Memory Alpha

Memory Alpha:Category suggestion archive

40,559pages on
this wiki
Memory Alpha  AboutPolicies and guidelinesCategory treeCategory suggestions → Category suggestion archive

Vote on the procedure to vote on categoriesEdit

Please sign in the appropriate subsection if you agree or disagree. If you disagree, give a reason. If, after 5 days, there's no unresolved disagreement and at least three people agree, this procedure should be considered accepted.

Procedure accepted after 5 days. -- Cid Highwind 00:21, 2004 Dec 28 (CET)


  • Cid Highwind 23:08, 22 Dec 2004 (CET)
  • Mike, Kobi and EtaPiscium already supported some of the categories suggested below - I'd like to count that as an implicit agreement to this suggestion to get things started. Let me know if this is incorrect. -- Cid Highwind 12:32, 2004 Dec 26 (CET)


Category votes now occur on subpages to Memory Alpha:Category tree.

Archived suggestionsEdit

In-universe categoriesEdit


Since we have a list page called Individuals, why not make Category:Nonhumans to encompass those, and all other individuals that don't fit into Category:Romulans, Category:Humans, Category:Klingons, et al? I'd image it would get quite large, but we could always splinter the Delta Quad individuals from the rest. --Alan del Beccio 21:04, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • Before I vote on this, are you saying the Nonhumans would not include those species who already have their own categories, i.e. Romulans and Klingons? I'm not sure if that would be right, since those races are nonhumans, after all. Then again, that would make it extremely large. Hmmm... --From Andoria with Love 06:43, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be Category:Aliens or something similarly neutral? "Nonhumans" misleadingly gives the impression that it covers everything which isn't human, rather than what you said above. Makon 01:58, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • While "nonhumans" does sound kinda messy, Aliens wouldn't really be right either as it could be taken as "Category:Species", and it's not from the POV I think we want. Although I agree new suggestions are probably needed. - AJHalliwell 02:09, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is at all misleading, and is, in fact, quite clear in the way it is laid out. All other "non-humans" that do not belong to the sub-categories listed on the adjacent page would go in the list. --Alan del Beccio 03:24, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

People by century (11-07-05)Edit

I suggest categorizing various people (all members of a sentient species) by the century in which they lived. When near completed, it would be a pretty large category. The Categories would be:

and perhaps even a Category:Alternate timeline people to categorize any articles on people seen in alternate timelines/alternate universes (not alternate versions of a regular universe character) with a possible subcategory being Category:Mirror universe people (although that might take away from the Mirror universe category).--Tim Thomason 19:31, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The problem with this (I brought this up several times already in response to similar suggestions) is that a too fine subcategorization scheme makes the whole thing too noisy - we would end up with so many categories for each article, that, while the category page might be a nice listing of articles, the equally important category listing on the article page would be humongous and nearly useless. Take Picard for example, he would appear in Distant Past, Early History, 21st Century, 24th Century and Future if I'm not missing anything - combine that with the already existing bunch of "XXX personnel" and other people categories, add some other potential or already-suggested subcategories, shake thoroughly, and you might end up with well over 20 categories or more for some of the main articles. Because of that, I don't agree with this suggestion - what about a collection of good, old lists instead? :) -- Cid Highwind 20:00, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that many Wikipedia articles have "YYYY births" and "YYYY deaths" categories, I find those very useful, and while not feasible in Memory Alpha, I figured something along the lines of 23d century people, etc. would be equally useful. I should have also stipulated that I don't think little time travel adventures should count at which century they are from. So, Picard would just be 24th century, Kirk just 23rd, McCoy and Spock would be 23rd and 24th, April would be 22nd and 23rd, and T'Pol would be 21st and 22nd. I think these categories, if accepted, would be one of the main and easiest-to-use categories and would apply to virtually every person category on Memory Alpha. This doesn't seem to be very feasible as a list (unlike, say, Category:Starbases or Category:Episodes, or virtually any of the categories that I have suggested above). I personally feel this is one of the more "broader" categories, but, oh well.--Tim Thomason 22:30, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I don't see a reason for this. We've got year ref.'s on almost every page as is. - AJHalliwell 20:35, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Starfleet ranks (11-07-05)Edit

With Category:Starfleet captains already around, I think that maybe they should have categories for all of the ranks. The pages for Starfleet commanders, Starfleet lieutenants, and Starfleet ensigns are already categorized into the "nonexistant" categories (albeit erroneously).

and maybe even Category:Starfleet civilian personnel to cover all probable civilians working on Starfleet ships and at Starfleet bases (Boothby, Mot, etc.).--Tim Thomason 12:57, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I Oppose cat's for Lieutenants, Ensigns, Commander, Admirals, etc. Captain's is iffy even, cause as ranking goes, people get promoted. Technically, if there was an admiral, we could assume they were a lieutenant, a lieutenant (JG) an ensign, a captain, a commander; numerous references that aren't really necessary. Enlisted I support though. - AJHalliwell 22:21, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but we shouldn't assume like that. Most Admirals have never been seen or referred to as any of the ranks, and according to my suggestion (I didn't make this clear) only people either seen with the rank, in the proper timeline, or mentioned with the rank (Picard was a lieutenant when...' etc.) would be categorized. That would shorten it up compared to what you're suggesting. None of the admirals are categorized as Captain, except a couple who were seen as captains. Also, I don't see any problem with an Admiral category, compared to the others.--Tim Thomason 19:40, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I agree with AJ - because it sort of breaks Memory Alpha's typical point of view, because we'd still end up with some articles categorized in several categories and because, apparently, the existing category for starfleet captains hasn't gone through this approval process (or has it? its talk page is empty). Oppose and either remove the starfleet captain category or, perhaps, rework it into a Category:Captains for all characters that captained a ship (not restricted to Starfleet)


I suggest a list of each device/technology accompanied by its planet/civilization of origin (unless developed simultaneously by different planets, which would include the planets developing it).--Mike Nobody 04:09, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

This would be a list article, not a category (categories are alphabetical lists without further comments by design). Oppose as a category, but you might still want to create a "standard" article... -- Cid Highwind 13:20, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

From Ten ForwardEdit

I've got a category suggestion, I know there's a place for such things, but I forget where it is, feel free to move this. I'd like to see Species Unknown or something with the same meaning in order to compile the characters whose species are unknown, rather then creating pages for each one. I'm refering to the list that is starting to form under By Individual at Unnamed humanoids. Jaf 23:57, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Is this the same as that suggestion for "unnamed nonhumans" below? Otherwise, could you be a little more specific about its possible content and name? -- Cid Highwind 12:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Federation MembersEdit

Category:Federation Members

Self-explanatory, though I really can't decide if this should apply to species, planets, or both.--T smitts 17:26, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Support: First of all, I would change the name to Category:Federation members, to conform to our capitalization standards. Then I would use the list at Federation members (a list of Planets) and use the Founding, Council, Other known, and Probable members sections of that page (about 33 member planets, from Aaamazzara to Zaran II). I wouldn't use anything else from that page, but we might have to categorize some species (Zaldans, Medusans, Saurians, Napeans) whose planet is unknown, or we could make a bunch of "Zaldan Homeworld" etc. pages and categorize them as Federation members.--Tim Thomason 00:08, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the moment: The question whether this applies to species, planets or both is one that we already discussed about two years ago, probably on the talk page of the "Federation members" page - and although my opinion of this has changed a little since then, I still don't think there's a definite answer either way. If we can't even decide (based on canon info) if we should include one or the other, we probably shouldn't start a category. And if we do anyway, we should only include definite members, not the proabble ones. -- Cid Highwind 21:09, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Inhabited Star systems?Edit

