Forum:CT:Weapon categorization revamp

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Weapon categorization revamp


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, this page's talk page or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was recategorization proceeds. —Silly Dan (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


Something needs to be done about the way weapons are categorized. The current system is confusing and unstandardized, making it hard to find specific weapon models using the category navigation. Therefore, I have drafted a proposal of changes. Please evaluate and post your vote to the Voting section.

Proposal

  • Distinction - Weapon models (that is, those to which the weapon template can apply) and weapon types (those to which the weapon template cannot apply, but can act as categories) should be distinct from one another. Weapon models should only be listed as members of a category, and weapon types should only be listed as categories or subcategories. As a rule, models should be singular unless they are always used in the plural, and categories should be plural.
  • Cleanup - Anything remaining in a weapon category after Distinction should be removed or merged with an existing article. Pages like the List of weapons are redundant in that they attempt to list weapons without using the Category feature. This is inefficient and outdated. Any useful information stored in such an article (see Blaster) should be moved to a Technology category and linked by the See Also feature.
  • Multi-categorization - Specific weapon models should include all categories to which they pertain, not simply the most specific category. In other words, all weapon models would be listed under the Weapons category; all blaster models would be listed under the Blaster Weapons and Weapons categories; all blaster pistols would be listed under the Blaster Pistols, Blaster Weapons, and Weapons categories; and so on. Subcategories of weapons would get increasingly more specific. Presently, category lines are ambiguous (Grenades and Demolitions, for example), and most weapon models only list one. Implementing this will require some planning, so I have come up with a rough outline:

