: That must be five square kilometres.

SPOCK: If these are the builders, it is an admirable feat.

It never mentions a name for the city and the name of the article does appear to follow the same naming conventions for other settlements listed on the "unnamed settlements" page. For that reason, I think I will have to support a merge. --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 23:19, February 3, 2018 (UTC)

Merged. However, this is so incredibly pointless. Prediction: Unnamed settlement page will become so bloated someone will suggest splitting it by planet, then this will be split off again and return to it's own page just as it was, only now as Lactra VII settlement or something equally relevant. --Alan (talk) 14:57, February 26, 2019 (UTC)

Qo'noS Pop Center, City?[]

I highly doubt this was meant to be the name of an actual city but rather Starfleet's own view/annotation that it is a population centre on the planet Qo'noS. --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 00:51, February 6, 2018 (UTC)

It clearly says "CITY" beneath the label, like all the other cities thus labeled. -- UncertainError (talk) 00:56, February 6, 2018 (UTC)

In that case, fair enough, we will have to go with what it says. Just seems to me that it was a label imposed by Starfleet for a large population centre and not the name of an actual city. But that's OK. I agree that we have to go with what is seen. --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 01:16, February 6, 2018 (UTC)

It seems you were right after all. Turns out the globe has multiple points called "Qo'noS Pop Center". I guess it's a placeholder name used by Starfleet when they don't know the actual name. Mea culpa. -- UncertainError (talk) 05:15, February 12, 2018 (UTC)

Is it the only duplicate label? Could be art dept lazynes as well... – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capricorn (talk • contribs) at 11:43, February 12, 2018 (UTC)

That's OK, we can only go by what we know at the time but it did seem to me like a placeholder name. If there are multiple "Qo'noS Pop Center" labels then it stands to reason it's just an annotation when the Klingon name isn't known. --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 12:06, February 12, 2018 (UTC)

I suppose this article could be reworked to be a page about that annotation. 31dot (talk) 12:37, February 12, 2018 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking aswell. Something along the lines of "Qo'noS Pop Center was a classification used by Starfleet to note a settlement on the planet Qo'noS during the mid-23rd century." Or something... --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 12:43, February 12, 2018 (UTC)

Or we merge this with the Unnamed settlements page since these are labels for unnamed settlements. - Archduk 3 21:52, February 12, 2018 (UTC)

Good thinking, Archduk3. That would make sense. --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 22:23, February 12, 2018 (UTC)

In addition, there are references to the term "population center" in DS9: "The Maquis, Part II" and ENT: "The Augments". --LauraCC (talk) 17:45, February 17, 2018 (UTC)

In that case, maybe this article would be better renamed to simply "Population center" with the appropriate references mentioned within and maybe a list of the different terms used to refer to population centers (e.g. town, city etc)? --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 18:08, February 17, 2018 (UTC)

Seems logical. --LauraCC (talk) 18:10, February 17, 2018 (UTC)