Battlestar Wiki talk:Categories

Thoughts

Problems

There are currently 103 categories on the Battlestar Wiki.

• In general, TOS content is namespaced while RDM content is not.
• Categories are not systematic.
• Unfortunately, there is no way to view the "intersection" of, for example, Category:TOS and Category:Characters, so it will be necessary to have several namespaced categories for each continuity.

Solutions?

• Categories should be organized in a top-down manner, into three "domains":
  • Real World - includes cast, crew, producers, etc.
  • Battlestar Wiki - includes project pages, requested pages, maintainence, RFAs, silly pages, etc.
  • In-continuity - includes TOS, 1980, TSC, SDS, Video Game, RDM.

• Second-level categorization in continuity would be broken down according to culture:

• TOS
  • Colonials (TOS)
  • Cylons (TOS)
  • Borellian Nomen (TOS)

• 1980
  • Colonials (1980)
  • Earthlings (1980)

• RDM
  • Colonials (RDM)
  • Cylons (RDM)

• Third-level categorization in continuity would following a scheme similar to the breakdown of the Twelve Colonies series, along relevant topics:

• RDM
  • Colonials (RDM)
    • The Twelve Colonies
      • Caprica
        • People from Caprica
        • Publications from Caprica
        • Locations on Caprica
    • The Fleet
      • Locations on Galactica
      • Locations on Colonial One
      • Locations on Cloud Nine
    • Colonial History
    • Colonial Religion
      • The Sacred Scrolls
      • The Lords of Kobol
    • Colonial Government
      • Quorum Delegates
    • Colonial Technology
      • Colonial Weapons
      • Colonial Craft

• Note that this practice of single-inheritance only applies to categorie and subcategories. Individual articles may take categories from any point in the hierarchy, thus Tom Zarek could be People from Sagittaron, Quorum Delegates, etc.

Just some thoughts to get started. --April Arcus 13:41, 28 December 2005 (EST)

Seems logical enough. Organizational matters such as the categories are not my strong suit, but matching existing content to a new structure like this would be. So, for Cylons (RDM), how would we'd break down matters? Would it be similar to the following?

• Cylons (RDM)
  • Cylon War
  • Cylon Technology
    • Cylon Models
    • Cylon Weapons
    • Cylon Spacecraft

--Spencerian 14:25, 28 December 2005 (EST)

Looks good to me, except "Cylon War" would probably be an article, not a category, filed under both Cylon History and Colonial History. Do you think that an article should belong to just its specific subcategory, or all the categories leading up from each terminal node? (ie. is Viper 7242 just in Category:Vipers, which is a child of Military Craft, which is a child of Colonial Craft, which is a child of Colonial Technology, or does it belong to all four?) I'd be in favor of the latter, so that the contents of each subcategory are a strict subset of its parent. --April Arcus 15:25, 28 December 2005 (EST)

Another issue is that strict single-inheritance might not be very useful. For example, "Colonial Technology" would want to be a subcategory of both Technology and The Colonials, allowing the user the freedom to browse by either heading. --April Arcus 19:22, 28 December 2005 (EST)

I'd be curious to try to slice and dice the characters, categorizing them in such a way that you could browse by:

• Colonial Military
  • Pilots
  • ECOs
  • Command Officers

With the potential of trying to obsolete the "Character List" template. Especially if some way could be found to distinguish the important/recurring characters from the extras (as rank isn't a very good indication of how important a character will end up being). Also, I'm interested in starting to clean up unused (or barely used) categories in the existing system. --Steelviper 17:11, 16 January 2006 (EST)

Maybe the solution lies in Categories, Steelviper. I like your breakdown of characters: I think we need to add "NCOs" in there, too (For Callie, Socinus, Tyrol, etc.). And, what if we had two character categories thus: Main and Recurring. People, like Mason or any press corp member, who only show up in one episode would get no category. People, like Socinus or Kat would get Recurring status. People like Kara, Lee, Tyrol, Six, Laura, Bill, Saul, etc. would get Main status. There would be some who'd need some debate, I think. Geata, Dee and Billy are some that come to mind as being border-line between Recurring and Main. --Day 19:16, 16 January 2006 (EST)

I wasn't trying to shortchange the enlisted folks, just stopped my example short. For the Main and Recurring, were you thinking they'd be part of the rest of the character classification hierarchy (Main Characters->Colonial Military->Pilots returning a list like Lee Adama, Kara Thrace, etc) or just separate Main and Recurring categories that would fall outside of that? So Kara Thrace would be a Pilot and Main character (two categories). I imagine the latter, since subdividing above the military level would split the military such that the only way to list all pilots would be to get Main->Military->Pilots (Union) Recurring->Military->Pilots (Union) Extras->Military->Pilots. The separate Main and Recurring categories seem more straightforward, but less elegant. --Steelviper 21:49, 16 January 2006 (EST)