I was looking at the star systems page earlier and it's a constantly growing page with no sub-divisions. I was wondering whether a sub-category might be appropriate for Inhabited star systems. It would list only those systems which were stated or seen to be inhabited by a known lifeform. Any system only mentioned, but not mentioned as inhabited, or any system seen but not shown to be inhabited would reside in the main category. Just seems like it would be a good way to break up the length of hte category in a helpful manner with an easy distinction. --Logan 5 01:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It is usually easiest to establish a category from a reference list of some sort. Is there such a list on the site? --Alan del Beccio 02:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we had a lengthy discussion while trying to determine exactly which planets were inhabited and which weren't some time ago - so I'd like to see a list first, too, to see if this really works. -- Cid Highwind 20:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's this list: Inhabited planets which would def. be a start. It's incomplete but any planet on this list would obviously have its parent system included. Logan 5 21:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

So wouldnt it be easier to go with Category:Inhabited planets? --Alan del Beccio 05:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
My vote is for Category:Inhabited planets as well. It's more specific, and gives a finer level of detail than one for inhabited star systems. -- Renegade54 15:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
First, this isn't an either/or question. We might want to decide to split up the star systems category, the planets category, both or neither. If the question here is whether to split up one category, working on the other won't help at all. Going back to just the star systems category, I have to ask: Will splitting up this category really help? It has about 230 entries now, which isn't too much, and the proposed split still seems rather artificial to me - any system that was being mentioned as "inhabited" might have a striving population of billions, or just some dozen scientists on a space station in the middle of nowhere. Any other system, too, might in fact be uninhabited, or have a population that was just not mentioned. Regarding this, I don't know if a split is really worth all that, considering that we would necessarily destroy a reference page for all star systems in the process (this would also be true for the planets category, of course). Why not have categories for the generic type and list articles for any subset of that? -- Cid Highwind 15:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Milky Way and UniverseEdit

In MA-fr, I created specific organisation categories rather than planets because it includes many other things. For example, Category:Qo'noS include articles about houses, klingon food, animals who are not necessarly related to the planet Qo'noS, that's why I created a more general category called "Klingon Empire", which can include Klingon starships, klingon territory (planets),... The same applies to Category:Romulus (Romulan Star Empire) and other great organisations. I think only Earth and Bajor should be categories in this manner because many entries are related to these planets. But I think they are badly categorized in Category:Planets because although they are planets, they cannot be called a subdivision of "planets" like "M-class planets". In the same way, the organizations categories I suggest ("Klingon Empire", "Dominion", "Romulan Star Empire", "UFP", "Borg Collective", "Ferengi Alliance", "Cardassian Union") are "organisations" but should not be categorized as subdivision of Category:Organizations. That's why I've created another category more general which is "Milky Way" which includes those great organisations (because Dominion, Federation, Borg Collective... cover great portion of territory in the Milky Way) and planets which big background like Earth or Bajor. Many other articles will be related to the Milky Way category : Alpha Quadrant, Galactic barrier, ... as well as the categories Planets, Category:Sectors, Category:Star systems, :Category:Cities.
Milky Way is also a subcategory of "Univers" which also includes many categories and articles like "Species", "Mirror-Universe", "Q Continuum"... - Philoust123 11:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ship categories Edit

I think the following categories are needed:

  • Prometheus class
  • Defiant class
  • Sovereign class
  • Escort ships
  • Tactical cruisers
  • Starship technology
  • --Arado 17:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose all except Starship technology. We only have one Prometheus class, on Sovereign, and one escort. I don't even think tactical cruiser is a canon classification. As for defiant, we already have a template that links them. Jaz talk | novels 17:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Where is that template?--Arado 17:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
{{DefiantClassStarships}} --Kobi - (Talk)
  • Oppose XXX class: since we don't have individual ship pages the articles would be over-categorised. Logical consequence is to oppose "Escort ships" and "Tactical cruisers" as well, because they could only act as super-categories -- Kobi - (Talk) 18:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Deep Space StationsEdit

Category:Deep Space stations this is a minor category that can list all the Deep Space stations mentioned Deep Spaces 3,4,5,7,9, K-7 Hazzer 04:11, 01 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. As I said with the creation of Deep space station (see its Talk:Deep space station), we already have a category for space stations (see? :D), so I really don't see the need for this one. --From Andoria with Love 04:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

A Category for: Command-level programs?Edit

I would like to see a category that groups pages like Red alert, Saucer separation, Multi-vector assault mode, Yellow alert, Blue alert and Counter-insurgency program. Also, the Self-destruct program would fit into this category, along with Voyager's landing sequence etc. Basically, any program that is activated that affects the entire ship or space-station. Of course, the name of the category would take a bit of thinking about. Zsingaya 08:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose, do we have a list of things for this? I don't think we'd have enough, and "Command-leve" isn't quite accurate: as The Doctor, who didn't have even a level 3 (i think) level authorization was able to activate multi-vector assault mode. - AJ Halliwell 09:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Earth sub-categoriesEdit

Earth transportationEdit

Earth RegionsEdit

Technical Difficulties Edit

Category:Technical Difficulties would just be a place for pages like Warp_core_breach, Hull breach, and Neutron fatigue to call home. With all the technobabble and problems the Enterprise(s), Voyager, Defiant, and Deep Space 9 run into, I don't see how this wouldn't be a full category. --6/6 Neural Transceiver 07:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I do support a category for such events, but I'm not crazy about the name... unfortunately, I currently have no ideas for another name... --From Andoria with Love 11:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not married to the name either, just wanted a place to put these articles and others like it. --6/6 Neural Transceiver 22:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Support, with a better name. -- Renegade54 19:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
It just occurred to me that some of these topics might even better be moved to their respective main article, don't you think? Why do we have a separate article about the failure of technology X, instead of just a section in the article about that technology? -- Cid Highwind 14:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow. From what I read, you are suggesting that we include warp core breach with warp core? Wouldn't that be like merging gorch with skin or headache with brain? I guess either way, oppose, I don't like the idea based on the evidence presented to support this suggestion. --Alan del Beccio 17:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Food categoriesEdit

We have one existing example of further splitting up the Category:Earth foods with Category:Earth herbs and spices. I suggest some more categories here, like Category:Earth soups including soups,bouillons,broths and stews and Category:Earth pastry for all those cookies,cakes etc. Kennelly 17:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure a fine-grained categorization as this would be necessary. We'd end up with a bunch of subcategories with only 5-10 items, fast. -- Cid Highwind 23:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Archived --Alan del Beccio 04:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


I'm not so much into the whole category thing, but I was surprised that no Category:Homeworlds exists as of yet, it seems extremely useful, and was also suggested as part of several complex "category tree" suggestions here. Anyway, my rationale: this would most logically be implemented as a subcategory of Category:Planets and I guess there would be more than enough candidates for the category. (in fact, I'm volunteering myself to boldly go seeking out homeworlds on MA and tagging them as such). Capricorn 06:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not totally convinced of this as yet... Perhaps coming up with a list and putting it on your userpage or as a subpage of such might help give an idea of the actual numbers? If it does pass, I would agree to it being a subcategory, and would suggest that it replace the planet category on the article. -- Sulfur 16:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
If that category replaces Category:Planets on homeworld pages, that would break Planets (formerly a list article listing all planets by name, now a redirect to the planet category which is still supposed to have the same functionality). Alternatives would be making the suggested category an additional one (with all the problems of duplicate categorization we already discussed elsewhere), or starting this as a list of homeworlds on Homeworlds (which, I just found that out by previewing this comment, already exists. Wow). -- Cid Highwind 17:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't your worries about breaking functionality be more or less solved just simply by making "homeworlds" a subcategory? I agree that double classification is messy, which is why some more or less arbitrary lists on MA like First planets, Delphic Expanse planets, Romulan planets, etc would not be good subcategories, but there are definatly subcategories that could work. For example, if next to a "homeworld" subcategory you add subcategories for "colonies" and "uninhabited planets", there (baring perhaps some odd cases) would be zero overlap, and the list would not only not lose functionality, but actualy gain some, as they are now categorised by some very basic and very usefull key characteristics. (note that this is not an expansion of the proposal, but rather a weird attempt at trying to explain my vision of how this could enhance MA). On a sidenote, thanks for pointing out the Homeworlds page, can't believe I missed that while researching this, but it will make for the perfect consolidation should this category not be created :). And sulfur, I guess that page will adress your doubts about the numbers too. -- Capricorn 04:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I was more thinking about the alphabetical list of all planets that now exists. What, if someone is looking for a planet he only knows part of the name of? Right now, it would be one lookup in the central "planets" list - then, it would be a lookup in 3-4 lists. Also, part of my "breaking functionality" concern was regarding the possible use of DPLs (see: Forum:DPL extension to generate lists, I even used the "planets" category there as an example). Maybe there's a way to make sense of a categorization as both "planet" and "homeworld", but I'm not sure of that at the moment... -- Cid Highwind 09:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Archived --Alan 03:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Starfleet divisions Edit

