Talk: People

"characters" versus "people"[]

On the POV of using "characters" as the descriptor in our Lists of X characters, I'm feeling more and more ambivalent about the use of the term, I've been considering a change across MA to the term "people." this would involve changing a few dozen articles, so I'm looking for a consensus beforehand: is it preferable to use a POV more in line with "being in" the Star Trek universe, writing about people rather than acknowledging they are "characters" in a fiction? I think that's more inline with our non-meta articles point-of-view.

This would involve moving List of characters to List of people, and all of the various subarticles like List of Klingon characters. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 20:01, 25 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Given that this article is a list of lists of people rather than a list of people per se, is the name appropriate? (Not that "List of lists of people" is really any better.) -- Josiah Rowe 00:59, 13 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Regarding the "namelistnote" policy[]

I wanted to call attention to this policy with regards to the confusion it tends to cause on various "name lists", for one: basic organization. I recently "organized" Starfleet personnel (23rd century) because it was a mess searching through a list that appears something like:

   * Mallory
   * Mark Piper
   * Marla McGivers
   * Marlena Moreau
   * Martha Landon
   * Mary Teller
   * Masada
   * Matson
   * Matt Decker
   * Matt Franklin
   * Matthews
   * M'Benga
   * Mears
   * Mira Romaine
   * Montgomery
   * Montgomery Scott
   * Morrow
   * M'Ress

That -- simply put, is confusing to read, especially when you have given names used interchangeably with surnames, this is especially the case with Human names. The truth is, encyclopedias, phonebooks, directories, and other reference guides, which I believe a "list" to be mimicking is almost never sorted by first name, and for that matter, very few (human) characters are known simply by their first name anyway. While keeping the link given-surname but organizing the list such as: James T. Kirk to James T. Kirk|Kirk, James T. and organizing the name by surname-first it suddenly makes the quick reference side of the link...quick. In fact, it also helps in the case of grouping surnames together (ex. Harrison) and adding necessary addendums to their name such as Harrison (Doctor), a change I made but was lost when the aforementioned list was reverted.

Whatever the case may be, I do not understand the issue at hand -- behind the scenes everything remains the same, and it just makes more sense because the links to the names do not change, nothing is moved -- its just easier to find what you want searching by last name, when you actually use the list to find an individual you are looking for quickly, such as you would in any directory. This is especially useful if you don't know an individuals first name and only their last, which is typically the case.

Above all, I wanted to bring this to attention because I am 99% certain that Starfleet personnel (23rd century) is complete, and when it was converted to |last name, first| - it suddenly became much more user friendly, again, especially for the sake of "organization" (which is what memory-alpha is all about) and when you consider repeat surnames and surnames that resemble given names (ex. Montgomery & Montgomery Scott, which is just one case). I've already taken the liberty to change the Starfleet personnel (23rd century), again, because I am quite certain it is complete, and if necessary would be willing to change the rest -- once it is known they are complete. I'm sure there is a much stronger case out there, but above all for the sake of this whole thing being a "reference guide" and the 'list' being a "directory", the words alphabetical and organization should go hand-in-hand for the sake of what this whole site is about.

Thoughts? Ideas? Suggestions? --FuturamaGuy 18:34, 21 Sep 2004 (CEST)

I'm with Futurama Guy on this one.. while I don't see the necessity of piping every link, alphabetizing by last name just seems intuitive, even if we include first names and titles, I still find the correctly alphabetized lists more readable..

I still find this to be the most readable.. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 21:18, 21 Sep 2004 (CEST)

I agree with FuturamaGuy. Organizing the list by last names makes it much easier to find specific people and makes more sense in general. It also has the added benefit of grouping families and other possibly related individuals together. -- EtaPiscium 07:29, 22 Sep 2004 (CEST)

The problem might become more apparent if you are trying to sort a list that contains a higher percentage of "alien" names. Where would you put Worf, for example? His full name is Worf, Son of Mogh, after all. And what's up with Kira Nerys? Of course, both ways of sorting may have their advantages and disadvantages - we just need to think of the "special" situations that might occur with alien names. By the way, FuturamaGuy, your changes that I reverted aren't really "lost". If a decision is made to use that way of sorting, we can just take your revision from the page history...

Re:Mike. Sorry, but I don't like that third suggestion at all. It just looks messy. If we decide to sort by last name, entries should start with the last name, followed by given names and then any other "qualifiers". To use your example:

--Cid Highwind 12:14, 22 Sep 2004 (CEST)

As far as alien names, I would say, with Worf, treat it just the same as you would Uhura, as a last name, in so much as, they usually referred to Worf (or Spock) as Mr. Worf (and Mr. Spock), suggesting a last name-type reference, this would especially be the case as far as the Starfleet lists are concerned because Worf and Spock are in the minority. As for Bajoran names, they would be treated the way Bajorans use them, firstname-last, or in other words the same way it is found in the Encyclopedia, for example, "Kira" right before "Kirk". --FuturamaGuy 13:58, 22 Sep 2004 (CEST)

Regardless of how it is enacted, I still primarily wish to point out that alphabetizing by first name is almost intolerable to me, and I believe the majority of the archivists here find it counterproductive as well. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 15:21, 22 Sep 2004 (CEST)

That's what got this whole thing started....evidently. --FuturamaGuy 15:39, 22 Sep 2004 (CEST)

removed info[]

Why remove Cardassian guls and Romulan commanders? They are lists of people. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 08:31, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

As pointed out in category suggestions -- are there any other kind of guls? Which, by the way, are already listed in Cardassian ranks, and in the subsequent (pending) Guls category, removing the need for that page -- also mentioned on the category suggestions page. --Alan del Beccio 08:39, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, haven't read category suggestions lately -- my fault -- but i'd still like to leave links up to the lists in case someone works on them -- after all, the category isn't enacted yet, is it? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 08:47, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  - It's more or less approved. It's just a matter of getting the list together and having a bot categorize the list. --Alan del Beccio 15:43, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    - I looked at the number of Guls -- not sure if there are enough to separate them from the gul article -- however, the Romulan commanders i placed as a possible expanision for unnamed Romulans -- we have a multitude of unnamed Romulan commanders, we might soon need to divvy up that article into that one (unless we go straight to unnamed Romulan commanders, but i think consensus would be to start with the simpler name. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 15:48, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Crew redirect[]

Currently "Crew" redirects here, linked to VERY often. But isn't that a quite distinct term which deserves its own page? Think of all those speeches like "This crew has been through a lot together" or "This crew is the best I ever served with" etc. Or at least its own section on military parlance. Kennelly (talk) 17:04, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

I believe it ought to go somewhere else. But even a non-military ship can have a crew...--LauraCC (talk) 17:10, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with "crew" being an article of its own. -- Capricorn (talk) 08:43, December 18, 2016 (UTC)