It's possible for an article to belong to both a subcategory and the parent category, so for example, Galen Tyrol could be part of

• Category:Characters (RDM)
• Category:Characters (RDM) (Colonial Military)
• Category:Characters (RDM) (Colonial Military) (Galactica Personel)
• Category:Characters (RDM) (Colonial Military) (NCOs)
• Category:Characters (RDM) (Colonial Military) (Galactica Personel) (NCOs)
• Category:Characters (RDM) (Colonial Military) (NCOs) (Galactica Personel)

But I don't need to explain what that's ridiculous. --April Arcus 21:54, 16 January 2006 (EST)

Whew, Peter. Yeah. I was thinking that Main Characters (RDM) and Recurring Characters (RDM) would be subsets of would go under Characters (RDM), but not be divided by anything else... So Kara would belong to Main Characters (RDM), Viper Pilots (RDM), Galactica Personell (RDM), Colonial Military Personell (RDM), Officers (RDM) and Characters (RDM). I don't think I missed any. Is that as rediculous as Peter's assertion? I wish there was a way to get the intersections of categories... *sish* --Day 01:39, 17 January 2006 (EST)

Suggestions

Can there be a "used to work on Star Trek" category/template? Someone can come up with a better name, but I've always seen Battlestar Galactica as the "response" by RDM to the decline of Star Trek and why it happened (see his essay on Naturalistic science fiction, and sort of the "unofficial successor" to it, so I'm always interested in who used to be on Trek. I don't think having two of these, one for cast and one for crew, would be worth it because there aren't that many, but we need something that ties together Michelle Forbes, Dean Stockwell, Rick Worthy, Sam Witwer, Ron Moore, Weddle & Thompson, Alan Kroeker, and Michael Taylor. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 14:16, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

I added one in. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 23:28, 6 August 2006 (CDT)

Revisit ?

Should we revisit this issue before Season 3? --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 23:26, 6 August 2006 (CDT)

I see no problems with the current ones...--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 23:27, 6 August 2006 (CDT)

I was getting to the fact how we should list the Categories on the project page. Not the articles itself. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 23:29, 6 August 2006 (CDT)

They're a project?--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 23:32, 6 August 2006 (CDT)

Yeah. I think the original point of this project page way back then was to list all the categories on this page and show the hieharchy structure, but I think it was during a time during the first season that this was put on old. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 23:38, 6 August 2006 (CDT)

Wow. 400+ Categories. Yikes! --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 23:31, 6 August 2006 (CDT)

Everything's interconnected better--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 23:32, 6 August 2006 (CDT)

Aye. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 23:38, 6 August 2006 (CDT)

Another Suggestion

Because I am lazy, a direct copy from GTalk:

---

Shane: this is werid Category:Cast and Category:Cast (TOS) both have Category:A to Z when Category:Cast (TOS) is already a sub category of Cast
Matt: that would be "wrong" according to the model Peter proposed
Shane: http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=B yeah there is alot of items in "C" subcategories that do that wrong.
Matt: I agree with chopping the A to Z
Shane: yeah going to fix these other ones in "sub" C
Matt: I'm kind of leery of the "Cast" being automatically RDM though
if we start getting more series...
Shane: well we can always add it
Matt: I'd maybe like to see Cast (RDM) true no biggie
Shane: but Category:Cast should have everyone regradless of series
Matt: that's an interesting thought so you'd have cast and the sub cat for the series
Shane: and then sub it off: RDM, 1980, TOS, CAT CAP* etc. etc.

---

--Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 12:10, 7 August 2006 (CDT)

In summary, Shane was suggesting the creation of a Cast (RDM). Then each cast would have the Cast cat, as well as the subcat for their particular series. That way the "Cast" category would display ALL cast, and the subcategory would display the cast for that particular series. It sounds like a pain, and a lot of work, but it sounds "right".--Steelviper 12:16, 7 August 2006 (CDT)

And so it begins... again

Joe and I were talking about categories over at Talk:Hand mine and we agreed that we should probably revisit this project (like Shane suggested back in August). The particular topic at the time was the splitting of the "technology" category into subcategories of Technology (TOS) and Technology (RDM). I suggested that Hand Mine get both Technology and Technology (TOS) so people can either browse across all series, or just by the particular series. --Steelviper 07:05, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

Sounds like an organization nightmare. But, it does help in allowing someone to compare the OS and RDM tech and give us a quick way to sort it. I'm game. --Spencerian 07:54, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

I posted something on the BW:SAC for how I been doing it. This should clear up any confusing and the idea. Can always work at it. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 16:44, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

