Category talk:Crews

Public Statements

When adding/editing a crew's page, is it our place to correct spelling and other mistakes in a crews public statement? Or are we bound as a reference source to copy it over verbatim?--Vurogj 00:41, 30 September 2005 (PDT)

I would favour correcting the errors. It may convince them to correct the same in the actual statements. --Bia 02:27, 30 September 2005 (PDT)

Is this still the case? I was under the impression before (see here) that Public Statements and other information copied directly from the game should be copied as written, without any corrections. But now that I see this, I'm not sure, and I really do need to know (because there are people editing Public Statements for grammar). --Emufarmers 13:22, 9 March 2006 (PST)

I strongly prefer that the Public Statements be cut/pasted without corrections. Adding links to other articles is a nice touch, but not necessary. My main reason for opposing corrections is it's a lot less work for the editors. --Barrister 16:53, 16 March 2006 (PST)

I basically don't mind doing spelling corrections, as for me they take no time at all. I've avoided correcting public statements so far after seeing others commenting on how they shouldn't be edited. I think it would look nice to have them spelt correctly - although I agree that it's not essential. --Sagacious 16:57, 16 March 2006 (PST)

So...What's the deal with this? I'm honestly thinking we need a codified policy on this matter at this point; should public statements be edited for grammar? (Honestly, I don't think it would be a "burden," since the grammar nuts here leap onto things like [insert appropriate simile here]) Should they be edited for extreme length? (I'm looking at The Black Dawn Raiders here.) Frankly, it doesn't seem like there's even certainty with regards to what information beyond the infobox and public statement can go in a crew page in general. I'd really like to see something written up and put forward on the matter, for the sake of consistency. --Emufarmers 17:41, 28 April 2006 (PDT)

I think it's just a matter of editor judgement. Generally Public Statements may contain little bits of info such as Crew Vessels, which are really not needed but we don't tend to edit out bits since it's quite short. In the case of The Black Dawn Raiders, the public statement was very long and mainly because of the sections of unneeded info. I think the general consensus is we shouldn't correct public statements since they're factual etc etc. --Sagacious 18:06, 28 April 2006 (PDT)

That just doesn't sit well with me. You're saying first, "we can crop things where necessary," and then, "we should leave them as they are to preserve accuracy." It still seems like we as editors can't make a firm decision one way or the other on this; not that there's anything wrong with that: A formal decision that everything should be handled on a case-by-case basis would be alright, I suppose...But I'd still like to see something more specific, one way or the other, especially in terms of basic things like, "are ship lists allowed outside of the public statement, and are they allowed inside of it?" (The Darkness's page is a good example of where this is an issue.) And what about public statements which have extra formatting which isn't actually present in the public statement itself, like with The Insomniacs? (That's a pretty good example, since the actual statement doesn't have line breaks in a lot of places, let alone bolding [of course, bolding isn't possible in the actual crew statement].) Maybe I'm just making a mountain out of a molehill; in that case, I propose we have a new page for Emu's Anal-Retentive Gripe of the Week/Month. --Emufarmers 19:25, 28 April 2006 (PDT)

I still think we should them alone. It makes it easier to just copy/paste them into place. And there are a ton of other things that need work at any given moment. --Barrister 22:21, 28 April 2006 (PDT)

I agree with Barrister. Crew & flag pages really aren't viewed very often at all, at least back when we had stats data. If you're looking for projects, please see the YPPedia:Wishlist or pipe up that you are looking for useful things to do ;) --Guppymomma 07:10, 29 April 2006 (PDT)

Category

Why are additional category tags added to some crew pages? Isn't the one that the infobox adds enough? --pevarnj ^(t/c) 15:48, 28 April 2006 (PDT)

They are added to pages prefixed with 'The' 'A' etc to avoid them all being listed under T or A. For example, The Black Dawn Raiders should be listed under B not T, so an extra category tag is added to make it appear under B. Barrister will explain it better than me I'm sure. --Sagacious 15:50, 28 April 2006 (PDT)

Notice that the category tags added to those pages are not simply [[Category:* Ocean crews]]. For those prefixed like a link, it controls how it is sorted. For example, [[Category:Viridian Ocean crews|Insomniacs]] will cause The Insomniacs to show up under the I section instead of T. --Thunderbird 16:28, 28 April 2006 (PDT)

It's also done with all uppercase names because those get sorted as if they were completely different letters (aka A is different than a). --Guppymomma 17:24, 28 April 2006 (PDT)

Midnight and Cobalt

I noticed that the "Category" pages for active (i.e. non-defunct) crews on Midnight and Cobalt had been deleted. And yet, we still have the corresponding pages for the other discontinued oceans. Why?

I would presume that any crew which was still active at the time that its ocean was closed down would continue to be tracked as an "active" crew for that discontinued ocean. Or else, we would classify all such crews as defacto-defunct and update all of them accordingly (thereby eliminating these old categories for all the closed oceans, not just the "blue" oceans).

I was proceeding with this latter assumption (starting with Azure), when I decided that I should instead wait until I can get further information from others, in case there is information I'm missing related to this subject.

Thanks. -- Franklincain ^(t/c) 14:35, 10 August 2012 (PDT)

I'm not really sure why you're so confused about this, when if you look, it's pretty obvious that we took the route of marking all of them either defunct or part of the new ocean (take a look at the flag categories, for example). Nobody ever got around to finishing off the rest of the crews, which is why only Midnight and Cobalt ever got deleted (because we waited until the category was actually empty before deleting it). --Fannon 10:45, 11 August 2012 (PDT)

So, we have a green light for going ahead and start cleaning up all of the crews for all of the dead oceans, then? (In the specific case of Azure, should they ALL be marked as defunct, or should we leave that specific ocean's crews alone?) Thanks! -- Franklincain ^(t/c) 11:50, 11 August 2012 (PDT)

Azure is a different case entirely, and should be left alone. --Fannon 11:59, 11 August 2012 (PDT)