Outline

  • Weapons - Any tool used offensively in combat.
    • Biological weapons - Any weapon that is organic.
      • Yuuzhan Vong weapons (redirect)
    • Blaster weapons - Any weapon that utilizes a coherent particle beam.
      • Blaster cannons - Any blaster that is mounted.
        • Laser cannons - Any blaster cannon that has been scaled up for starship combat.
        • Turbolasers - Any blaster cannon that has been scaled up for starship combat and refines its beam to increase damage output.
      • Blaster pistols - Any blaster that is intended to be used in one hand or extremity.
        • Heavy blaster pistols - Any blaster pistol that has a damage output on par with blaster rifles and is characterized by a lower capacity and shorter range.
        • Hold-out blasters - Any blaster pistol that is built for concealment and is characterized by a small size and very limited capacity.
        • Sporting blaster pistols - Any blaster pistol that is built for accuracy and is characterized by a lower damage output and lack of regulation.
      • Blaster rifles - Any blaster that is intended to be used in two hands or extremities.
        • Blaster carbines - Any blaster rifle that is lightweight and is characterized by a shorter barrel and smaller stock.
        • Light repeating blasters - Any blaster rifle that is intended to multifire and is characterized by a heavy barrel.
        • Sporting blaster rifles - Any blaster rifle that is built for accuracy and is characterized by a lower damage output and lack of regulation.
      • Heavy repeating blasters - Any blaster that is intended to be used on a tripod or some other form of support.
    • Chemical weapons - Any weapon that is a chemical compound.
    • Cultural weapons (not a comprehensive list) - Any weapon used almost exclusively by a certain culture.
      • Gungan weapons - Any weapon used almost exclusively by Gungans.
      • Wookiee weapons - Any weapon used almost exclusively by Wookiees.
      • Yuuzhan Vong weapons - Any weapon used almost exclusively by Yuuzhan Vong.
    • Demolitions - Any weapon that utilizes an explosive charge.
      • Adhesive demolitions - Any demolition that utilizes a biological adhesive.
      • Cold demolitions - Any demolition that utilizes a pressurized gas that freezes on contact with air.
      • Concussion demolitions - Any demolition that utilizes an explosive charge and non-lethal sound.
      • CryoBan demolitions - Any demolition that utilizes a supercooled liquid that freezes on contact with an object.
      • EMP demolitions - Any demolition that utilizes an electromagnetic pulse.
      • Flash-bang demolitions - Any demolition that utilizes non-lethal light and sound.
      • Fragmentation demolitions - Any demolition that utilizes shrapnel.
      • Gas demolitions - Any demolition that utilizes a lethal gas.
      • Glop demolitions - Any demolition that utilizes a chemical adhesive.
      • Grenades - Any demolition that is intended to be thrown.
      • Ion demolitions (redirect to EMP demolitions)
      • Mines - Any demolition that is intended to be static.
      • Plasma demolitions - Any demolition that utilizes a pressurized gas that ignites on contact with air.
      • Poison demolitions (redirect to Gas demolitions)
      • Proton demolitions - Any demolition that utilizes Nergon-14 to produce a nuclear reaction.
      • Smoke demolitions - Any demolition that utilizes non-lethal smoke.
      • Sonic demolitions - Any demolition that utilizes non-lethal sound.
      • Stun demolitions - Any demolition that is intended to knock targets unconscious.
      • Thermal detonators - Any demolition that utilizes baridium to produce a nuclear reaction.
    • Disruptor weapons - Any weapon that utilizes a broadband particle beam.
      • Disruptor cannons (as needed) - Any disruptor weapon that has been scaled up for starship combat.
      • Disruptor pistols (as needed) - Any disruptor weapon that is intended to be used in one hand or extremity.
      • Disruptor rifles (as needed) - Any disruptor weapon that is intended to be used in two hands or extremities.
