I was discussing aggressive article categorization with a few individual users, but one result i'd like to bring on here -- the possibility of focused granular categorization of people images by century. while dual categorization with the overcategory for humans is beneficial to articles, as it gives us a central list of all humans, the categorization of images seems like overkill.

i'd like to propose a wholesale 'emptying' of this category for those humans who can be categorized by century into:

Images of Humans dated from earlier or later centuries would remain here, unless ancient and futuristic branches of the tree are desired, but those centuries of humans would populate those categories and not be dual categorized here.

Others that would remain here:

  • images of dead humans (as the death and image could be from separate centuries)
  • humans in images that cannot be otherwise dated due to lack of information or time travel uncertainties

--Captain MKB 20:58, September 16, 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, minus the 19th century category. There is no such category yet for article pages and I doubt there'll be many images of such individuals. For any Human from the 19th century or earlier, let's just have a catch-all category, like in the category tree for the article pages. So basically it should be like this:
If we use those additionals i would say they'd have to be "ancient" and "far future" are not proper nouns in this case. however, the terminology "far future" doesn't really appeal to me. what makes the "far future" different from the "future" and how do both/either speak to MB's POV of being 'somewhat in the future' of modern Trek and it's follow-ons? -- Captain MKB 21:25, September 17, 2015 (UTC)
Well, I was basing the names for the additional two categories on Category:Ancient Humans. But the first letter of a category name would be capitalized anyway, wouldn't it? So one could easily rename those categories to something like "Humans from ancient times" and "Humans from the far future". As for the whole future/far future deal: Personally, I don't really care. I was using the Timeline page as another guide for naming the categories, which has "Far Future" as anything 32nd century and beyond and "Ancient History" as anything BC. But to my mind, we don't have enough articles or images for characters outside the 20th to 25th century window, so I thought I'd narrow it down to that. If you really must insist, I suppose the "far future" categories could be renamed to just "future" and since "ancient" is a bit of an exaggeration for something that is a mere 6 centuries removed (this assumes an STO-as-present/literally-just-happend POV for this wiki), how about "historic" instead? - Bell'Orso (talk) 00:02, September 18, 2015 (UTC)
The future terminology seemed off to me but i realize now the "far" part was off putting -- as it creates a comparison from a current era we dont observe according to our POV. Since we have the backbone of canon to consider, we know the "actual" future of canon remains unwritten in all cases after the last canon production, so any and all future stuff here would be from a multiple futures which aren't really apt for a naming convention of any sort.
since there are multiples, lets use a plural to show this. and instead of defining them by how distant in the future, lets use your phrasing Category:Memory Beta images (Humans of future eras) --Captain MKB 00:24, September 18, 2015 (UTC)
also i wouldn't recommend renaming category:ancient Humans just to get around the initial wiki capital, we just wont capitalize it later in the category name after a parenthesis. -- Captain MKB 00:28, September 18, 2015 (UTC)
You native English speakers really do hate capitalization, don't you? Personally, I love it. :P But fine, how does Category:Humans from ancient times look? - Bell'Orso (talk) 00:32, September 18, 2015 (UTC)
the phrasing to me using 'ancient' as an adjective works for me as simplest, its just that to make the 'futures' plural it necessitated adding the descriptor "era" (because "futures Humans" sounds laughable to a native English speaker).
i suppose that if we were to promote consistency, we could make both adjectives:
just in promotion of the wiki ideal of simplicity, its the least number of joining words and parsing for the phrasing of the link, even if we don't exert ourselves trying to use the plural and add that complication. -- Captain MKB 00:41, September 18, 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you're going for simplicity, you could just as well use "future Humans". Since you've already dropped the plural up there, you might as well drop the "era" again, since you inserted it purely for the sake of pluralization in the first place. - Bell'Orso (talk) 00:48, September 18, 2015 (UTC)
i suppose it is purely to show that still though, the word era implies a more definite separation (like there's a border between eras so it implies there is more than one) and less implication that it is "the" future, as in definitive. -- Captain MKB 01:19, September 18, 2015 (UTC)
Well, we're not going to disambiguate "future" with any further subcategories anyway, so in the end, why bother? The possibility that different accounts of future events may conflict and certain individuals may therefore be from separate strands is already implicitly understood, at least to me. That brings up another interesting point, though. Are we going to put images of JJ-Trek characters in their own category as well, as with the corresponding articles? - Bell'Orso (talk) 01:43, September 18, 2015 (UTC)
well there is the bother that there might be some rather definitive need for subcategories, because besides the JJ alternates, there are mirrors and also those from the STO future opposed to various other alternate futures. it would be sensible to prepare for some corral action on those, so i think it makes sense to modify it so. -- Captain MKB 02:21, September 18, 2015 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.