This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result of the debate was Utilize only categories for native species, not species living on a given planet. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 01:54, January 24, 2014 (UTC)
Hey everybody. Our Category:Species by planet currently is a mish-mash of two different kinds of categories—some categories only include species that are native to a planet, while others contain all of the species known to have lived on that planet at one point or another. In my mind, the second kind of category is rather trivial; it's sort of like a category of cantina patrons. Category:Species by planet in general needs some major cleanup, but before any of that starts, I thought it best if we standardize which method of species categorization we want to go with.
Having the categories just for species that are native to the planet seems more encyclopedic and less trivia-ish. Plus, this would prevent an overload of categories for species like nerfs, sarlaccs, and hssiss that are seen on numerous planets. Not to mention, the very name—Species of _____—implies that the species is native to the planet.
Unfortunately, I have to go against majority here. More than 90% of species (specially non-sentient species) aren't confirmed as native to anything so imho it would be unreasonable to procceed as you suggest Cade. At least from my understanding, this category's function is not so different from other examples accepted around here. The example I mention involves both residents and those native to the planet so I don't see why it should be different for species. However, I'm okay if we get a Native species subcategory for planets where there many confirmed as such. As for overcropping, I think we should accept that big themes will always be granted considerably more categories than the usual. Your last argument is fair, but unless you intend to cleanse both category sorts, I'll have to stand by no, even if remarkably insignificant. Winterz (talk) 18:49, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
Both category sorts? What do you mean? CadeCalrayn 18:51, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
Ehrm, I meant both these "mother categories". Winterz (talk) 18:52, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
Also just wanted to point out that both categories are rather useful, even to some encyclopedic extent, as when one is looking for creatures or characters of x planet, these categories become outstandingly helpful. Cade, please continue discussion below this in order to avoid filling up the other sections. Winterz (talk) 18:56, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. I'd rather keep both types of categories. jSarek (talk) 05:39, January 8, 2014 (UTC)
The second option stands for that, sir. Winterz (talk) 21:30, January 8, 2014 (UTC)
Not by my reading. I see this CT as turning them all into one type or the other. jSarek (talk)
The second option involves both those that are native and those not specified as natives. From there, I imagine someone creating another subcategory for those only confirmed as native is something that's not exactly dependent on this CT. Winterz (talk) 01:22, January 12, 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion with JSarek left me a bit confused too. Cade, the second option is the same as Keep as it is, right? Winterz (talk) 04:48, January 13, 2014 (UTC)