I was looking at Sciences division and command division and operations division and noticed none of them had a category so what about a Category:Starfleet divisions, unless there is some other category they belong in.--UESPA 19:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps they could go under Agencies? Groups? I'm neutral on this right now, I'mnot convinced yet that these three need a seperate category.--31dot 20:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What about as a sub category of Agencies?--UESPA 23:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Or Category:Starfleet? Question is, what do you want to put in these categories? The officers who served in these divisions? In that case Category:Starfleet personnel could be thinned by placing those individuals into smaller categories. --Alan del Beccio 23:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking that the original idea for this category was to simply place the divisions withing their own category(please correct me if I am wrong), but I could see dividing the Starfleet personnel up by category. I'm not sure if that would be another issue, though. Responding to the above, I could see it as a subcategory of Starfleet.--31dot 23:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
With only three divisions, I don't think the divisions need their own category or even sub-category. Category:Starfleet would be a good place for it, methinks; after all, Starfleet division is already placed there. --From Andoria with Love 23:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Archived --Alan 21:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Klingon women Edit

Pretty self-explanatory. We don't really have any articles that look at things from a feminist point of view; I think this makes MA seem very un-encyclopedic. Maybe this is a starting point? --- Jaz 01:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Klingon women as a starting point for a feminist revolution on M/A? Why not Human women or for that matter, Klingon men, as a starting point for dividing up categories into sexes that could never be completed? Certainly I could see picking something that has a sizable population in a category. Otherwise, at this time, I oppose. The neutral point of view, in this case, would be the most encyclopedic. --Alan 01:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Those are all good ideas Alan Category:Women_by_occupation. What I'm suggesting here is another step in categorization and pretty encyclopedic. Since when is "could never be completed" a deterrence in wikis? --- Jaz 01:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • One other point; the portrayal of women in Star Trek, specifically Klingon women has been an area of discussion not only among fans, but even in academic circles (do a Google Scholar search of "Women in Star Trek"; it yields numerous articles). --- Jaz 01:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Leaning Oppose. I agree with Alan that being neutral is best. I could potentially see Female and Male categories, instead of Human females, Klingon Females, Ferengi females, etc., but splitting up each race into the sexes is too much.--31dot 22:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I've got to agree with 31dot and Alan, oppose. Especially 31dot, maybe seperate them into male and female, but not into specific categories. So unless you know that the only readers are going to be female or the only readers are going to be male, it really wouldn't be encyclopedic to write it from either point of view.--UESPA 22:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • You know, even in separating them into "women" and "men" you'd either have to see them to know with 100% certainty that they are a man or a woman, and even then, not knowing the specifics of each species gender assignment, you could only assume that if a male or female actor portrayed them, then they must be male or female. Too much guess work. So, even if you were to weed out the small portion of known males and females of, say humans or klingons, you still have a large list of individuals whose gender is not know that would still remain in the main category, therefore instead of having one centralized location for each individual of a species, you have to thumb through three category pages to browse one species. Unlike wikipedia, which we are not, we cannot work with the same certainty that they work with when creating and describing categories. --Alan 00:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to clarify that I was not necessarily advocating doing such a thing with male and female categories, I was only saying that I could understand such a thing. Personally, I don't feel that it is necessary.--31dot 19:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Clear oppose, for the reasons stated above. Even a category set independent of some specific species (just "Male"/"Female", as suggested above) would be either really speculative, or really incomplete and useless. Generally, I don't see the need to have articles written "from a feminist point of view" (or any other subjective POV, for that matter), so that shouldn't be the basis for a set of categories, either. -- Cid Highwind 11:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to muddy the waters a little; what about the Cogenitors from the Vissian species and the J'naii? ---- Willie LLAP 18:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify my comment I didn't advocate adding male or female categories I was just saying it made more sense to seperate them into male and female than into species specific male or female categories. Also if (once again not saying do it) you were to do that you could also add something like asexuals or something along those lines. Long Live the United Earth

Shapeshifting Species Edit

To be based on Shapeshifting species. It is a fairly common phenomenon in Trek, with about 14 species listed on that page. – Cleanse 01:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Native AmericansEdit

Category:Native Americans. I think we have a few here and I think an own category as a subcategory of Category:Humans would be good. Thoughts? – Tom 22:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what sort of precedent that would set, and whether it would be good or not. A few random thoughts- Does that mean Blacks, Whites, Asians, all should have their own category? What about different races of aliens, like Tuvok? How do we know various people aren't of mixed racial ancestry? Humans in Star Trek rarely mention their racial differences or race with regards to other humans( "Badda-Bing, Badda-Bang") is a rare exception) so I wonder if that needs to be done here. --31dot 00:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't really like this suggestion. First, for the reasons stated above - it would set a precedent to separate by racial difference, something the shows itself try to avoid, That, and we don't really know the ancestry of many characters, so such a category would necessarily be very incomplete and speculative. Second, for a more technical reason - separating some "Humans" into a subcategory would (obviously) mean that not all humans are listed in Category:Humans any longer. The alternative would be to categorize an article as both "Human" and "Native American" (plus more categories that would probably follow), which would just bloat the category listing on the article. -- Cid Highwind 15:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Unless you just considered it a group, but that would really only make partial sense if we were describing a specific "tribe" versus an entire people. Also, it would seem that we go so far as to indicate all the characters of the American Indian heritage on that page, but not so with Asians, Africans, etc.... --Alan 20:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I understand the doubts and they are clear. Perhaps a too fast proposal. – Tom 12:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Warp technology Edit

What about a Category:Warp technology considering that there is so much information dealing with warp technology and at least a couple don't have categories.--UESPA 18:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Other than being more limited (an probably a subcat of), how would it be different than Category:Propulsion technology? --OuroborosCobra talk 18:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Because there is a lot about warp technology and if you're looking specifically for that it makes more sense to have it at least partially (making it a sub category makes sense to) seperated. Also propulsion technology is somewhat vague.--UESPA 19:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see the possibility of it being a sub-category of the Propulsion Tech. UESPA, create a list of articles for this category in your user space and link it from here so that people can see what you're talking about. -- Sulfur 00:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that I've taken another look at it there is so much warp technology in Category:Propulsion technology that 90% of everything in there would be in this proposed category. (I've got to learn to think before I start typing).--UESPA 05:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:East SlavicEdit

I recently became curious about the number of ships in Star Trek of Russian origin and/or naming, after poking around, and not finding the answers easily, I created a nav box (Russian named Spacecraft) to summarize the answers I had found.

Shortly thereafter said creation was met with some resistance, and I quickly realized that I should have worked towards a new category. Such a category would include those articles closely associated by origin or name with Russia/USSR etc. In forming the proposal I also realized that neither Russian nor Soviet) were technically the most accurate name for my suggestion (since either has time related political overtones) either resulting in the following proposal:

This category includes people, places, and things of East Slavic (Russian, Ukrainian, & Belorussian) origin or naming. Their contributions to space exploration are especially notable as the "other half" of the space race.

