Category talk:Species and Races

I deleted the previous discussion just to clean things up a bit. Hope you all don't mind. Randel 13:32, 1 June 2006 (CDT)

Basics

 * Names of spieces in this category should be in plural.
 * Every variation of a species need not have its own article. For example, Loxodons and Armodons and Ulgrothan Mammoths can all go under the Elephant heading.  However, prominate subspecies (such as Loxodons) should have their own articles which then redirect to the larger article (In this case Elepahnts.)

For species that have multiple variations, we should have a consistant template for how they're organized. I suggest the following:

General description of species

=Types of Species=

1st Specific Type of Species
Description

2nd Specific Type of Species
Description, et cetera.

2nd Plane
et cetera...

Notable Species
A list of notable characters of that species.

Any thoughts? Randel 13:32, 1 June 2006 (CDT)

Is Loxodon both singular and plural? MORT 13:42, 1 June 2006 (CDT)

The flavour texts for Loxodon Punisher and Loxodon Stalwart use Loxodons. Silver Surfer 13:57, 1 June 2006 (CDT)

Just asking cuz you used singular above ;) MORT 14:05, 1 June 2006 (CDT)

I was under the impression that Loxodon was both singular and plural. My mistake. Any thoughts on the template? Randel 18:25, 1 June 2006 (CDT)

Seems fine. I would add that, all subspecies should have their own redirecting articles. For example, Loxodons should redirect to the Loxodon section of Elephants. VestDan 21:22, 1 June 2006 (CDT)

Duplicates in the list
The 'S' section list includes two recursive redicts, both listed as 'Species and Races'. Offkorn 08:58, 18 February 2007 (CST)

It's because they're redirections to. And wherever such is, it is automatically categorised under certain category. I'm not sure if it can be fixed. MORT 10:38, 18 February 2007 (CST)

Hmmm...well that's cetainly a rather large design flaw. Isn't there a way to remove the category marker from the redirect pages themselves? I would think someone with Admin privledges would be able to remove the category tag...though I'm wondering who exactly added them to begin with. Offkorn 11:35, 18 February 2007 (CST)

Magic: The Gathering Category
For what the Magic:The Gathring category was used here? It has more to do with the storyline than a game. And MTG category already has the Creature type category. -- M ORT  (T) 16:14, 22 November 2007 (GMT)


 * Not sure, but I don't like how the initiators of some pages have stuffed-up the whole naming scheme; e.g. this page "Category talk:Species and Races" --> "Category talk:Species and races" - or something else, because it sounds too long, awkward, and ... mmm ... bad.


 * I'd say... Cat:"Storyline" and Cat:"Magic: The Gathering", even if they sorta overlap. MM (talk!) 08:53, 23 November 2007 (GMT)


 * You're right. But I think that actually their overlaping nature (creture types<-->species) is the only reason that S&R should be under both categories. The question is then: Should Creature types cat. be under both of them too? -- M ORT  (T) 13:28, 23 November 2007 (GMT)

Naming
I think this thing should have only have one capitalised letter in it. Species and races, Races and species, not Species and Races. MM (talk!) 18:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Use a template when changing, so to easily change the category later. MM (talk!) 18:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll change it tommorrow then. -- M ORT (T) 21:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)