Forum:20th/21st century individuals: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(Created page with '{{Forumheader|Panopticon}} <!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> I'd like to get a ruling on a silly question. I'm …') |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
<!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | <!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | ||
I'd like to get a ruling on a silly question. I'm wondering how best to apply [[:Category:20th century individuals]] and [[:Category:21st century individuals]] to people from the present day. For example, we've seen [[Sarah Jane Smith]] and [[Amy Pond]] living in both centuries on-screen, so they'd qualify for both categories. However, other individuals might qualify by sheer arithmetic. Should every 21st century individual from 2010 who is more than nine years old also be categorised a 20th century individual? Or should we keep things simple by limiting the categories to only the known data, by only using years actually portrayed on-screen? [[User:Rob T Firefly|Rob T Firefly]] 18:00, May 11, 2010 (UTC) | I'd like to get a ruling on a silly question. I'm wondering how best to apply [[:Category:20th century individuals]] and [[:Category:21st century individuals]] to people from the present day. For example, we've seen [[Sarah Jane Smith]] and [[Amy Pond]] living in both centuries on-screen, so they'd qualify for both categories. However, other individuals might qualify by sheer arithmetic. Should every 21st century individual from 2010 who is more than nine years old also be categorised a 20th century individual? Or should we keep things simple by limiting the categories to only the known data, by only using years actually portrayed on-screen? [[User:Rob T Firefly|Rob T Firefly]] 18:00, May 11, 2010 (UTC) | ||
::Well, I have to admit to not being '''that''' concerned about this issue. Or perhaps I mean that ''consistent''. If there's strong evidence of a person being alive across a century mark, I'll place them in both centuries. If there's not, I'll go for the century in which they're most likely alive, based upon in-universe evidence. On the whole, though, I don't particularly find these categories very useful, so it doesn't much matter to me. How many times have you '''actually''' gone to one of these categories? For me, the answer is "practically never". Still, I do try to append these categories, out of almost slavish habit. If I was really '''forced''' to answer your question directly, though, I'd say that, yes, if a person is obviously of an age that would mean they lived in the previous century, they should be in both categories. But it should be '''obvious'''. I remember recently taking down the 19th century individuals cat from someone in ''Victory of the Daleks'', because it was by no means certain that the individual would have been 42 years old at the time of ''Victory''. But should (most) of the kids in ''Human Nature'' be considered 19th century people? I think so, but '''no one''' is ''really'' going to comb through these categories to weed out the "possibles" from the "definites". Frankly, I'm of the opinion that if categories get so large as to require clicking through multiple pages just to get through the alphabet, that category is too large to be useful. And [[:Category:20th century individuals]] is certainly a massive cat like that. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 17:47, May 12, 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:47, 12 May 2010
Index → Panopticon → 20th/21st century individuals
Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
I'd like to get a ruling on a silly question. I'm wondering how best to apply Category:20th century individuals and Category:21st century individuals to people from the present day. For example, we've seen Sarah Jane Smith and Amy Pond living in both centuries on-screen, so they'd qualify for both categories. However, other individuals might qualify by sheer arithmetic. Should every 21st century individual from 2010 who is more than nine years old also be categorised a 20th century individual? Or should we keep things simple by limiting the categories to only the known data, by only using years actually portrayed on-screen? Rob T Firefly 18:00, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I have to admit to not being that concerned about this issue. Or perhaps I mean that consistent. If there's strong evidence of a person being alive across a century mark, I'll place them in both centuries. If there's not, I'll go for the century in which they're most likely alive, based upon in-universe evidence. On the whole, though, I don't particularly find these categories very useful, so it doesn't much matter to me. How many times have you actually gone to one of these categories? For me, the answer is "practically never". Still, I do try to append these categories, out of almost slavish habit. If I was really forced to answer your question directly, though, I'd say that, yes, if a person is obviously of an age that would mean they lived in the previous century, they should be in both categories. But it should be obvious. I remember recently taking down the 19th century individuals cat from someone in Victory of the Daleks, because it was by no means certain that the individual would have been 42 years old at the time of Victory. But should (most) of the kids in Human Nature be considered 19th century people? I think so, but no one is really going to comb through these categories to weed out the "possibles" from the "definites". Frankly, I'm of the opinion that if categories get so large as to require clicking through multiple pages just to get through the alphabet, that category is too large to be useful. And Category:20th century individuals is certainly a massive cat like that. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 17:47, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
