Talk:Nicknames

The good Vedek's recent changing of nickname articles to redirects got me thinking: if nicks like Trip, Itchy, Noggles, and BLT can be given their own articles, why can't nicknames like Bones and Montgomery Scott? Another way to phrase that question is: since "Bones" and "Scotty" are redirects, why isn't "Trip" or "Noggles"? --From Andoria with Love 16:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess this has to do with the recent creation of Category:Nicknames. Redirects can't be categorized, so they need their own article. On the other hand, "Memory Alpha is not a dictionary", so if the only content of a "nickname article" would be "XYZ was a nickname for CHARACTER_NAME", it might better be a redirect to that character. Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages, but I agree with Shran - we should use one of them throughout. -- Cid Highwind 17:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, Shran has the same logic as me, except in reverse. I thought to myself, rhetorically, "Well if we're going to have an article for something like 'Noggles' then we might as well make 'Scotty' and 'Bones' into their own articlese too." The rhetorical part being because part of the purpose of Memory Alpha is to allow Trek concepts to have their own pages, which is why we have many short or self-defining "Treknology" articles. It's not so every single concept can have a page, such as the VfD for the "Mister" article. For the vast majority of nicknames (where as Cid pointed out the article is basically a definition), having an entry on the list of nicknames is as much of a definition as they need. --Vedek Dukat Talk 17:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)