Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-188432-20130109195104/@comment-88790-20130114145229

Wow, that's a lot of categories.

First question. What are they for?

The intro on the category page doesn't really enlighten me, only makes me want to ask why?

"organise people who worked on any part of the DWU franchise, who also worked for one of the other television franchises listed below".

Okay, why and why should we care?

By not splitting it down into DW, TW etc it seems like we're caring more about the fact that they worked on Star Wars than DW, or TW or whatever.

Some categories seem needlessly vague like Category:Worked on Sherlock Holmes adaptations‎…right. I can think of at least 4 different Holmes adaptations off the top of my head and we're lumping all of those into a single category ??

The categories don't really tell me anything, they're kinda interesting on their own, but to be really interesting I'd like an article dedicated to it, to explain why it's notable that these people were in these series and how it's relevant to DW.

Blake's 7 isn't the best example, though it should be the best example of cast / crew crossover.

As for deciding what categories to keep, I think there needs to be 2 different points of connection to DWU in order to create a category of "Worked on". So that would mean two different crew members worked on a show or an actor and a writer. But not 2 actors. This would mean pairing back the Worked On/Actors who appeared in to just worked on (if you're an actor you are working on a series not just appearing in it). Pairing back the categories also would make this category and its sub-categories a little less confusing as at the moment "actors who appeared" and "worked on" are both in the Category:Connections to other media franchises which makes it a little confusing as to what you're looking at.

By having this crew/actor or writer/crew requirement it should help us to thin down the categories a little bit.