    • Electrical weapons - Any weapon that utilizes an electrical discharge.
    • Emplacement weapons - Any weapon that is stationary and intended for defense.
      • Ground emplacements - Any emplacement that is intended for ground-to-ground combat.
      • Planetary emplacements - Any emplacement that is intended for ground-to-space combat.
      • Space emplacements - Any emplacement that is intended for space-to-space combat.
    • Incendiary weapons - Any weapon that utilizes fire.
      • Flame projectors - Any incendiary weapon that fires a stream of flammable liquid.
    • Ion weapons - Any weapon that utilizes an electromagnetic pulse.
      • Ion cannons - Any ion weapon that has been scaled up for starship combat.
      • Ion pistols (as needed) - Any ion weapon that is intended to be used in one hand or extremity.
      • Ion rifles (as needed) - Any ion weapon that is intended to be used in two hands or extremities.
    • Laser weapons - Any weapon that utilizes light amplification and is not a blaster.
    • Lightsabers - Any weapon that utilizes a continuous beam of energy that arcs back to its source.
    • Maser weapons - Any weapon that utilizes microwave amplification.
    • Melee weapons - Any weapon that utilizes kinetic impact.
      • Blunt weapons - Any melee weapon that utilizes bludgeoning.
      • Edged weapons - Any melee weapon that utilizes slashing.
      • Pointed weapons - Any melee weapon that utilizes piercing.
    • Pneumatic weapons - Any weapon that utilizes compressed air.
      • Concussive weapons - Any pneumatic weapon that utilizes ionized air.
    • Personal weapons - Any weapon small enough for personal use.
      • Personal heavy weapons - Any personal weapon intended to be used against vehicles.
      • Personal melee weapons (redirect to Melee weapons)
      • Pistols - Any personal weapon that is intended to be used in one hand or extremity.
      • Rifles - Any personal weapon that is intended to be used in two hands or extremities.
    • Projectile weapons - Any weapon that utilizes projectile propulsion.
      • Casters - Any projectile weapon that utilizes magnetic acceleration.
      • Dart weapons - Any projectile weapon that fires darts.
      • Shrapnel launchers - Any projectile weapon that fires shrapnel.
        • Flak launchers - Any shrapnel launcher that fires flak.
        • Flechette launchers - Any shrapnel launcher that fires flechettes.
      • Grenade launchers - Any projectile weapon that fires grenades.
      • Rocket launchers - Any projectile weapon that utilizes self-propelled rockets.
      • Slugthrowers - Any projectile weapon that utilizes cartridges.
        • Slugthrower pistols (as needed) - Any slugthrower that is intended to be used in one hand or extremity.
        • Slugthrower rifles (as needed) - Any slugthrower that is intended to be used in two hands or extremities.
      • Tensile weapons - Any projectile weapon that utilizes tension.
        • Bows - Any tensile weapon that stretches both ends of the tensile medium.
        • Catapults - Any tensile weapon that stretches a single end of the tensile medium.
    • Sonic weapons - Any weapon that utilizes sonic waves.
    • Starship weapons - Any weapon mounted on a starship.
      • Cannons - Any starship weapon that is fixed in place.
      • Launchers - Any starship weapon that is capable of launching rockets.
      • Turrets - Any starship weapon that is capable of rotation.
    • Stream weapons - Any weapon that utilizes a stream of liquid.
      • Flame projectors (redirect)
    • Superweapons - Any weapon capable of mass destruction on a galactic scale.
    • Vibroweapons - Any weapon that utilizes ultrasonic vibration.
    • Weapon accessories - Any object used in conjunction with weapons.
      • Projectiles - Any object fired from a projectile weapon.
        • Slugs (as needed) - Any projectile fired from a slugthrower.
      • Weapon attachments - Any object that is attached to a weapon to enhance or modify its operation.
    • Other weapons (placeholder) - Any weapon that does not otherwise fit into a subcategory.