The category would be In-universe, and along with the spacecraft, would also include articles on the countries, languages, and places involved (such as the Baikonur Cosmodrome). The category would also as noted include characters such as Pavel Chekov. –MJBurrage(TC) 21:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose category, for the reasons stated here. The information should be placed on either the Russian or Russia page.--31dot 22:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose most definitely. We've never even heard of this term in universe, as well as the other problems I've already stated. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Whatever the category is specifically called, how is it any more or less appropriate than a Shakespeare category? –MJBurrage(TC) 04:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Because Shakespeare, many a time, is actually given importance relative to Star Trek, such as numerous times with Picard, "The Conscience of the King", Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, just to name a few. The same most definitely cannot be said of "East Slavic", or Russia in general (beyond one naive junior officer with a penchant for claiming everything was Russian in origin, who everyone else dismissed). Again, I still feel this is based more out of interest of a single editor than anything relevant in universe or out of universe. I'm not trying to discredit your personal interest, I just feel that this isn't the way to serve it. As far as Star Trek is concerned, "Russia" hasn't been given anymore importance that I have seen than "Australia". --OuroborosCobra talk 06:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Film/TV Production Edit

Specifically we could use a page/category for Jobs in film crews. I mean we have the reverse, where someone can search a movie and looking in the credits for what a specific person did in that movie. However I think it would be useful for someone to look for all "Camera Assistants" or "Special Effects artists" or whatever. It seems this would be logical? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jlandeen (talk • contribs).

We have a number of those already. They're not by specific job, but rather by department at the moment. -- sulfur 18:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that, it is a rather broken setup, for example some of the categories do not exist, and some are named oddly making them hard to find. I would propose we still keep those categories, with a "Master" Category. This would include something like:

Accounting, Art department, Assistant directing, Camera / video, Cast, Casting, Consultants and technical advisers, Costumes, Craft service, Directing, Editorial, Grip department, Illustrators, Labor / Animals, Location department, Make-up and hair, Medical, Models, Music, Producing, Production, Property, Screenplay, Script supervision, Set production assistants, Sets / Rigging, Sound, Special effects, Stand-ins, Story, Stunts, Transportation, Unit Production, Visual effects, Wardrobe department, Writing,

Now normally I am not a fan of "sub-Categories" but in such a large topic this could only HELP the visitor locate necessary information. thoughts?--Jlandeen 19:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the main category at the top is Category:Production staff. The original discussions on the creation of that category and its sub-categories is at its talk page. Now, one huge issue that I can see with creating things like "camera assistants" and "cameramen" is that you may have a lot in the "assistants" category, and only one in the "cameraman" one. That's not such good category design. Perhaps some of them do not have the best names, but the overall design still holds well, I think. -- sulfur 20:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well As I proposed above, instead of having "Camera assistants" you have a listing in the "FILM / TV" category for "Camera/ Video." This allows you to throw in the "camera assistants," "Film loaders" and what haves you into that section. My proposal is not to COMPLICATE things, but rather to condense and make a single page all the current scrambled ones can be accessed from. Thus Production Staff is not fitting, nor is it adequate. This leaves out non-production categories which are numerous and without category.--Jlandeen 20:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So... the category for them would be in the Category:Camera and electrical department. That encompasses cameramen, assistants, film loaders, and so forth. We based the original categories on the breakdowns used by IMDB which is the same breakdown that actual productions use. Look at the subcategories. Production staff is only the top level. What other "non-production" categories are you suggesting? May I suggest that you put together a suggest layout with suggested category names underneath like was originally done on the talk page. It sounds like we're talking at cross purposes here, and if that continues, we're not going to be able to go anywhere. -- sulfur 20:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Any followup on this, or shall we archive this? -- sulfur 20:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Not much support, i'd say archive?--Jlandeen 22:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Events, missions, projects and expeditions Edit

We have several events, missions, projects and expeditions, but I cannot think of a unilateral term to encompass them all. Here is the list, compiled from the list of uncategorized pages: Arias Expedition, Axanar Peace Mission, Bolian Operation, Fornax Disaster, Great Diaspora, Operation Lovely Angel, Operation Retrieve, Operation Watson, Pathfinder Project, Particle Fountain Project, shakedown cruise, Vulcan reunification, Vulcanian expedition, Xindi reunification. --Alan del Beccio 21:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Good call, but I have no idea on a single name, either. Maybe the items you list are still too diverse to be listed under one category? "Mission" could probably encompass all those "Operations", but "Project"? Not sure... -- Cid Highwind 00:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I like this, too, but don't know what to call it either. -- Renegade54 14:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I like this idea as well, perhaps calling it "Events"? Perhaps the category of Military Conflicts should be a subcategory of it, or at least this new category should be clearly defined as being nonmilitary.--31dot 15:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I support creating an events category, with military conflicts (and any other applicable existing cats) as subcategories.– Cleanse 23:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Re-opening this. I also support the "Events" category. ---- Willie LLAP 16:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I like this idea. Maybe call it 'Starfleet operations', and then have a seperate category for other operations. --- Jaz 22:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
What about a category Category:Events and missions ? – Tom 13:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Tom, those are kind of two different things though. The current break down is more than just one thing, and ranges from "political and social movements" (Vulcan reunification, Great Diaspora, Xindi reunification, Axanar Peace Mission [which could go into Category:Culture somewhere]) to "natural disasters" (Fornax Disaster, the closest thing we have to an "event") to "Starfleet expeditions" (Vulcanian expedition, Arias Expedition) to "Starfleet training missions" (Operation Lovely Angel, shakedown cruise) to "special projects/programs to develop new technology" (Operation Watson, Pathfinder Project, Particle Fountain Project) to "other" (Bolian Operation, Operation Retrieve) -- in other words, you really cant nail it all down with one word. --Alan 20:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest we get an Events category created first, and then debate what it should be divided into, if that is neccesary. That said, events involving Starfleet could be categorized in the Starfleet category in addition to Events("Category for all things Starfleet").--31dot 20:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you missed entirely what I was saying. Not all of these really qualify as "events", per se...not at least without a concrete definition first. --Alan 20:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I got what you said, but I thought that you were proposing subdividing such a category into more specific ones, in order to better define them. I was only saying that such a debate could come later.--31dot 20:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Banned Items/SubstancesEdit

