Sub-categories creation discussion Edit

(from Memory Alpha:Category suggestions)

This isn't a formal request for a category and might not be depending on how this discussion goes.

Basically I'm wondering why we don't have a category like Category:Memory Alpha images (USS Enterprise-D). It sure would be nice to have all the images of one particular ship in it's own category to browse over and see if an image already exists. As of now Category:Memory Alpha images (starships) contains 1,721 images making it a real pain to find a particular image with a particular ship. This could be expanded further to also include categories for specific people. At least those that appear in a lot of images like Category:Memory Alpha images (Quark). My naming might not be the best but I hope my intentions are explained properly. — Morder (talk) 21:24, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a nice idea in principle. Perhaps the name of the category could include whatever general category of images is involved, such as Category:Memory Alpha starship images (USS Enterprise).--31dot 21:47, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
Definitely, yes! :) However, I think the prefix should stay "Memory Alpha images", for proper sorting of the categories themselves. -- Cid Highwind 22:08, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Well, the next question of this particular proposal would be where to draw the line. In particular we have tons of photos of say the Enterprise but maybe only 1 of Alice. In addition I propose that any image that contains more than one ship must contain more than one category. Example: File:Ambassador starboard of Galaxy.jpg - however it becomes unweildly when there is a battle scene. In addition what about images that contain no named vessels - or only one like File:Andorian fleet.jpg should the category then be something like Category:Memory Alpha images (Andorian starship)? Lots to think about before this even get's started... — Morder (talk) 22:18, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

There's something about this in the archived discussion over at Category talk:Memory Alpha images, already. In general, I think it would be a good idea to follow the basic idea of categorization, and try to become more specific with each level of subcategories. A subcategory of "(starships)" could be "(Federation starships)", a subcategory of that could be the aforementioned "(USS Enterprise-D)". An image showing two or more Federation starships would then be listed in the "Federation starships" category, and only in one of the individual starship categories if that starship is the major focus of the image - after all, keep in mind that image categories are mostly for editors, not for readers. Someone looking for an image showing two Fed starships probably wouldn't search the "Enterprise" category, and vice versa. If a category would only contain one, or very few, images, it is unnecessary IMO. -- Cid Highwind 23:16, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
I'm for this idea, and as Cid said above, the categories should get more specific with each level. My suggestion would be to have a "(Galaxy Class)" category before a "(USS Enterprise-D)" category. As most of our images of the Galaxy class class are of the Enterprise, not counting Dominion War battles, a ship specific category may not be needed. - Archduk3 00:05, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Is everyone cool with the naming scheme and so forth in this tree? - Archduk3 06:09, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

Hrm... I like the idea of splitting them by "alignment", but what about ships that aren't Federation, Klingon, Romulan, or something "standard"? Where do they fit into. -- sulfur 15:40, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

They could just be left in the top category for now, since I would like to see what's left before suggesting any other sub-cats. - Archduk3 17:30, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

So this has been done for the starships category. I'm not convinced that breaking down the species cats by people is a good idea, mainly for naming reasons, so is there any support for that? Also, are there any other subcats of starships that I didn't see? - Archduk3 19:19, October 17, 2010 (UTC)