Category talk:Time travelers

Scope
Is there any particular reason this category is limited to "non-regular characters who intentionally" employ time travel? I can understand the "intentionally" part, but why leave out regular characters?--31dot 21:08, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Is there a seperate means to identify regular character-intentional time travelers?--31dot 11:58, June 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * That stipulation really breaks POV. It should either be removed, or this category rethought altogether.–Cleanse ( talk 11:25, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * The intentional part is problematic as well, since that would make Picard a time traveler in First Contact but Alyssa Ogawa wouldn't be one since no one called down to sickbay and took a poll beforehand. Kira would be an intentional time traveler while Sisko wouldn't from the "Past Tense" episodes. We should include everybody, and if distinctions need to be made we can create a page and place it in the category. - 11:57, February 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * So, according to that logic... every Ent-E personnel is a time traveler (see ), as is everyone who appeared in TOS' several time travel episodes. The DS9 tribbles episode.  George and Gracie from .  Yesterday's Enterprise.  What else have I missed?
 * It seems to me that the category starts to get a bit ungainly and silly at a certain point. -- sulfur 12:12, February 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * If needs be, "intentionality" could be defined by looking at the technique itself, not by looking at the intention of a single participant. That way, we would at least make sure that, if a ship traveled through time, either all or none of its inhabitants were called "time travelers". If size of the category is a problem, perhaps the various crew categories could be made subcategories of this one (for example, Category:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) personnel for ), with a disclaimer at the top that readers would need to check whether a specific person was really aboard that ship at the time of time travelling. -- Cid Highwind 12:37, February 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Accurate and complete is the goal, so we should go for that, no matter how ungainly and silly it may get. I also don't think size would be too much of an issue, since most of those people seen are the main cast or unnamed background folks, and we all know the films were even more so. Placing a few unnamed people lists into this cat will cover most of the people right away, and we shouldn't just start subbing categories with people who weren't time travelers without at least checking to see if size will even be an issue. - 13:08, February 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * If you're citing goals, "being comprehensive" is another one - and dumping every John Doe, Enterprise plumber, on this list just because he happened to be on the ship while that did a time jump, is really not. It would just serve to defeat whatever this purpose this list might have (probably identifying "important" time travelers) and give nothing in return. Making personnel categories sub-categories of this one, if a whole ship did the trick, would better fulfill both the comprehensiveness and the completeness criteria. -- Cid Highwind 13:16, February 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Creating a list first wouldn't hurt though, since we might as well see what we're looking at first. Converting this category to a page would solve the problem as well, since identifying "important" anythings shouldn't be done with a category if there will be "un-important" things as well. - 13:37, February 14, 2011 (UTC)