Since the category of Borg Drones has been dropped from Picard and Seven of Nine, (which makes sense to me), perhaps we should remove all former Borg drones from that category and create a new one. While such articles may not be appropriate for a current Borg drones cat, I still think it is valuable to collect former drones in a cat.--31dot 21:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Logically a sub-cat of the current Borg one. Agreed. -- sulfur 22:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
After a second and no posted opposition, I've created this category. Further comments are welcome.--31dot 14:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree with the logic of this, as I don't think a whole lot of thought went into this in relation to how other categories are applied. If someone was once a Starfleet officer, or once served on a certain ship, but no longer does, we don't remove the category tag from their article. What if that ship was destroyed? Theoretically Category:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) personnel shouldn't exist, and the entire category should be under Category:Former USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) personnel. But doing something like only complicates issues and would ultimately turn this whole site onto its side. Our logic here has always been to take the simplest most direct approach: if they've been part of something once, and we have a category for it, then they shall always remain in that category. R.M. Merik is classified here with a SF personnel tag but washed out and moved on with his life, we still never forgot something he once was. Worf, for example, and as far as we know, as of Star Trek Nemesis, is no longer a member of the Category:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) personnel | Category:Klingon military personnel | Category:Deep Space 9 personnel | Category:IKS Rotarran personnel | Category:Ambassadors | Category:Governors, rather than a "Former [insert previous category here]". (Hell, technically, he may never even become a Governor, so how can we apply a perspective differentiating current and former borg drones, when we are at the same time categorizing someone with something they haven't become yet?) Finally, what of Benjamin Sisko, how should we apply the category system to him? He is a Prophet, nothing more, nothing less, but especially nothing that he was once categorized as.
- As an aside, why exactly are Locutus of Borg and Jean-Luc Picard apart in two separate articles, yet Seven of Nine and Annika Hansen are one, or Third of Five and Hugh, and several other drone/former drone combinations? Another lapse in consistency. --Alan 20:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I only suggested this as a response to removing Picard and Seven from the Borg drones cat, which was done on the reasoning that they weren't Borg when we last saw them. I was just trying to go with what else had been going on regarding this issue and acting on my belief that it is still valuable to have this information grouped together.
I would argue that being a Borg is different than being a Starfleet officer or a member of the Enterprise-D crew. It's forced on you, and its reversal is the exception rather than the rule, which makes it noteworthy. It's not noteworthy(in terms of categories) when or how someone left Starfleet, or if the Enterprise-D doesn't exist anymore.
Again, I was just following the logic of what had been done already. If we want to change it back, I can live with that, but we should get this matter fleshed out first.
Regarding Worf's categorization, I think that if the POV of MA is omniscient, that there is nothing wrong with categorizing people as what they were depicted as in an alternate timeline. Otherwise, what time or year would be deemed as the cutoff?--31dot 20:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- If the omniscient is indeed the approach we are taking, then should be applied universally, and this new category is as irrelevant as the rest I just "made up" for this discussion. And yes, my removal of the drone category from the Seven of Nine page was an MA:POINT attempt, solely for the purpose of getting a discussion started, because the old fashioned post and wait doesn't usually work, at least not as well discuss little, change a lot approach. :) --Alan 21:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate the attention you are bringing, as I'd like to get some decision settled on with this as well, as someone whose been involved.--31dot 21:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Categories are supposed to make it easy to find information. This subcategory is sensible, useful and builds the web. I reject the comparison to "Former crew of a ship that was destroyed" for a couple of reasons, but the strongest one is that there are no current crew of such, therefore no subcategorizing would be warranted. Besides that, I don't buy that the more-simply-named category "shouldn't exist" - we use the simplest names we can. There wouldn't be any reason to name that category with a pedantic extra qualifier which only would beg the question. In the given example of "Former Starfleet personnel", I ask, why the Xmas should there not be such a subcategory? Is anyone afraid of the idea that, since categories don't nest, such a person as Merik could be categorized as both "SF personnel" and "former SF personnel"? That Hugh could be found if I were to look up Drones as well as Former drones? Whatevs. Let's inform and entertain, not obscure valid data. --TribbleFurSuit 09:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)