Forum:CT Archive/Characters to Individuals

Characters to Individuals
Imperialles recommends that we change all the categories with Characters in them to Individuals. I beg to differ because it will force us to rename all the categories, apply that text to every character article, and change all the character stubs. But as has been done many times before I will hold a quick vote as to whether or not we impliment this change. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:29, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)

For change

 * 1) Imp 21:39, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) For.  At the very least, we should change those that have reasonable suggestions for replacement (e.g. "Black Sun members"), in the hopes that a more suitable word than "individuals" can be found for those that don't qualify; I've made some suggestions below. We also shouldn't rule out "person" and "people" as labels.  jSarek 11:18, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) For --beeurd 01:36, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) For, at least to begin a move away from OOU categories where they don't belong. --SparqMan 03:28, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Against change

 * 1) ? Riffsyphon1024 21:29, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) MarcK 21:40, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Riff's outline below shows many conflicts which would arise. – Aidje talk 05:44, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Don't particularly see the need myself.  WhiteBoy 07:25, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
I'm willing to do all the work, really. I have a whole week to spare. :) --Imp 21:39, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I have thought about it and maybe its okay. If you are willing to do the work then it can be done but I'd like to specify how the categories in Category:Characters are renamed.


 * Characters = Individuals
 * Black Sun characters = Black Sun members
 * Bounty hunters = no change
 * Character stubs = still unknown on this
 * Confederacy characters = Confederacy members
 * Or "Confederacy leaders", "Confederacy commanders", "Confederacy soliders" etc --SparqMan 03:27, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Corellians = no change
 * Criminals = no change
 * Dark Jedi characters = Dark Jedi
 * Families = no change
 * Imperial characters = Imperial individuals
 * This could be "Imperial personnel," or even just "Imperials" jSarek 11:18, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Jedi characters = Jedi (but this would conflict with the all-purpose Jedi category that exists already)
 * "Jedi Knights", "Jedi Masters", "Jedi Padawans", etc. --SparqMan 03:27, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Mandalorians = no change
 * Musicians = no change
 * New Republic characters = New Republic individuals
 * Old Republic characters = Old Republic individuals
 * These last two could be "Old/New Republic personnel." jSarek 11:18, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * "Personnel" kinda implies that they are an employ, which is IMO a little too specific for this "catch all" category. WhiteBoy 07:29, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Is "New Republicans" silly? Obviously this could be broken down into "New Republic politicians", "New Republic Defense Force officers" etc. --SparqMan 03:27, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Podracers = no change
 * Political characters = Politicians
 * Rebel Alliance characters = Rebel Alliance individuals
 * Again, "Rebel Alliance personnel" would work, as would just "Rebels." jSarek 11:18, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Sith characters = Sith lords or Sith Lords

This is what I'd like to see then if this is approved. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:01, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * Not all Sith were Lords, so the correct category would be Sith, giving it a similar problem as the Jedi category. --Imp 22:11, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * "New Republic individuals" sounds just as stupid as "New Republic characters". How does Wikipedia deal with individuals? --SparqMan 22:15, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't seem to find anyway around the 'individuals' part of it unless they are affiliated with someone or do something else. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:27, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I think for major organisations (eg: the Empire, Republic, etc.) "personnel" sounds the most appropriate to me. --Beeurd 16:17, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps now is the time to sketch out a better overarching categorization scheme for the whole wiki. --SparqMan 23:05, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd actually agree on that point. If we are going to spend what is undeniably a great effort in this reorganisation, we might as well ensure that the entire wiki has a well defined categorisation structure. Not saying what we have now is bad, I just believe it could be better. --Beeurd 16:17, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour of folding all the Sith character categories back into one. It's pointlessly complex at the moment and some characters aren't able to be fit in the categories already there. QuentinGeorge 23:39, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll second that. – Aidje talk 18:05, 25 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * We seem to have come to a standstill at 3-2 against. How long do we have to wait, how long? – Aidje talk 04:35, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I've already voted, so I can't do much about the standstill. ;-) Still, I'd like to point out that the recent spate of categorizing characters by species/ethnicity has also greatly enhanced our ability to make this change.  jSarek 05:41, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)