Category talk:Humans

Does this incluse partial humans? That is, alien/Human hybrids? — THOR 17:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Spock made the list. It only makes sense to put him in both categories (Human and Vulcan), otherwise we would not be able to categorize him at all. --Gvsualan 17:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks; also, are we not categorizing the people in this category by their last name? —  THOR 17:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh crap! Good point. Well, seems I have some work to do....--Gvsualan 17:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Lists categorized here
Since when do we categorize lists here? "Humans" was intended to be a "list category" (=listing all articles that are human). Additionally, several of those lists don't even belong here, I guess: USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) personnel, for example, contains several "non-humans", so the categorization is incorrect. -- Cid Highwind 12:23, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * The lists are apparently being categorized becuase each list contain unnamed humans -- and as a complete list of humans, this category would be incomplete unless some way can be found to link to the articles which contain unnamed humans (and, yes, several of the articles contain unnamed aliens mixed in with unnamed humans -- but i don't think that's necessarily incorrect, by your definition --but its an artifact of listing more than one person's entry in a list article).


 * Perhaps there should be a clarification such as a subcategory or list listing all the articles which contain entries for at least one unnamed human, and then categorize that list or subcat here, so that Category Humans will actually link to these dozens (possibly hundreds) of unnamed humans -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 12:51, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer to have a link to Unnamed Humans in the description part of this category. We don't necessarily have to create categories for articles that aren't really ready to be categorized (which, I think, includes those lists of unnamed people). -- Cid Highwind 14:10, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, i think a Category:Unnamed Humans would be a great place to place every list article which contains at least one unnamed human -- after all, there probably won't be any "unnamed people" entries that occur in any other type of artcle except a list article if we continue to place them there. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:27, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Uncategorized Starfleet Humans
Using the new search feature (results here) I was able to account for about 80 humans (or probable humans) who aren't properly categorized.--Tim Thomason 03:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Done --Alan del Beccio 03:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Forum:Categorizing unseen individuals as "Human"
From User talk:Captainmike

A great speculation that can be find many times in the database is the "Human category" for people only seen on dedication plaques or listing. Even if they have a human-like name, we can't be sure they are : for example, Leonard James Akaar is the Teer of the Ten Tribes of Capella IV. Also, seeing the lifespan of some of these characters (Adm. Gene Roddenberry...), it is possible that they're not human. - Philoust123 19:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I had noticed someone contesting the "humans" category on dedication plaque personnel -- i'd be fine with removing the speculation in many cases and de-categorizing all of the people, but i'd like some discussion with other archivists on whether to enact some sort of separate categorization for people who have human-sounding names, but haven't been positively IDed as humans.. (possibly with some variation of "humanoid" in the terminology, etc) -- Captain M.K.B. 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this proposition, because it doesn't establish them canonically as human and state that it is highly probable that they are humans, but I've no idea for the cat name. - Philoust123 21:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Anyones? they have human names like Joshua, Frank, Han, Luke and Leah?


 * Jadzia is a human name, also used by aliens. Then again, Zayra doesnt seem to be, but is. does anyone have an opinion what kind of names make it safe to categorize someone as human (or possibly "part human" or "human-related")? -- Captain M.K.B. 21:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Who's got an opinion on this? -- Captain M.K.B. 01:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't put too much weight in first (or "given") names as they aren't necessarily part of the culture. Zayra could've been named for a Andorian friend of her parents or something, and Jadzia Jones might have been a good friend of Kela. Who knows what crazy names people will come up with for their kids in the future (I half-jokingly wanted to name my kid "Zefram" once). I think last (or "family") names are a "usual" indicator of their species. If that doesn't work then we can assume that they should share the same alien race of the production staffer they're named for (for the most part "Human"). Of course, anyone can discount my opinion as I am never here (and this lame friend's computer won't let me explain on IRC).--Tim Thomason 02:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Categorization

 * Tau Cygna V colonists
 * Americans
 * Bringloidi
 * ECS Horizon personnel
 * Humans
 * Humans (early history)
 * Humans (19th century)
 * Humans (20th century)
 * Humans (21st century)
 * Humans (22nd century)
 * Humans (23rd century)
 * Humans (24th century)
 * Humans (future)
 * MACO personnel
 * Mariposan
 * Novan
 * Terratin
 * USS Valiant personnel

Should the above be sub-categories of Category:Humans instead of pages within? &mdash; Morder (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion:


 * ECS Horizon personnel
 * MACO personnel
 * USS Valiant personnel
 * Mixing "species" with "profession". Those shouldn't be listed here at all.


 * Tau Cygna V colonists
 * Americans
 * Bringloidi
 * Mariposan
 * Novan
 * Terratin
 * Mixing "species" with "group". Those should be categorized as group, either instead or additionally (see Bringloidi). In any case, they don't need a special sort key.


 * Humans
 * Humans (early history)
 * Humans (19th century)
 * Humans (20th century)
 * Humans (21st century)
 * Humans (22nd century)
 * Humans (23rd century)
 * Humans (24th century)
 * Humans (future)
 * These are specific sub-lists of humans, so having them here, at the beginning of the list, seems to make sense. -- Cid Highwind 08:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)