Issues

Here are the results of the Issues.

  1. Are all melee weapons personal? - Until canon proves otherwise, all Melee weapons are personal.
  2. Demolitions technology - Grenade technologies generalized and moved directly under Demolitions.
  3. Carbines - All carbines are rifles.
  4. Ion and EMP - Ion and EMP are essentially the same thing.
  5. Accessories - Projectile and Weapon attachment categories have been placed under the Weapon accessories category.

I'm satisfied enough with the plan to move to voting. However, if you have any problems with it, please post them to the Comments section. There's no reason why things can't be changed after the fact if they're proven not to work.


– Brynn Alastayr 11:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Voting

The undersigned respectively support or oppose the Weapon Categorization Revamp.

Support

  1. Brynn Alastayr 04:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. LtNOWIS 21:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Reignfire 21:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Good this is. Fnlayson 22:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. —Silly Dan (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Riffsyphon1024 22:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Ugluk: Destroyer of RedlinksWhine Here 22:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Green Tentacle (Talk) 08:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Imp 20:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Smokey 17:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. --Eyrezer 08:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. Orange_lightsaberVillip 23:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  13. Zainal 19:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

  • I think weapons should listed by type first. Do other groupings such as cultural with a second category. -Finlayson 17:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, the problem with that is that there are multiple type classifications to sort by. There is technological classification (blaster, laser, disruptor, lightsaber, etc.), size classification (personal, emplacement, starship, etc.), usage classification (cultural, I added this as a sort of backwards lookup, we could do affiliation too, but it would add at least one more category to every weapon model), manufacturer classification (hypothetically, we could link every weapon directly to its manufacturer page instead of doing it manually), and so on. Are you suggesting we eliminate all other classification systems and strictly use, say, technological? That would get rid of Cultural, Emplacement, Personal, Projectiles (would have to be moved under Projectile weapons), Starship, Superweapons, and Weapon attachments. Personally, I think the more redundancy that's built into the system the better, since models would not exist simply under one category, but under a number of them. Alternatively, we could use the aforementioned classification systems as direct subcategories under Weapons and go from there, but I think it would just make it more confusing for casual users. My end goal here is to make finding a specific weapon easier. – Brynn Alastayr 20:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Right, a Wookiee Guided Rocket Launcher would go under Wookiee weapons, personal heavy weapons and Rocket launchers. This looks infinitely better than our current weapons categorization system, which is terrible. Also, various subcategories would be in two larger categories, so Vong weapons would be under cultural weapons, and also be a sub-section of Biological. One nitpick is I think "Laser weapons" and "Blaster weapons" are effectively the same thing. And I think some categories are over-specific, like the subcategories of slugthrowers and disruptors. But yeah, overall this is great. We definitely should work out any kinks and implement it. -LtNOWIS 02:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
        • That's right. It would also go under Weapons and Projectile weapons, but I think you get the idea. I did have Vong weapons under Biological as well, but I removed all the redirects just for simplicity. From what I remember, blaster technology involves exciting gas into plasma, and then focusing it into a beam, whereas laser technology is just amplified light. They may look roughly the same, but I think they are logically different unless someone can argue otherwise. Some of those subcategories would be unnecessary with the current category populations, but I wanted to plan for future weapons to be added without having to go back and redo everything. If it's like a fourth subcategory though it probably would not set us back much. I will mark them "as needed." – Brynn Alastayr 07:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest putting lightsabres under melee weapons (they're non-ranged hand-held weapons, right?) and calling the "Cultural weapons" category "Weapons by culture" instead — cultural weapons sounds more like where you'd put propaganda broadcasts. Otherwise, this is an excellent idea. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I did have Lightsabers under Melee weapons, but I removed them after I decided that subcategories had to be homogenous. As it was, Blunt, Edged, and Pointed weapons were listed on the same level as Lightsabers and Vibroweapons. The former subcategories describe how melee weapons go about producing damage, while the latter describe melee weapon technologies. I did not think it made sense to put them on the same level, but if you can argue for it, go right ahead. I should note that this would not preclude specific lightsabers from being listed under both the Melee weapons category and the Lightsabers category, just from Lightsabers being a subcategory of Melee. Heh, yes, it does sound a bit like that, doesn't it? I wanted to stick to adjectives for consistency, but I can't come up with a good replacement. "Traditional" makes them sound obsolete. Any ideas? If not we could put it to a vote. – Brynn Alastayr 07:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I caught a few technologies that I missed today, so I have added them to the outline. These include Electrical weapons (eg., light lightning cannon), Maser weapons (eg., charric), and Stream weapons (eg., acid stream lancher). – Brynn Alastayr 07:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I added a number of definitions to the outline. These can be used to explicitly define a category and would appear at the top of a category page. I will finish the rest soon. In the meantime, please critique as you see fit. Also any suggestions for new categories that could be explicitly defined would be welcome. In writing the definitions, I ended up moving the Laser subcategories to Blaster, and defined lasers as any light amplification weapons that are not blasters (such as point defense, and how we use the word in the traditional sense). In canon, blaster and laser are used interchangeably, although they are taken to mean blaster. This means that "laser cannons" and "turbolasers" are technically "blaster cannons" and "turboblasters". I know this is confusing, but it's how the nomenclature was set up in 1977, so we have to deal with it. I also moved Grenades to be a subcategory of Demolitions. If there are any objections to any of the changes, please state them. Thanks. – Brynn Alastayr 10:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Added more definitions. Also added a Shrapnel and Flak subcategory, and moved Flechette under Shrapnel. – Brynn Alastayr 21:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Many weapons demolish. To clarify added 'by explosion' to the Demolitions line. That's what granades and mines do. -Finlayson 15:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Right, I was having some trouble with that. I wanted to add "infrastructure" to the end, but that didn't make sense either. I think "explode" is the best word we have available to cover the vast assortment of demolitions in the Star Wars galaxy. I will just remove "demolish" altogether because it's a circular definition. – Brynn Alastayr 22:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no problems with this. Man you are devoted. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, someone had to champion weapons :). If the other admins are sold on it, I will just solve the somewhat controversial issues to the best of my knowledge and begin the vote. But I'll wait a bit and see. – Brynn Alastayr 21:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The plan is well thought-out and quite detailed. Perhaps *too* detailed - I'm afraid some of the more fine categorical distinctions might make categories harder for people to browse. For instance, looking through 15 categories of grenades would get pretty unwieldy, especially since many of those categories will have only one or two examples within. Nonetheless, this is impressive work, and I Support your goal and overall plan even though I'm quibbling with the details. jSarek 08:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
        • That is why we will implement multi-categorization, making subcategories become increasingly more specific without retaining exclusivity. In other words, all grenades will still be contained under Grenades. This will overpopulate root categories and underpopulate leaf categories, but more importantly, it won't leave people guessing as to which one category contains a certain weapon. If all they happen to remember about it is the first few letters, the option to just go to the Weapons category and browse alphabetically will always be available. – Brynn Alastayr 16:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Are there actually weapons that are Pneumatic and not Concussive? BTW, I'm willing to help out. Reignfire 22:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Sure; I think some dart shooters, for instance, were pneumatic, but their damage didn't come from the concussive force of the dart, but from it either being really sharp and pointy, or being really sharp and pointy and poisoned. jSarek 02:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I would argue that dart weapons are not pneumatic. By the explicit definition, they use pneumatics or springs, but utilize, or use effectively (which I have taken to mean the method by which they cause damage), darts (projectiles). Frankly, I'm not sure there are any weapons that would fit under Pneumatic and not Concussive in the canon right now. I know the Nazis were experimenting with pneumatic weapons near the end of WWII, but none were ever deployed. It felt like a logical precursor to concussion rifles and such, but I can take it off if people think otherwise. – Brynn Alastayr 07:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm curious as to the opinion of other long-time Wikipedians and Wookieepedians on the concept of multiple categorization. As far as I know, it runs counter to policy (or at least strongly held but unstated convention) to categorize like this, so if we're going to start, we should know if it's a precedent we want to set. jSarek 02:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It may be true that such an unstated policy exists; however, if it is not commonly implemented correctly or consistently, then it is not a policy in earnest. The current setup has subcategories that are not mutually exclusive to each other with no explicit plan to determine in which one subcategory a model should go (is a DL-44 more of a Blaster pistol, or a Personal range weapon?). Having said that, I will let the Wookieepedia veterans debate this point out, as I am just a fanboy. – Brynn Alastayr 03:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • EMP and Ion are different. I think Ion is like a low-power blaster with ions in it that somehow mess up electronics, and EMPs work like they do in real life, they emit an electric shock that fries electronics. — Aiddat (Holonet) (Contribs Log) NR Seal 02:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I couldn't find a clear answer to this, so I went by the Databank, which states that the Jawa blaster is a type of electromagnetic pulse weapon, and the DEMP is a militarized version using the same technology. Assuming ion cannons are just scaled up versions of these personal weapons like they are with blasters and disruptors, all ion weapons are EMP weapons. If you can find a canon source that states otherwise, I would be happy to change it, but I found the information on ion weapons to be unusually vague despite their prevalence. – Brynn Alastayr 03:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I was just thinking, since several people will be working on this, we will almost need a master checklist of all weapons to keep track of which ones have been done. Reignfire (Holocron) Revanchist Sith 18:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • If/when it gets approved, I will do a little example on how to go about it. Basically, I was thinking we could just write "WCR" in the edit summary after all the changes have been completed to a given article. – Brynn Alastayr 01:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • But wouldn't that mean we would have to go to each and every weapon and check it's history? That will definitely be a pain the further we get into this. Reignfire (Holocron) Revanchist Sith 02:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Not really. You should be able to tell just by looking at how many categories it's in. But if it's still not clear, then you check history. It's not perfect, but it'll be faster than making a list. – Brynn Alastayr 05:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • So... at what point does a vote make this legitimate? – Brynn Alastayr 01:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I have no idea. You need to ask an admin. Reignfire (Holocron) Revanchist Sith 03:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm a HUGE fan of the Star Wars weaponry, and I try to find specific weapons, and what they look like - as well as what weapons they were based on in real life, so I support this project immensely. Good luck, and just to help, I'll try and find good screencaps of as many weapons as I can. I can't guarantee anything though..college is rough. --162.83.137.157 18:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Green light

