User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-15964625-20130821204117/@comment-188432-20130902164010

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
< User:SOTO‎ | Forum Archive‎ | The Panopticon/@comment-15964625-20130821204117
Revision as of 21:11, 27 April 2023 by SV7 (talk | contribs) (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5))
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Well, Category:Romana is a bit of an exception because we know of three distinct incarnations of the character, and three is the usual number of pages required to start a category. In truth the category should probably be called "Incarnations of Romana" in the same way that there's a Category:Incarnations of the Doctor. But then you'd still have to create category:Romana to match category:The Doctor or Category:The Master anyway. So, category:Romana stays because there's just nothing else to put in the category but the incarnation pages.

There is no Category:Braxiatel, nor Category:Adric, nor Category:Amy Pond, nor Category:Evelyn Smythe, nor Category:Lucie Miller.

This is because naming a category after a person is uncomfortably vague (and both the SJS and K9 categories are actually under review for appropriateness, anyway). Per T:CAT NAME, categories should be about something that is singular and specific.

A category about a person simply begs the question, "What about that person belongs in this category?" It's frankly a big ol' organisational mess. A category like Category:Sarah Jane Smith's items is defensible because you can say, "That item was owned by SJS and so therefore it is one of her items". Category:Sarah Jane Smith itself is much harder to justify because it allows for too much ambiguity. The page K9 shouldn't be in Category:Sarah Jane Smith at all, but rather K9 Mark III and K9 Mark IV should be in Category:Sarah Jane Smith's items. And Luke Smith shouldn't be in Category:Sarah Jane Smith, but rather the as-yet-uncreated Category:Sarah Jane Smith's relatives.

Equally, one could make a list of Category:Sarah Jane Smith's employers, because enough are given in non-televised media to make up a category.

And so Category:Sarah Jane Smith survives despite its "fuzziness", because it's needed to house subcategories that are more precise.

That's the main reason that we have Category:The Doctor and Category:The Master but things like Category:The Rani and Category:Jack Harkness fail. Basically, in order to justify a category about a person, you've got to have clear ideas about sub-categories that are about precise, easily-listable items.

I just can't imagine what you would do with Category:Dodo Chaplet or Category:Flip Jackson.

Retrieved from "https://tardis.wiki/w/index.php?title=User:SOTO/Forum_Archive/The_Panopticon/@comment-15964625-20130821204117/@comment-188432-20130902164010&oldid=3522331"