On the talk page for the Crimes category we have been discussing the idea of a category for banned items, objects, or substances. To get ideas on a potential name for this category I have started this thread. I 'll put my vote in for either Banned Materials or Banned Substances. I'm not sure if either of those covers objects as well as substances, but I can't think of anything better.--31dot 21:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Support – I think maybe "Banned Materials" as it covers more, but if someone can think of a better title, that would be good.– Cleanse 23:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I see some problems there: First, we would have to make sure that only objects really mentioned as "banned" show up there - for example, the fact that vole fighting is illegal somewhere doesn't make a vole a banned item itself. Second, where does an item need to be banned? Using the vole example again, it might be a crime in Bajoran space, but not necessarily under Federation law. Third, when does an item need to be banned? Romulan ale, for example, was briefly "unbanned" during the Dominion War, and we can't be sure whether a potential 23rd-century banned item is still banned in the 24th century. -- Cid Highwind 12:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The Vole fighting crime now exists, and I don't believe it was ever said that Voles in and of themselves were illegal(pests, maybe, but not illegal), so I removed the crimes cat from that and it doesn't need to be listed as a banned item.
As to your other points, I think the where and when is immaterial to any categorization of it as banned. The same thing could be said for any crime- maybe murder is legal somewhere in the galaxy(among the Chalnoth, perhaps). Also, look at bribery, which is illegal in some places but legal on Ferenginar. That doesn't mean it should be removed as a crime. A banned materials category would contain any materials which are or have been banned, and thus were crimes to possess or obtain. A change in status doesn't remove its previous status, Tuvok is categorized as a Borg drone even though he is no longer one, because he was one at one point. The article itself will note when and where the item was banned. I don't think we need to speculate about what happened to the ban subsequent to the episode.--31dot 12:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess what I'm really trying to say is: If this category definition is a little "iffy", and we only have four known members at the moment, anyway - wouldn't it be better to at least start this as a list somewhere, instead of making it a full category right now? I think this list could be added to the Smuggling article, where it would also keep a direct connection to the Crimes category. By the way, the best title, whether it's for a category or a list section, would probably be Contraband... -- Cid Highwind 17:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I like the sound of Contraband for a name. If it ends up as a list it could be its own article, I think. I support simply a list if that's what is settled on, but I think a category is best.--31dot 18:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
"Contraband" could work. In response to your concern for lack of numbers, I think there's a few more that just weren't listed as crimes in the first page. Here's a list I got so from googling "illegal" on MA:
Possibly more if the article uses roundabout terminology or doesn't currently mention the illegality.– Cleanse 01:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a bit too vague of a topic. Unlike other categories, where we generally link together common people, places, or objects, this is a mismatch of things that are only one thing here, but another thing there. --Alan 21:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The crimes category is no different than what you describe. Bribery is illegal in some places, but not others(Ferenginar). A murder can be legal(or at least justified) in some instances and not others. Terrorists generally don't consider what they do to be illegal, even though it is considered such by those the terrorism is directed against. I suspect Vole fights are legal in some parts of the galaxy. The where and when is immaterial to whether something is classified as illegal. The same should be true of contraband. --31dot 00:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I never said I agreed that "Crimes" was a good idea for category... --Alan 06:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The way I see it, "Crimes" and "Contraband" are exactly the same for the purposes of this "one thing here, but another thing there" argument (and also for Cid's note that it's unclear when something is banned, for the same thing can be said for when something is a crime) So either we delete Cat: Crimes or allow Cat: Contraband. I certainly think the latter is best, as I think Category:Crimes is absolutely essential to categorise all the criminal offence pages, and works well as a supplement to the list at Crime. Here, would it hurt to have all items noted as illegal, regardless of the jurisdiction or time, in one category?
As I've said elsewhere, consistency is the key. :-) – Cleanse 13:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure I like the idea of having a "jumble" of different types of banned items... It seems of little use?--Jlandeen 18:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
We have "jumbles" of different Crimes. That category is useful to gather together all illegal activities. Why not something similar for objects, which are not appropriate for a category of activities?--31dot 18:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Well when I consider why a category should or should not be included, I consider a few things. First I say to myself, "If I were looking for something specific that would be contained in this category, how would this category help me find it." Secondly I think about organization. In both of these considerations I see problems with a "Contraband" category. First, consider looking for a contraband item. You may search for Varon-T disruptor or Venus drug, but I find it unlikely a user would think to search for "contraband" in researching the item. Additionally I do not think that there could be a clean organizational structure for the category. For starters, different races ban different things, so Romulans have little problem cutting people up with Varon-T's, yet the Federation ban's even owning one. So would you list all the races that ban each item? Or perhaps is it organized simply by each race, with a new category for what each considers contraband? I cannot say for sure that I am completely opposed to the idea, only that I think the effort could be put to better use in another situation.--Jlandeen 20:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I still think that a category is best, but I would propose a Contraband article as an alternative. The term has been used in canon, and aside from describing those examples it could also contain a list of illegal objects.--31dot 20:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Shapeshifters category Edit

Following a discussion at Category talk:Chameloids, I propose a Category:Shapeshifters to unify all the various lifeforms with this ability. Species specific categories like Category:Chameloids would become subcats. I choose "shapeshifter" as a generic name since that was how Odo was referred to in early seasons of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine before the proper names Founder and Changeling became known. Starfleetjedi 00:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to hear more about the scope of this proposed category before supporting it. For example, would this category contain the articles themselves, or just the categories of the relevant species?--31dot 01:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Would it make more sense to just leave Shape Shifting capabilities "categorized" inside Shapeshifting species? I mean, what would be the benefit of having an additional category for this separate from that?--Jlandeen 18:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
OOPS I see that Shapeshifting species is done alphabetically, perhaps we can kill two birds with one stone, and just reorganize Shapeshifting species by Shape Shifting type instead of alphabetically?--Jlandeen 18:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Homeworlds Edit

While looking through Uncategorized Pages, I found Homeworld. Under the "See also" section on that page, there is a link to Homeworlds that lists several homeworlds. Seems logical to have Category:Homeworlds with the Homeworld page at the top. Thoughts? ---- Willie LLAP 18:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, and didn't seem to gain any traction. Not neccesarily for or against it yet, just an observation.--31dot 20:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see that. Thanks, 31dot. If the concerns noted in the archived section haven't been addressed, I'll remove this suggestion. Does anyone know if those concerns are still valid? ---- Willie LLAP 20:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


Category:Military agencies. A category for any military agency, from the Andorian Imperial Guard to the Luftwaffe to Starfleet. There's quite a few listed in Category:Agencies and Category:Earth agencies.– Cleanse 00:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. If we have a Law enforcement agencies cat, we should have this one, too.--31dot 00:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. I'm surprised there wasn't one before.--Long Live the United Earth 13:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The military units category could be a subcat of this.--31dot 02:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I was going to make this category but I ran into an issue.

Agencies would have two subcategories. Articles would be able to be placed in one, both, or neither of "Earth" and "Military". So how do we deal with this for the Earth military agencies? Place them in both "Earth agencies" and "Military agencies", or make a further subcat: "Earth military agencies"? Thoughts? (I'm looking at you Alan ;-)– Cleanse 05:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... Personally, I'd prefer not to have the redundancies or numerous subcategories, but seeing how Category:Law enforcement agencies was handled, it would seem that the "Earth" ones were thrown out of the Category:Earth agencies altogether, and they (eg NYPD) exist only in the one category. I'd be in favor of doing as you suggested...list all Earth agencies in one category, and then let them trickle into other categories where they can co-exist with other planet's agencies. --Alan 21:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Starship classes moveEdit

Move all Category:Starship classes to Category:Spacecraft classes, or if we feel so inclined, "spacecraft types" vs. "classes." This applies to the subcategories, and is based on changes implemented at Category talk:Spacecraft. This move is based on the analysis that not all vessel classes listed in "starship classes" are starship classes... While making this move, it would probably be a good idea to create a new subcategory for Category:Federation starship classes, nay, Category:Federation spacecraft classes called Category:Federation shuttle classes (or "types") as there are several. --Alan 21:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't see a problem creating separate classes for spacecraft classes and types. I'm not sure if it's entirely necessary, though. "Spacecraft classes" doesn't sound very good, though... maybe "ship classes"? Eh, then I'd guess we'd have to include non-starfaring ships. Anyway, I support the cat move and creation of the sub-cat. --From Andoria with Love 21:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I like "ship classes", and if there are not starfaring ships in that list, we can break them into a separate sub-category quite easily. -- Sulfur 02:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Events Edit

Based on the two below, I purpose this tree under Lists:

I know Cid already said he didn't like the phenomena name, but from what I can tell, this would only cover Siren calls, the Nexus, and maybe the Fornax Disaster, all of which were naturally occurring as far as we know, and the disaster could just be placed under Events if it's a problem. - Archduk3 09:06, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

"Siren calls" and "Nexus" do in fact sound as if a "Phenomena" category might be appropriate for them - but in that case, I don't see how "Phenomena" could itself be categorized as "Event". "Fornax Disaster" is a disaster is an event, and not a phenomenon. However, the generic Supernova could be categorized as a phenomenon - in addition to or perhaps even instead of as an "astronomical object". In any case, Category:Astronomical objects should be checked for potential overlap or recategorization, and perhaps a suggestion be made how the new "phenomenon" category might relate to that objects category (if it needs to relate at all).
Regarding "Events" and subcats "Expeditions" and "Conflicts" - I'm no longer totally opposed to that, but at the same time, the categorization of expeditions as events somehow doesn't quite "feel" right. Sorry, can't express it any better at the moment. Are there any alternate suggestions regarding those? -- Cid Highwind 15:51, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Since "Astronomical objects" says it's for "all classifications of astronomical objects and phenomena", Phenomena could sub under it with some reshuffling of the pages already in AO.

