Couldn't this be on the Vidiian article, maybe in the sidebar as classification? On the other side I am confused. Was the reference in the episode a "class 3 humanoid" or "class 3 humanoid organism"? We shouldn't have both links, one as a redirect, if only one term was used. Tom (talk) 18:21, October 31, 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the implication is that there are other class threes in existence; that's why the class exists. --LauraCC (talk) 18:26, October 31, 2016 (UTC)
I see. The question is, this one reference is a valid article? The redirect can also be listed on the disambig. page. And the identification implies just a "scientific" name for a Vidiian. Tom (talk) 18:45, October 31, 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the dialogue. But my point is, these classifications are just about one species. The articles have little content so a merge with the species they're citing and a redirect could be even more useful. Or a combined page which is listing these classifications for a better understanding/general view could be another option. Tom (talk) 19:04, October 31, 2016 (UTC)
- I've suggested something at MA:CS as a result of reading this discussion. --LauraCC (talk) 19:24, October 31, 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't see why this would have to be merged at all. This is clearly some classification Starfleet uses, it wasn't something made up on the spot - and why should it matter how many examples we have? We don't have a single example of a Class N planet, but it deserves an article as much as Class M.
- (though, if it gets merged, I agree it should go to Humanoid) -- Capricorn (talk) 23:52, October 31, 2016 (UTC)