Green light given, Brynn. Let us venture forth and recategorize. --Imp 21:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Update

So far all new categories have been created and organized, all uneeded ones have been deleted. Currently, all articles are being moved to Category:Other weapons to create a master list.


Also, I would like to thank the additional support, however this project has been approved so votes are no longer needed. Reignfire (Holocron) Revanchist Sith 11:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  • We could definitely use help changing category tags to Other weapons though. I'm in the middle of midterms right now so I can't make the progress I would like to. If you want to help, all that you would have to do is find an article in one of the Weapons categories (except for those in Other weapons; they're done) and delete all the weapon category tags (be sure not to delete non-weapon category tags, such as Category:Space stations). Then replace them with Category:Other weapons. Once all the articles are moved, we can begin the next (and main) phase of recategorization. – Brynn Alastayr 17:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe I'm misunderstanding the purpose of this, but it seems that you are placing weapons in redundant categories. For example, the ion cannon goes in Category:Ion cannons. That category itself is part of Category:Ion weapons, thereby dictating that the article is an ion weapon. Therefore, it is not necessary to additionally add the ion cannon article to Category:Ion weapons. By doing so, you are essentially placing the article twice in the same category. —Xwing328(Talk) 21:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I will admit it is redundant (and I would know). For instance, in order to put something under, let's say, 'laser cannon,' I have to put it under first blaster weapons, then blaster cannons, then laser weapons. Then to be completely correct (it is a laser cannon), I have to put it under the category 'laser weapons.' Though I admit it is wearisome and redundant, in the long run, it is easier to browse. After all, there are, as of now, approximately 150 weapons listed under 'Blaster weapons.' If you were looking just for a sporting blaster rifles (for whatever reason) clicking on every single rifle-sounding name would be murderous and tedious, and would probably be so daunting that one wouldn't even try. However, with this method of categorization, you can just click on 'blaster rifles' and then 'sporting blaster rifles' and bingo. Also, if you're just looking for a blaster you can't remember that begins with a W, you could just browse through the blaster list. Unless you are suggesting making separate 'mega categories' (Cultural weapons, Chemical weapons, Demolitions, etc.), then for the sake of ease, this way is better. As a side note, doing that would make the 'Weapons' category huge. Have you seen the 'Demolitions' sub-catgories? -Solus 19:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
        • What you're actually doing is against the very Manual of Style of the site. If a weapon comes under one subcategory, it does not get placed in the category above that. We're now going to have to go through every single one of the weapons articles and re-remove a lot of categories. If we did it the way that you were wanting, and applied it to all other kinds of articles, then every single character in the Star Wars franchise would all be placed under the "Individuals" category. Kindly stop adding in all the useless categories when articles are already in sub-categories of it. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm not refuting what you say, but could you please state such a rule? Also, I did not come up with this idea. I thought it was perfectly fine and made sense, and there was unanimous consensus. Thus, I decided to go ahead and get on with it. For now, this revamp only affects weapons, I don't feel like recategorizing everybody under Individuals, my brain's fried as it is. Not to mean this unkindly, but I don't really like the idea of having hours of hard work undone. If you have issues with this revamp, take them up with Brynn Alastayr. I just do what I'm instructed. -Solus 19:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
            • I don't believe it's written down as a rule anywhere, to be honest...though I can certainly do that just now...but we do not include articles in mater categories of categories they're already in. That's how every Wikia-run Wiki as well as the Wikipedia itself is run...and, though we're not them, it is how we run as well. Much as I appreciate the hard work, I'm afraid we're going to have to go back and remove the master categories. EDIT: Scratch that...added it to the layout guide. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
              • All right, I understand. Do you mean that I can list a Laser cannon under just laser cannon, not blaster weapons, blaster cannons, laser weapons, emplacement weapons etc., or that it cannot be categorized twice in the same major category, i.e. It can be categorized under Laser cannons, Laser weapons, and Ground emplacements but not Blaster weapons or Emplacement weapons? Also, what do you mean when you say 'remove all of the master categories'? -Solus 19:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
                • Just from that example...Laser cannon would fit in the categories of Category:Laser cannons, Category:Starship weapons, and Category:Cannons, but none of the others currently listed on its page. It may also fit in Category:Ground emplacements, if you can find an example of one being used on the ground but none of the others you mentioned. Also, categories are meant to be listed in alphabetical order...just for future reference. And I simply mean remove the other categories from articles, rather than delete them entirely. EDIT: Scratch what I said again...Laser cannon would not go in Category:Cannons, as Category:Laser cannons should be a sub-category of it. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
                  • All right, I'll keep that in mind. EDIT: I just came across a problem. While reading a weapons article to analyze what categories it would fit in, I found that it went under two categories in a master category. Ex. It went under both Thermal detonator and Grenades. In this case, what would I do?-Solus 20:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
                    • It can come under two sub-categories, as long as neither of those categories are sub-categories of each other...if that makes any sense? —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
                      • Yes. Thank you very much. -Solus 20:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I mentioned this particular issue up above on October 1st. People kept voting support, including other admins, so I think he got consensus that that policy shouldn't apply. jSarek 22:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Until this is settled, I'll withhold categorizing to avoid confusion. -Solus 03:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new thread.