As for Events and Expeditions, I would agree that the names aren't perfect, but they get the job done, and I'm out of ideas on that front. - Archduk3 23:16, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

In which case, the new category should perhaps at least be called "Astronomical phenomena", to make sure that no "other" phenomenon ends up in an astronomy subcat. Also - is every phenomenon really an "object"? The above-mentioned siren calls seem to not be. -- Cid Highwind 10:16, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Moving AP up to the same level as AO under Astronomy while moving any phenomena out of the objects cat should fix that. A good number of the pages in Astronomy could potentially end up in a AP category. - Archduk3 10:53, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Mission and expeditions Edit

A category to cover all expeditions and missions within the Federation as well as the ones from other species, such as Arias Expedition, Away mission, Omega training mission, Space shuttle missions, and Vulcanian expedition. – Tom 11:18, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Not a fan of the name, but support the idea. - Archduk3 13:33, September 21, 2009 (UTC)
Support. I would suggest simply "Events" as a name. As an aside, I seem to remember this or something similar being discussed before, and it didn't seem to gain traction. --31dot 20:57, September 21, 2009 (UTC)
This idea seems like it could also cover the pages listed for the proposed category below, if it was simply "Events". - Archduk3 16:46, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think an expedition can be subsumed under an "Event" category - or if it can, then this category title is so generic that it won't really be useful. I'm not opposed to the original suggestion, if a good title can be found, but I think "Event" isn't it. -- Cid Highwind 18:28, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
Expeditions could be a subcat of Events.--31dot 22:30, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
"Expeditions and Missions" seems to be a better name, because that would somewhat fit with the terminology used within the franchise, and "events" make me think of things more like a star going supernova or some sort of festival/fair, etc...--Terran Officer 22:49, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Interstellar incidents Edit

A category which could feature all interstellar events, including the wars but also Fornax Disaster or maybe the nexus, too. – Tom 11:18, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Since all the wars are already, or should be, under Category:Conflicts, I don't see the need for another category for them as well, though something like Category:Interstellar phenomena could cover the other two. - Archduk3 13:31, September 21, 2009 (UTC)
"Phenomena" is typically used to describe naturally occurring things - not "artificial" ones like wars or disasters. Oppose that suggested title. "Incident" isn't much different from "Event" (see suggestion above), and as such, probably to generic to be anything but a super-category for others. -- Cid Highwind 18:31, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
I would ask that if it allows us to add these pages, would creating a "super-category" really be a bad thing? - Archduk3 01:34, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
We'd still need a "sub-category" to actually place articles in - otherwise, not necessarily, no. -- Cid Highwind 17:27, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the idea behind it, but it seems to be that "Conflicts" sounds more like the 'parent' category then anything, at least as far as the kind of things as described in the examples go. Though, I must admit... I am a bit of at a lost at what to suggest for terms, because I can agree that not everything would be an 'incident' and 'event' just seems so... off. The race Tom Paris and B'Elanna Torres participated in (I forget the exact name, the episode where they wore those flight suits) would be an 'event' but the stand off between USS Enterprise-D seems more like a conflict, or if not that then...well I don't know, an incident of some sort, I guess or something else... damn, this is hard.--Terran Officer 22:55, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Quantum physics Edit

We certainly have a lot of articles that start with "quantum." I think we should have this cat. Thoughts? -Angry Future Romulan 16:23, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this for awhile, and I'm not sure the name would work, since I think most of the articles in Category:physics would also fall into this cat, instead of just the articles that start with "quantum". - Archduk3 06:47, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

Deceased characters‎ Edit

Category:Deceased characters‎ was just created by an anonymous user, and two pages were added to it. This needs to be discussed first, and I'd oppose using the category as is. First, it has a massive POV problem (if it is supposed to be an in-universe category, it shouldn't use the term "characters"), and also, there will be a problem with the many unknowns we have. -- Cid Highwind 16:05, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Been suggested before, and opposed for the same reasons. Not only that, but from the POV of MA, everyone's dead. :) -- sulfur 16:52, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. This is pointless if you read the article, or even the sidebar, or I (or someone else) actually gets around to finishing the casualty pages. Also, POV, etc. - Archduk3 21:27, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Ditto. --31dot 21:59, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

Multiple Actor Characters Edit

Moved from category talk page before deletion:

Missed MA:CS, totally out of universe, misnamed, I can go on...

Articles listed in this category included Ishka, Christopher Pike, Zefram Cochrane, Tora Ziyal, and Alexander Rozhenko. -- sulfur (talk) 00:35, March 10, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, for obvious reasons. - Archduk3 01:45, March 10, 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. I can only agree. Tom (talk) 18:53, March 10, 2014 (UTC)

"Meterology" and "Geology"Edit

Currently they're all lumped together in "geoscience", but I think they could be separated now. But we would have to decide what constitutes weather, whether it's planet-localized storms or ionic storms, etc in the emptiness of space. --LauraCC (talk) 14:16, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

"Capital cities" Edit

A category to group together all of the capital cities mentioned in Star Trek. In addition to all of Earth's capitals, there are a few more references from other planets which could also be included. --| TrekFan Open a channel 20:01, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

But how many Earth capitals were explicitly described that way? And you can't just add cities because we know they are capitals, because if you add Washington, then why not Philladelphia and NYC etc. Subsequently, this seems a category that may be more trouble then it's worth; not all that many cities will be placed there, but you'll have to be constantly vigilant because well-meaning people will incorrectly add cities they know to be capitals from real world sources. -- Capricorn (talk) 15:25, May 11, 2015 (UTC)

True, but there are numerous mentions of capital cities on alien worlds. For example, Stratos, Paradise City, Angosian capital city and First City, not to mention the Earth capital city articles that mention they are capitals of countries in the text. --| TrekFan Open a channel 17:09, May 11, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. I think a list of capital cities on the article would be sufficient. As Capricorn said this category could create constant edit wars on some city articles. Tom (talk) 18:20, June 2, 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. -- Renegade54 (talk) 00:05, June 17, 2015 (UTC)

Tricorders Edit

I suspect this will be opposed, as there is a list of them on the Tricorder page. However, if we expand it to include all tricorder-related terms, we might have something. --LauraCC (talk) 18:00, December 8, 2015 (UTC)

Again the question for the benefit of having such a category? Right now we have Category:Sensor technology which also covers the few tricorder articles we have. So for me, I have to oppose. Tom (talk) 14:38, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Markonians Edit

Put "Unnamed Markonians" in this cat. See "Category:R'Kaal" for precedent. -- LauraCC (talk) 20:20, January 20, 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure about this, please see "the talk page". Tom (talk) 16:50, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

I see your point. Archive this perhaps now? -- LauraCC (talk) 19:56, March 2, 2016 (UTC)

From Talk: Unnamed Markonians Edit

There is no indication that the station manager was a Markonian. The episode only says that the ship docked at the Markonian outpost. Later, Janeway said something about the station manager. What we see is a group of completely different aliens. We don't know if the station manager is a Markonian so I think this page is not accurate and should be removed as speculation. Tom (talk) 13:58, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

