Category talk:Borg technology

Category:Borg technology
I'd like to propose a new category called Borg technology, based off my list of Borg technology. As an alternate title, we could use Borg terminology instead (I haven't decided which I like best myself). -- Renegade54 18:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This should be a subcategory of Category:Technology if named "Borg technology", or of Category:Terminology if named "Borg terminology". -- Renegade54 14:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem with that (as "Borg technology"), if... it is only used for articles that would otherwise be located at "technology" itself (no starships, for example, because those would already be in the "starships" subcategory of technology), and restricted to articles that describe "Borg-only" technology (for example, no Tractor beam). -- Cid Highwind 20:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the list. Everything meets that definition, either Borg-only or originally Borg later used by someone else (like transwarp hubs). The reason I had tractor beam in that list is that the Borg had a different, more sophisticated tractor beam than other species, and that's described in the main tractor beam article. That particular version of the tractor beam is Borg-specific, but, obviously, the article isn't. There are a few entries in my list, as well, that I consider more "Borg terminology" than "Borg technology", like Unimatrix or Trimatrix or First (Borg) or Borg Queen. -- Renegade54 20:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I did take a look at that list - that's what made me comment in the first place... ;) Assimilation is a process, not technology; Borg Collective is a designation for a group of beings, not technology; Borg Queen is a being, not technology... Cortical implant, Cutting beam, Ocular implant, just to name a few of many, are technology, but not restricted to the Borg. There are many articles on that list that shouldn't be categorized as either "Borg technology" or "Borg terminology", because they really aren't. However, as I said, I wouldn't mind having that category for those articles that really are technology and restricted to the Borg. -- Cid Highwind 20:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there should be a "Category:Borg stuff", with "stuff" being replaced by a more appropriate word, that would encompass all things Borg. -- Renegade54 21:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the best title for that would simply be "Borg" (although that title has already been used for something else despite my comments: see Category talk:Borg) - but even then, I'm sure we'd end up with some horrible mess if we started to categorize everything that was also used by the Borg once, but not restricted to them, as "Borg". The Borg aren't that special in the big scheme of things, so we would also need to have "Klingon", "Romulan", and so on. If we did that, we'd end up with a dozen or more categories on something like Tractor beam. I'd still support a "Borg technology" category for Borg-only technology (or, for that matter, a category "Borg X" for every "Borg-only X" that has piled up enough articles here) - but categorizing the way suggested here doesn't sound like a good idea to me. -- Cid Highwind 21:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How about 'Borg terminology, sub of Category:Terminology? --Alan del Beccio 01:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Technology" or "Terminology" doesn't really matter here - both should be restricted to the "borg-only" subset of their respective supercategories. That said, I don't really like the "Terminology" category itself, because it is so ill-defined. -- Cid Highwind 12:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Last try: How about Category:Borg for all things Borg and sub-cat Category:Borg drones for all individuals? --Alan del Beccio 21:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, support new category and scope change of the old one. Regarding the above discussion, Cat:Borg should obviously still be restricted to things that really are "Borg", not everything that was also used by the Borg. -- Cid Highwind 22:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support this last concept. -- Renegade54 23:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * One last thought, with the creation of Category:Technology, and re-reading some of what was said above, perhaps we could use a Category:Borg technology, afterall, while still keeping Category:Borg drones for the individuals and Category:Borg as the top category for both, which would then contain everything else that fits in there...such as their conflict with 8472, space designations (which might even be its own category), and other non-drones or technology things? --Alan del Beccio 04:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Make sense to me (I think). I support that. In fact, once I get done cleaning up the category suggestion page, I'll go ahead and create it myself... assuming I don't forget. :) --From Andoria with Love 06:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Because the Borg don't "develop" technology (or do they? do they have "Borg skunkworks?"), they take others'. So really, this category list will be small, with IMHO the exception of things that ... well, Alpha Quadranters just don't know where the daggumb thing came from. E.g., transwarp hub. So, I'm adding a few into this category to see what it looks like. All, please take a look and comment. TIA. LLaP. Kojiro Vance | Talk 04:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I haven't been 100% thorough, but I found many items previously in Catetory:Technology that are distinctly and uniquely Borgish. Take a look and I think we have a good example of how is a good sub-category of the former. Kojiro Vance | Talk