Talk:Casualty

PNA
Right now, this article is considered a "list article" - which isn't totally wrong, but not exactly correct, either. It's not a "list of casualties", but a "list of lists of casualties". As such, it mostly duplicates functionality that also exists in templated form, and which is already transcluded to each of the pages listed here via casualties.

Before it became a list article, it was a disambiguation page - an improper one, because the list articles listed here do not share the same title, and as such do not need to be disambiguated.

It could be moved to Casualty (singular), a page describing exactly what a "casualty" is, which in turn could then link to the individual casualty lists by transcluding the template. For what it's worth, though, "casualty" in real life doesn't even mean what is assumed here it means - a "casualty" is not only someone who died but more generally "all persons lost to active military service" (including those severely injured, deserted or just missing). Should all these pages be move to "fatality" articles, or should they be enhanced to include people that haven't died - or does "casualty" mean what it is assumed to mean in a Trek context? Any ideas? -- Cid Highwind 17:06, November 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * The lists actually do include WIAs and MIAs, we just don't know about people missing or wounded as much as people killed, so there's no need to rename those pages. They are by no means done though, so there are plenty of people still "missing" from the lists I'm sure. As for this page, I create it so that someone typing this in would at least go somewhere instead of the less than helpful no page list, but I don't have any problem with a casualty article more or less replacing this. - 19:24, November 25, 2010 (UTC)