Rename to "Unnamed Markonian outpost personnel" then? --LauraCC (talk) 18:51, January 31, 2016 (UTC)
And add these other individuals? --LauraCC (talk) 18:22, March 1, 2016 (UTC)

A list of personnel should at least have two entries. The "outpost personnel" would only have the station manager. A mention at the "unnamed humanoids (24th century)" section would be the best. Tom (talk) 18:25, March 1, 2016 (UTC)

Mercy Hospital personnel includes the patients, who do not work there. Were these individuals confirmed to have come from the station? --LauraCC (talk) 18:27, March 1, 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason to argue about creating a list for one individual. Tom (talk) 18:33, March 1, 2016 (UTC)

Subcat "Human holograms" Edit

For all pages marked "Humans" and "Holograms". I refer you to Talk: Gaunt Gary for details. --LauraCC (talk) 19:30, March 1, 2016 (UTC)

See here and here. - Archduk3 19:51, March 1, 2016 (UTC)

We have "Art" and "Earth art". I'm not suggesting a myriad of splinter categories, just this one to be consistent. --LauraCC (talk) 19:54, March 1, 2016 (UTC)

Consistent with what? It can only be one or the other, not both. - Archduk3 19:57, March 1, 2016 (UTC)

Holographic representations of humans as opposed to Klingons or made-up species. --LauraCC (talk) 19:58, March 1, 2016 (UTC)

In-universe categories are in-universe, so there is no difference between Humans and the rest. That's not the reason there's an Earth art category, it because there are enough pages to warrant one, and the Humans category needs to be removed from pages that are about a Hologram that just happens to look Human. There may be pages where the article is about both a Human and a Hologram and the hologram isn't just a holographic duplicate, but that would require a different solution. - Archduk3 20:12, March 1, 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I imagine Gaunt Gary was categorized as both because he is: there's a hologram on Voyager, which was said to be based on a real historic figure. Whether those two deserve to share a page is another question, but that would probably be why it has two categories. -- Capricorn (talk) 04:48, March 2, 2016 (UTC)
The current reasoning for not having a separate page for a holographic duplicate without agency (something worth mentioning other than they exsisted and acted as their real counterpart would) I think remains valid, but if categorization is an issue, a redirect with the hologram disambig can be created so that page can be in the Holograms category. At that point though, it might be better to have a Holographic duplicate category to complement the list. - Archduk3 04:58, March 3, 2016 (UTC)

Alcoholic beverages subcatsEdit

Brandy and wine both have long lists. Would it be worthwhile? --LauraCC (talk) 22:34, March 9, 2016 (UTC)

Since the category fits on one page, I don't think there's much to be gained here. - Archduk3 19:13, March 14, 2016 (UTC)

Production POV categoriesEdit

Category:Non-sentient animalsEdit

I think this could be a good category, filled with references to all the non-sentient creatures from Star Trek, such as Spot, Butler and even Picard's Lionfish Livingston. What does anyone else think? zsingaya 15:33, 30 Jan 2005 (CET)

Is this a suggestion for a "list" of individual pets? In that case, I'd suggest another category title, Domestic animals (or Pets, although I'd prefer the former). If it is a category of "animal species", it should be called that, (or "non-sentient species", perhaps) - but in that case, the category shouldn't contain any individual animals... -- Cid Highwind 18:40, 2005 Jan 30 (CET)

Well, there are references to individual animals, perhaps a category showing the different non-sentient animals in Star Trek would be useful, because it could then link to the individual animals. I'm not sure how many official pets were mentioned, off the top of my head, I can only think of Spot, Butler, Picard's fish, Janeway's Dog, Archer's Dog Porthos, although I'm sure there must be more. There must be a way to integrate them with un-named non-sentient species, such as Targ. zsingaya 21:25, 30 Jan 2005 (CET)

The problem is that one category for both "individual animals" and "animal species" would be mixing two completely different concepts - a similar idea would be to have one category for both Worf (a member of one sentient species) and Romulans, Ferengi and Bajorans (other sentient species). Also, I think that "non-sentient animals" would be a redundant title. Aren't animals non-sentient by definition? -- Cid Highwind 22:22, 2005 Jan 30 (CET)
There already is a List of pets and a List of non-sentient lifeforms I'm not sure anything else is needed. Tyrant 22:31, 30 Jan 2005 (CET)Tyrant
OK then, looks like there's no point. Thanks anyway. zsingaya 13:04, 31 Jan 2005 (CET)

A list is not a category. "Pets" might be the most specific name for such a grouping. I vote for a Category: Pets. It would be a sub-category of a larger "animalia" type group I would think. Drhaggis 08:02, 1 Feb 2005 (CET)

Any further thoughts or should these be archived, voted on or resubmitted? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:43, 16 Mar 2005 (EST)

Real People (9-8-05)Edit

Not the most elegant-sounding category, but how about something to the extent of Category:Real people listing people mentioned or seen in Star Trek but who existed in real life and are not merely fictional characters, such as Leonardo da Vinci, Samuel Clemens, Amelia Earhart, and Stephen Hawking?--T smitts 03:20, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • The thing is, the perspective is outside looking in...since M/A is written in the Star Trek universe POV, they are all technically "real", unless they were created on the holodeck or come from a novel (ie Dixon Hill). --Alan del Beccio 03:42, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • I can understand that. However by that logic, we really shouldn't have entries for episodes, series, movies, actors, writers, etc., should we? Nor should we have categories for things like performers for each series, as we do.--T smitts 06:56, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • I Support the idea, but the name definitely needs anew. - AJHalliwell 06:42, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. I would like to see something like this but with a better name.--T smitts 07:12, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Aren't these people already in the Humans category? Anyway, it should be something like Category:Historical Earth figures or something along those lines, as all characters here are "real" from M/A's POV. Actually, that might not work either, since the likes of James T. Kirk, Richard Daystrom, and even Khan Noonien Singh can also be considered historical Earth figures. Truth-be-told, I'm not sure how such a category could work here, and until a way is found, I'm afraid I must Oppose the suggestion. Not a strong oppose, mind you, but an oppose nonetheless. --From Andoria with Love 06:52, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • RE:T smitts. Well there is obviously a line between what is in and what is out...and production stuff: episodes, actors, etc fit into that, but making lists from the outside looking in crosses that line. It goes into that whole issue we had with the creation of the Judaism page and filling it with the outside influences of Judaism to Trek. --Alan del Beccio 07:24, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Hm, good points have convinced me to re-think this, especially the note of POV. - AJHalliwell 07:31, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Somehow, I had a feeling this would be the response this category suggestion would get. I still think it would be a good idea but oh well. Whatever.--T smitts 07:35, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying I'm against it, I'm just saying we need to fomulate a way to do this. I mean, these individuals already belong to Category:Humans -- creating a "Real humans" type category to stack these individuals in would be horribly redundant. Why not just create a list of those people as a reference, similar to those POV articles based on multi-appearance characters and actors. --Alan del Beccio 07:54, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not quite sure what you mean, but maybe someone can explain it to me. (Don't bother trying to now, it's too late where I am right now for anything to sink in.)--T smitts 08:04, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with what was said (re:POV) - oppose, unless someone finds a really good category title. -- Cid Highwind 23:24, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Storyline categories for episodes (Alison9)Edit

(Moved from single suggestion for Category:Episodes)

This is all very linear. I would like to see episodes categorized by other means as well. For instance, primary storyline. A possible tree for this could be:


  • Federation
    • Human
    • Vulcan
    • Trill
    • Betazoid
  • Bajoran
  • Klingon
  • Romulan
  • Ferengi
  • Borg
  • Dominion
  • Cardassian


  • Medical
  • First Contact
  • Character Death
  • Romance
  • War

Alison9 08:36, Jan 13, 2005 (CET)