Category Visibility

Once we're (mostly) satisfied with the category navigation, and also perhaps once we get the category tree-view plugin working (pending the necessary tech upgrades, etc), we might want to consider revamping and increasing our category visibilty. Both reevaluating which categories to highlight in the portals as well as maybe providing some "Main Page" visibility. Currently the only way to them from the Main Page is through the portals or the "special pages", so we might want to move them "up" a level. --Steelviper 16:04, 18 September 2006 (CDT)

Category:Mentioned-Only

I've been cruising through "Category:Characters", making sure they have all their appropriate continuity-specific subcategories (Characters (RDM), Mentioned-only (RDM), etc.) The thought occured to me that we have a better index of the characters never mentioned than we do the main characters. We've got the "Character Template" as a way of navigating them, but I was wondering if maybe there ought to be some other categories based on appearance frequency. For example, one-shot characters (TOS has tons of these) vs. recurring characters). It just felt odd that the "mentioned only" characters end up with more categories associated with them than the important ones. --Steelviper 08:26, 6 October 2006 (CDT)

A very good idea. We could create Category:One-Shot Characters (RDM) and Category:Recurring Characters (RDM), and their TOS equivalents as well. Anyone else have any thoughts? -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 08:43, 6 October 2006 (CDT)

Would those be subcats of Character, or separate? I think Mentioned-only is currently separate, but it may contain some ships, etc. --Steelviper 08:46, 6 October 2006 (CDT)

Mentioned only i been marking for everything from ships to misc. items. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 08:49, 6 October 2006 (CDT)

Well, anything Mentioned-Only should remain in that category. We would need to create another category, Category:Mentioned-Only Characters (RDM) and Category:Mentioned-Only Characters (TOS), which would be a sub-cat of Mentioned-Only. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 08:54, 6 October 2006 (CDT)

Bump this up for more comments. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 15:59, 11 October 2006 (CDT)

I'm concerned with the mentioned only stuff. I like the mentioned only characters (as a child of characters), but maybe we should eventually scrap the "mentioned only" general one in favor of subcats of the appropriate cats. --Steelviper 16:05, 11 October 2006 (CDT)

• Mentioned-Only
  • Mentioned-Only Characters
    • Mentioned-Only Characters (TOS)
    • Mentioned-Only Characters (RDM)

To me this seems to be over much, and I thought I was crazy when doing the Colonial system. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 16:32, 11 October 2006 (CDT)

I'd propose the following scheme:

• Characters
  • Characters (Series)
    • Characters by frequency/importance

So you would have One-shot Characters (RDM), Mentioned-Only Characters (RDM), Recurring Characters (RDM) (all subcats of Characters (RDM)). Any mentioned-only characters would have the mentioned-only cat removed once they get their new series specific character subcat, which could allow the mentioned-only to eventually transform to be character-free. I'm a bit fuzzy on the frequency cats though (whether we should have separate categories for major recurring characters vs. supporting characters that happen to show up more than once). If we did that we could have Major Characters (RDM) and Supporting Characters (RDM), though the potential for subjectiveness between the two might be dangerous. --Steelviper 13:15, 31 October 2006 (CST)

Well, I went ahead and broke out Category:Characters (1980). Take a look and see what you think. I went ahead and broke out main vs. recurring guest, and there weren't any "mentioned only" to speak of. I'll wait a couple beats for input, then I'll begin applying this model to the TOS characters. That'll be closer in scale to dealing with RDM, and will also involve mentioned only characters. --Steelviper 08:30, 27 November 2006 (CST)

Looks good. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 10:33, 27 November 2006 (CST)

Sorry to have taken over the RC, but Category:Characters (TOS) is complete as I had envisioned it. All 139 articles are subdivided into either Main, Recurring, One-Shot, or Mentioned only. The "Main Characters" definition may need refining, but I wanted err on the side of being picky rather than inclusive to start with. I was going with a "character that has more than one episode with the action focusing on them, with special allowances made for the "main bad guy" that action often revolves around". The definition might ought to be improved such that it includes major characters like Boomer and Sheba without bringing in characters more tangential to the story. I'll definitely wait for some feedback on the category definitons, and will post a proposed breakdown (which will probably end up being refined) before actually touching the RDM characters. With 199 characters (and growing), I'd like to get THAT one done right the first time.

