About: Wookieepedia talk:Community Portal/Archive10   Sponge Permalink

An Entity of Type : owl:Thing, within Data Space : 134.155.108.49:8890 associated with source dataset(s)

I've been wanting to rename or move a few categories now for a while, but I think I should get a consensus here first. 1. * There should be a better category than for articles like Yoda's kybuck and Boga, who should also be counted as characters. Problem is, I can't think of a good name. Any advice? 2. * is a nice-sounding name, but unfortunately it's counterintuitive. Any ideas for renaming? 3. * has a lot of subcategories like . However, those categories are almost entirely character articles, so it seems a bit odd to me putting them there. Shouldn't they just be part of ?

AttributesValues
rdfs:label
  • Wookieepedia talk:Community Portal/Archive10
rdfs:comment
  • I've been wanting to rename or move a few categories now for a while, but I think I should get a consensus here first. 1. * There should be a better category than for articles like Yoda's kybuck and Boga, who should also be counted as characters. Problem is, I can't think of a good name. Any advice? 2. * is a nice-sounding name, but unfortunately it's counterintuitive. Any ideas for renaming? 3. * has a lot of subcategories like . However, those categories are almost entirely character articles, so it seems a bit odd to me putting them there. Shouldn't they just be part of ?
dbkwik:starwars/pr...iPageUsesTemplate
abstract
  • I've been wanting to rename or move a few categories now for a while, but I think I should get a consensus here first. 1. * There should be a better category than for articles like Yoda's kybuck and Boga, who should also be counted as characters. Problem is, I can't think of a good name. Any advice? 2. * is a nice-sounding name, but unfortunately it's counterintuitive. Any ideas for renaming? 3. * has a lot of subcategories like . However, those categories are almost entirely character articles, so it seems a bit odd to me putting them there. Shouldn't they just be part of ? There's been some discussion on category talk pages, but they've gone inactive, so I'm asking here. — Silly Dan 02:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC) * I suggest we get rid of "Behind the Magic" whatsoever. The current hierarchy is: * Real World * Behind the Magic * Filming locations * Interviews * Toy companies Most of the articles in the "Behind the Magic" category are about companies, so the new hierarchy should be something like: * Real World * Filming locations * Interviews * Companies * Toy companies Articles that aren't about companies will go into "Real World", which should in turn be renamed to "Real world" to comply with the naming conventions. - Sikon [Talk] 08:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC) * Be weary that is for the in-universe companies, not the OOU ones. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC) * Hmm, that's interesting. So is for OOU authors and is for IU authors, but for companies it's vice versa. What about ? - Sikon [Talk] 08:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Alternative Linked Data Views: ODE     Raw Data in: CXML | CSV | RDF ( N-Triples N3/Turtle JSON XML ) | OData ( Atom JSON ) | Microdata ( JSON HTML) | JSON-LD    About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3217, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Standard Edition
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2012 OpenLink Software