Talk:S'pht

From Traxus

Jump to: navigation, search

category

Motion to create a "Category:S'pht" or "Category:The S'pht" for S'pht clans, S'pht characters, and other related subjects? --Andrew Nagy 11:07, 13 October 2007 (CDT)

If you plan on populating it, go for it. --Ecpeterson 12:53, 13 October 2007 (CDT)
I figured just incorporate all the current pages on the subject for now. Also, which one shold we use, or should it be both? --Andrew Nagy 15:20, 13 October 2007 (CDT)
Are there currently enough pages to warrant such a category? "The S'pht" sounds better, but I don't know if we've adopted a standard that makes us drop articles. If such a standard exists, stick with "S'pht". Otherwise, "The S'pht" is what I'd vote for. --Ecpeterson 04:15, 14 October 2007 (CDT)
An article named "List of S'pht Clans" makes sense to me. Category:S'pht fits what we already have: Category:Humans, Category:Pfhor. See also: Category:Races. MrHen. 13:08, 14 October 2007 (CDT)
Already exists, fantastic. --Ecpeterson 18:40, 14 October 2007 (CDT)
I was thinking that a "Category:S'pht" would have to only include articles about S'pht, which would just be S'bhuth, F'tha, Y'sa M'nr, S'pht Compiler, and S'pht'Kr Defender (at least as far as canon is concerned); while a "Category:The S'pht" could also include the S'pht clans, S'pht "royalty", Thoth, Lh'owon, and Lh'owon's moons. Does that make sense? --Andrew Nagy 21:00, 16 October 2007 (CDT)
imo, those could easily be the same category. --Ecpeterson 00:51, 17 October 2007 (CDT)
Agreed. ⇔ ChristTrekker 10:35, 30 October 2007 (CDT)
"Category:The S'pht" is redundant. Anything belonging in that category belongs in the main S'pht article. Thoth belongs in Category:Artificial Intelligence, Lh'owon would eventually go in something like ":Category:Places". My criteria for belonging in a category is something like: "Is X a Y? If so, X belongs in category Y." Thoth is not a S'pht; neither are any of the S'pht clans. In terms of articles (as in "an", "a", and "the") I strongly vote to drop them because it makes things sort correctly. S'pht should appear under "S" in Category:Races. MrHen. 12:21, 17 October 2007 (CDT)
So what would your category include? Defenders, Compilers, Sbhuth? Doesn't sound like much of a category, and I think that if I went looking for Lh'owon I'd expect to see it in a S'pht category (as well as the more obvious Locations / Places category). --Ecpeterson 12:59, 17 October 2007 (CDT)
If you went looking for Lh'owon, you would type "Lh'owon" into the search box and find the article. I look at the categories as "okay, now that I am done with this article, what are similar articles?" Instead of "what relates to the article I just read?" The latter makes a good "See Also" section. I would personally put Defenders and Compilers in the Units category and Sbhuth in the generic Characters category. I can also see how the clans could be put in the S'pht category since they match the "Is X a Y?" S'pht'Kr are S'pht. But I also realize that the chances of us getting a full article on the S'pht clans is almost nothing. I can think of four possible full length articles that I personally think would go in Category:S'pht: Defenders, Compilers, Sbhuth, S'pht'Kr and a possible see also link at the top pointing to List of S'pht clans. If we want to declare categories as a place to put "articles related to X", that is fine, but I think the decision should be made and not assumed. MrHen. 13:36, 17 October 2007 (CDT)
I don't know. Thinking about it, I'm against doing something like adding Strauss to the category on A.I.s just because he's related. Still, the creatures named above are S'pht even in a strict sense, and at least they should be added to the category. There's nothing wrong with them being in both Units and S'pht, and this split is certainly more comprehensive. My knee jerk reaction is to add Lh'owon to the category as well, but consistency is more important and that leaves me ambivalent. Anyway, no, you're right, categories shouldn't be used as a See Also bin, but the line as to what is and isn't a S'pht is certainly being down inappropriately here. --Ecpeterson 13:34, 18 October 2007 (CDT)
Small point: "Is X a Y?" isn't the criterion used by Wikipedia. Examples: [1], [2], [3]. --Andrew Nagy 18:01, 18 October 2007 (CDT)
Point taken. I guess I am wrong... MrHen. 13:26, 16 November 2007 (CST)
No, it's not. If there is enough detail about S'pht that a single article becomes too long, it makes perfect sense to split into multiple articles. S'pht could retain a summary, and point to the other articles for more details. The category would contain all S'pht-related articles. And the main S'pht article would belong to this cat as the main article as well as Category:Races. ⇔ ChristTrekker 10:35, 30 October 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, okay, that sounds good. The S'pht article will not be too large any time soon... but I see your point and that makes sense. MrHen. 13:26, 16 November 2007 (CST)
Category:S'pht - generally don't use articles (a/an/the) to begin article/category names in a wiki. ⇔ ChristTrekker 10:35, 30 October 2007 (CDT)
I attempted to edit my post to clarify. --Andrew Nagy 16:11, 30 October 2007 (CDT)
My opinion remains just one category, without the article. (And, thinking about it today, it makes sense for Bernhard to be in an AI category.) --Ecpeterson 12:14, 31 October 2007 (CDT)

Bolding

"Also known as compilers, the S'pht are ..." -- What's the standard for bold/italicizing? This looks silly to me. (Also, there are obviously more S'pht than just compilers, the two terms aren't interchangeable.) --Ecpeterson 12:43, 1 April 2008 (CDT)

I don't know if it's a standard, but I tend to follow the convention I learned at Wikipedia. That being basically "the first time the title is used in the article text, bold it". Often it's the first word of the article. Alternate title terms, if mentioned in the text and common enough to warrant a redirect, might also be bolded. Other than that, just normal rules for emphasis... ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:34, 1 April 2008 (CDT)
Generally, yes, that is correct. In this case, compilers may deserve quotes instead of italics. MrHen. 09:07, 3 April 2008 (CDT)
Personal tools