Who belongs here?
Should Kukalaka really be here? Most people don't consider their teddy bears "pets", after all. Randee15 14:32, 9 Jan 2005 (CET)
- I removed Kukalaka from the list. Another question is: Should Beauregard, George and Gracie be on the list? None of them really are pets... -- Cid Highwind 14:15, 2005 Jan 31 (CET)
- Perhaps it would be easier to move this to List of non-sentient animal names... --Gvsualan 19:18, 31 Jan 2005 (CET)
- I'm still not quite getting the "non-sentient animal" bit. Aren't "animals" always "non-sentient"? Are any "sentient" species called "animals"? If we want to move away from the term "pet", "domestic animal" might be another choice, but all this doesn't change the fact that Beauregard is not an animal and George and Gracie are neither pets nor domestic and possibly not even "non-sentient"... ;) -- Cid Highwind 19:28, 2005 Jan 31 (CET)
- *Sigh* Am I the only one that sees the theme of this list that isn't trying to be counterintuitive? They all fit together in one way or another, be it as named pets or named animals or named & contained lesser beings that are nonhumanoid-(exception)-(exception) or what-not, a theme does exist here. Now whether or not we can ever agree on what that theme is, seems to be a whole other story. The problem with the Star Trek universe is that it introduces elements that complicate something that is or should otherwise be simply cut and dry. I knew when I created this list that there would be an exception or two to the rules, but the fact remains that 86% of the names listed fit into the current category, and the other 14% of the names fit in just enough with the larger percentile to "tag along". There is certainly enough commonalities to grant the existance of this list or theme in its entirety. I'm not sure if there will ever be a list title that agrees 100% with what lies within, but it seems almost prejudice to leave the other 14% out completely, when, in one way or another, the intent remains the same. --Gvsualan 22:43, 31 Jan 2005 (CET)
- How about we just move it to List of animals. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 22:52, 31 Jan 2005 (CET)
- *Sigh* Am I the only one that sees the theme of this list that isn't trying to be counterintuitive? They all fit together in one way or another, be it as named pets or named animals or named & contained lesser beings that are nonhumanoid-(exception)-(exception) or what-not, a theme does exist here. Now whether or not we can ever agree on what that theme is, seems to be a whole other story. The problem with the Star Trek universe is that it introduces elements that complicate something that is or should otherwise be simply cut and dry. I knew when I created this list that there would be an exception or two to the rules, but the fact remains that 86% of the names listed fit into the current category, and the other 14% of the names fit in just enough with the larger percentile to "tag along". There is certainly enough commonalities to grant the existance of this list or theme in its entirety. I'm not sure if there will ever be a list title that agrees 100% with what lies within, but it seems almost prejudice to leave the other 14% out completely, when, in one way or another, the intent remains the same. --Gvsualan 22:43, 31 Jan 2005 (CET)
Seems like that would miss the point. These are creatures that have been named. Tyrant 22:54, 31 Jan 2005 (CET)Tyrant
- We list starships that have been named in the list of starships, we list Starfleet captains that have been named in the list of Starfleet captains.. it seems like a natural outgrowth. We could have a list of animals and a list of animal species, just as we separate other items: list of Federation starships is accompanied by a list of Federation starship classes. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 23:01, 31 Jan 2005 (CET)
- (Re: "Theme" of this list) Well, in that case we either have to find a name that matches the implicit theme of the list (whatever that really is), or edit the list until it matches the explicit title. We might even split the list to achieve both, but keeping both the title and the content as it is now would be too confusing. The most simple approach would be to remove the three "non-pets" listed above. List of animals is a possibility, although the title might be too generic. Generally, I don't see the problem with not having those three listed together with all the others - I wouldn't even expect two whales and a flower on a list of pets... :) -- Cid Highwind 23:28, 2005 Jan 31 (CET)
Unnamed pets page
Should there be a page for this, like anti-time Data's cats, or the Teneebian skunk? --LauraCC (talk) 19:49, January 7, 2016 (UTC)
- Technically, these would either fall under Unnamed non-humanoids, or you should start making pages like to "Unnamed cats". That being said, having an "unnamed pets" page may still be a more elegant way of representing with that class of information. -- Capricorn (talk) 19:11, January 8, 2016 (UTC)
It would be for specifically those animals which were kept as someone's pet, yet not given a proper name like Rover or Whiskers. --LauraCC (talk) 19:13, January 8, 2016 (UTC) I've started it at Unnamed pets. You can merge if you like or leave as is. --LauraCC (talk) 18:24, January 27, 2016 (UTC)
Pet redirect
There are references to the concept of having a pet, such as Picard and Troi's discussion about not wanting a horse for a (mere) pet, but a friend, or Trip Tucker's lament that the Cognnitor was treated like a pet. I think the redirect should be changed to an article page. --LauraCC (talk) 18:57, January 27, 2016 (UTC)