Category talk:Mirror universe inhabitants

From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference.

[edit] MA:CS?

While this category may be a good idea, it should have gone through the proper process at MA:CS to be approved by the community... -- Sulfur 13:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the category, but I agree, it should have gone through MA:CS. Then again, one look at the CS page is enough to scare anyone away. :P --From Andoria with Love 22:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"I see uncreated categories...", heh, yeah, I'm alright with this category as well, though it should've went through MA:CShran'smessycloset. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius...I'm listening 22:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Oy, leave my closet out of this! (/me goes back in the closet) --From Andoria with Love 22:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies to everyone for my ignorance and carelessness in this matter. I'm now suitably embarrassed enough to have learned my lesson and promise that I won't do it again. Also, thanks for not just deleting this page out of principle or doing something similarly chastising (yet); i.e. thanks for generally being "alright with" this page. --Jayunderscorezero 09:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking perhaps Category:Mirror universe inhabitants would be a more appropriate title. Category:Individuals is a category designed to contain "individuals by species" rather than location. Categorizing Mirror Spock as a Vulcan and an individual double categorizes him as a Vulcan and non-Vulcan-or-other-Category:Individuals-subcategory-species-who-lives-in-the-mirror-universe. --Alan 06:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit my own myopia and agree with Alan on this one. 'Individuals' doesn't really seem totally adequate. It seems it's either his proposed solution or else a species-breakdown of this category, which seems rather unnecessary (although perhaps not so much for MA/mu).--Jayunderscorezero 10:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, after 5 months of silence I gave it a go and moved everything, so to conform with our conformities. --Alan del Beccio 07:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this still only a provisional category then? What has to happen for that tag to be removed? --Jayunderscorezero 14:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I left the provisional on there because it is a new name in the system. No other reason really, since this category is more or less "done." --Alan del Beccio 18:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

The picture on this category page seems to be covering some of the articles in this category. I'm not sure how to fix it,(if it can be) otherwise I would.--31dot 15:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It might be more a case that your particular browser or settings are causing this problem, as I can't seem to replicate it. As far as I can see, the articles remain uncovered. --Jayunderscorezero 16:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I won't go messing with the category if that's the case, which I suspect.--31dot 16:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

<br clear=all> works best on category pages. --Alan 16:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Looks good now. :)--31dot 19:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I will remember that trick for the future myself, too. --Jayunderscorezero 22:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)