Category talk:Alien species

Wouldn't this category be better named as "Fictional Species"? Although "Alien" does also imply a level of fictionality, namaing it instead "fictional species" would make it a little more clear to some people that the species featured within are works of fiction and shouldn't be thought of as anything but works of fiction. --Markus 17:51, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with the above: if we're going to split up the "Species" category, then I don't think there's much advantage to be gained by distinguishing between fictional species that are of extra-terrestrial origin, and fictional species (such as silkies) that live on Earth. Tevildo 19:24, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

My own little personal database distinguishes fictional species according to base type (e.g. foxes, cats, etc), body plan (e.g. humanoid, centauroid, quadruped), backstory origin (magical, alien, genetically engineered), who invented them, which story world they're part of, and some other minor classifications like whether they're macros or winged or what-have-you. One can draw arbitrarily fine distinctions. I'd suggest that the right level of detail is no fixed value, but rather will depend on the number of species entries in the wiki. The more species we have, the more fine-grained categories we'll find useful for keeping them organized. As a rule of thumb, I'd suggest that any category with at least half a dozen exemplars is pulling its weight.

Fictional species would be a useful category, but I'd prefer to see alien species retained as a subcategory within it rather than being replaced. Fictionality is actually harder to get consensus on than extraterrestriality: not everyone believes in angels, cryptozoids, therians, otherkin, and so forth. --Sebkha^(talk) 06:46, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)