Also, I replaced the Mentioned-Only on the characters (both general and series specific) on the characters. We can add those back if people feel strongly that it's a useful category for them to be in, but part of me questions whether a jumbled list of all things mentioned is of much value. I'd think that going to the lists of planets, ships, characters, etc. and then finding a list of the mentioned-only entities of that type would be more straightforward. --Steelviper 15:58, 27 November 2006 (CST)

I agree that we should tackle the RDM characters last, since a one-shot deal is the best. I've already beaten you to the punch in breaking down the list of main characters for TOS, which I've added in their own section below. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 19:37, 27 November 2006 (CST)

Regarding the TOS characters

In reply to SV's comments dated 27 Nov 2006:

Well, if we wanted to be specific, main characters could only include those characters seen in the starting titles (therefore Apollo, Starbuck, and Adama are the only main characters). But I think the following characters are main in terms of appearance and relevance:

• Uncontested main characters
  • Apollo
  • Starbuck
  • Adama
  • Baltar
  • Lucifer
  • Boomer
  • Cassiopeia
  • Boxey
  • Muffit
• "On the fence"
  • Sheba, who appeared in "The Living Legend" and was in pretty much every episode since then
  • Athena, who's appearances and role were diminished by "Greetings From Earth"

Thoughts? -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 19:37, 27 November 2006 (CST)

I guess for the same reason that Sheba and Athena are "On the fence" I was on the fence on Boxey and Muffit in that they all but disappear after "Fire in Space". However, they are sentimental fan favorites. I think for that reason we should go ahead and put Sheba and Athena on in. It's not like it's going to be an overwhelming list. I'll go ahead and switch those over, but am willing to consider debate.

Your breakdown did give me an idea on the RDM stuff. I don't need to post the whole 199 character breadkdown on here to debate. Mostly we just need to separate the main characters from the recurring guests. The one-shots and mentioned-only's are pretty much gimmes. I'll start a header just under this one for RDM and start listing some main characters. RDM is definitely going to be trickier with all the backstory that some of the more supporting characters get. --Steelviper 09:03, 28 November 2006 (CST)

Yeah, the trick is to separate the recurring characters from the main characters. I agree that Sheba and Athena should be included, simply due to the fact that the list isn't going to get longer, and that they were or became important characters in the stories. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 20:37, 28 November 2006 (CST)

Regarding the RDM characters

I'm thinking that it may actually be of benefit to be more inclusive than exclusive for the main character category. As long as the category is kept to a reasonable size, it could serve as a useful navigation tool without getting too overwhelming.

• Proposed main characters (in no particular order)
  • William Adama
  • Laura Roslin
  • Lee Adama
  • Kara Thrace
  • Gaius Baltar
  • Number Six (uh, this one is complicated)
  • Karl Agathon
  • Sharon Agathon
  • Sharon Valerii (Galactica copy)
  • Saul Tigh
  • Galen Tyrol
• "On the fence"
  • Felix Gaeta
  • Cally Tyrol (marriage does not necessarily grant you main character status)
  • Anastasia Dualla (ditto)

I'm sure there are more, but here's a start. --Steelviper 09:23, 28 November 2006 (CST)

I guess the "Characters in the Current Series" template could serve as an example for which characters would be "Main characters". However, the Numbers Six and Eight are still a puzzle (do we make the "model number" a main character, or the specific copies, and what do we do with the others (one shot for Godfrey, for example)? --Steelviper 14:17, 28 November 2006 (CST)

Given that we've treated Gina and D'anna Biers as separate characters, I think we should follow suit when categorizing them. Also, I would consider the "model number" Cylon agents as main or supporting characters as well. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 20:39, 28 November 2006 (CST)

Addition: Number Six (the model series) and Caprica Six should be treated as major characters. Same with Number Eight and Sharon Valerii and Sharon Agathon. Number Three has definitely become a main character in the story as well, despite Lawless' special guest star status. The rest should be recurring. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 20:43, 28 November 2006 (CST)

If nobody else has any thoughts on this I'll probably start into this effort this week. --Steelviper 14:15, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

Sounds good. ;-) Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 15:06, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

Ditto. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 18:56, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

Status Update

Basically done. All Characters (RDM) are accounted for except amongst the categories except for one (272 non-list, English articles in Category:Characters (RDM), 271 members of all the subcats). I'm going to propose killing off the Category:One-shot Characters (a parent cat of One-shot Characters (RDM)). I didn't do those for the TOS (or the RDM), and I'd not wish that on anybody. --Steelviper 16:10, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

I guess that'd be fine. ;-) -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 18:09, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

One-shot has been killed off, and all 272 character articles are now accounted for. The Final character? Nicholas Tyrol. Interesting... --Steelviper 08:14, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Category:Images - Mops Wanted

We do not need any of the cats under Images. Mop em' up! --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 13:04, 20 October 2006 (CDT)

Final five cat?

Should we make categories for the Final Five as well as for the Magnificent Warriors Seven? -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 02:59, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

(Bump.) Just want this to appear on the RC. Thoughts on doing creating categories for the two humanoid Cylon groups: Category:Final Five and Category:Significant Seven? -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 18:20, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

*cough* Another bump. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 00:17, 13 October 2007 (CDT)

Yes, we should. They should be subcats of Category:Humanoid Cylons. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 06:26, 13 October 2007 (CDT)