I see some problems with this suggestion. First, we would have to find other category names - Category:Klingon might be a good category for "everything Klingon", and I think we shouldn't use a category for both "in-universe" and "meta-trek" articles at the same time. Second, there are many episodes that could be categorized in several of those categories - do we really want that, how would a "Category:Romantic episodes" be useful? Third, some of this information already exists - if an episode presents important information about Klingon culture, for example, it most likely is alread listed on Klingon or one of the Klingon subpages. -- Cid Highwind 09:35, 2005 Jan 13 (CET)

Could you define meta-trek? If an episode is a first contact medical I don't see how multi-categories is harmful. Wikipedia does it and gives a lot of value added, IMHO. To me the purpose of an encyclopedia is to help people find things. It's all well and good to find them in order, but I find myself wanting to go back and see certain storylines. Today I'm all about Kira/Odo, but three weeks from now I might want Janeway/Chakotay. As for your last point, given your example, do you think the culture categories aleady exist as entries and therefore should be taken away from the suggested tree? I actually think there is a more fundamental issue here. The category conversation seems to be driven by what is too much work and what isn't as opposed to long term gain. I think that might stem from not wanting to have incomplete information live. I think that can be solved by just deciding on a convention and then letting people create the proposed categories at will. That would mean I would create Category: Romantic episodes - Kira/Odo, Category: Romantic episodes - Jadzia Dax/Worf. The character names would be listed alphabetically but not every couple would have to be listed at once, contributors could add cannon couples as they were interested. Would that be a reasonabnle compromise? Alison9 09:57, Jan 13, 2005 (CET)

"Meta-Trek" is a term we inofficially use for articles that aren't part of the Trek-universe itself. Generally, articles about "Trek items" (characters, planets, starships, ...) should be written as if they really exist (in-universe point of view). This leaves articles about Star Trek as a franchise, including episode summaries, articles about actors, directors, novels, video games etc. These are two separate classes of articles, and we try to avoid mixing those two as far as possible. As mentioned above, a "Category:Klingon" should contain Klingon people, Klingon ships and Klingon weapons, but not episodes about Klingons. Regarding your suggestion, I think that a "List of ..." article would be a much better choice in this case. In my opinion, a category is a good choice if more member articles could be added later (a "Jadzia/Worf romance" category would be pretty much finalized right now), if many editors might be willing to contribute to that category and/or if an article can't be categorized in several categories on the "same level" in a category tree at the same time. -- Cid Highwind 11:42, 2005 Jan 13 (CET)

Production-named species (11-07/05)Edit

Hope this is the right place and way to suggest this. I think it would be useful to have a category of such species because it would make it easier to identify which aliens' names come from episodes and which were only named in production notes (Efrosians, Zaranites, etc).--StAkAr Karnak 14:21, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose: This category would be in the wrong POV, and I don't think that is really allowed. Perhaps, a list would be allowed?--Tim Thomason 06:53, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Mild Oppose: I agree with Tim; I think a list would be best in this case, plus I'm not entirely sure there's enough to justify its own category. However, I'm not sure how it would be in the wrong POV, since we already have Category:Performers, Category:Directors, and the like. --From Andoria with Love 05:00, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: What I meant on the wrong-POV, is that on the canon articles, as opposed to Franchise articles, I don't think there should be a group of production-related categories on an article like that, the same reason we don't categorize all of the Performers as Humans, even though they are. (unsigned by User:Tim Thomason)
  • Archived --Alan del Beccio 08:11, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

"Real" characters Edit

I've created this production category on MA-fr to list all historical figures which really existed or still exist in "our" world (authors, musicians, rulers, scientist...) to distinguish them from other fictionnal characters : Bach, Berlioz, Bizet, Blair, Bradbury, Brahms, Brezhnev, Clemens, Crockett, daVinci, Dickens, Einstein, Fermat, Galilei, Gutenberg, Hawkins, Hitler, Hugo, Keats, Lenine, London, Mozart, Napoléon, Newton, Nietzsche, Pasteur, Poe, Presley, Richelieu, Shaekespeare, Sinatra, Spinoza, Verne, Wonder, Presidents of the USA... and many others - Philoust123 14:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Mildly oppose -- I'm not sure I see the need for this meta-category. I think the fewer meta-categories the better as that distracts from the focus of this collaboration...creating a "in-universe" encyclopedia. --Alan del Beccio 17:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


Production artists"

Another sub-category of Category:Production staff for such people as artists, whether book covers, comics, or set decoration. -- Sulfur 12:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This might be better suited as its own seperate category if its going to be for books and the like, as those products are seperate from those officially licensed by Paramount Pictures and therefore not involving the production staff from the shows or films. --From Andoria with Love 07:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The other possibility there is to have a couple of "artist" categories, one for books, comics, etc (which are still officially licensed by Paramount), and one for the set decorators, painters, etc. Regardless, we do need one for artists, we have a right stack of them now. -- Sulfur 11:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Holodeck EpisodesEdit

A category listing episodes that contained the holodeck/holosuite as the main plot or a major plot point, but not nessisarily just used briefly. I.e. "The Big Goodbye" but not "Encounter at Farpoint". --UTS DeLorean 00:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: I'm not saying no, I'm just questioning whether there are enough of these to warrant a category. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Starship simulatorsEdit

The category was created without discussion against policy, and quite frankly what it is supposed to be baffles me. It includes PC real-time-strategy games, tabletop games, and more, many of which don't seem to be "starship simulators" at all. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

groups any games which simulate actual operation of a starship, from a variety of perspectives. encompasses video games as well as board games. unifying factor is whether they depict various systems aboard starships with some degree of complexity. --Sm8900 18:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You are going to be able to label just about every single Star Trek game that way. Hell, even the Elite Force FPS series does that to some extent. It does not seem useful to me. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I am also baffled by what is being put in the category, as it just seems to be every Star Trek game involving a starship(which is pretty much all of them). A discussion about it would have helped define what should be in it, assuming there was support for creating it(which I do not neccesarily support at this time).--31dot 18:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
oh. you actually think so? what about games which depict only role-playing, or shooting games. I meant actual operation of a starship, not "being a starship crewman." thanks. --Sm8900 18:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
ok, forget it then. thanks anyway., --Sm8900 18:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, you're right. there's no diffrence between how starship operations is depicted in Star trek Starfleet Command, or StarFleet Battles and how it's depicted in say Judgment Rites. that's a good point. sorry i missed it before. thanks. --Sm8900 18:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
We're just going by your own definition, which ended with unifying factor is whether they depict various systems aboard starships with some degree of complexity. What doesn't that include? As we already have a games category, there is no need to create a duplicate category to cover the same things.--31dot 18:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your reply. it doesn't include Judgment Rites. is that distinction clear, or is that your question? ie, how this category would not include that. want to make sure i'm answering your inquiry, so let me know. thanks.
to answer you in advance, this is not for games which merely depict a starship crew in action. it is only for games which depict starshiop operation as detailed, complex vehicles. I don't mind if you're opposed to this category, but i'm unclear as to why you think this includes every game. thanks. --Sm8900 20:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I agree with OC and 31dot. – Cleanse 23:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. As per above. --Sm8900 02:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
All the valid scope issues aside, the category title would also need to make clear that it is not an in-universe category for existing starship simulators (as the current title suggests), but a real world ("meta") category. So, definitely remove this category tag, and bring up a new one for discussion before implementing it. -- Cid Highwind 10:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Destruction of Hero ShipEdit

Okay, the name needs some work (please make suggestions), but I think it might be helpful to have a category for all the eps or movies where we see the destruction of the Hero ship. There are actually quite a few, if you count all the reset button episodes. --- Jaz 21:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I like it. Maybe "Main Vessel/Ship Destruction" or "Destruction of Significant Vessels/Ships"? This wouldn't include Deep Space 9, and I'm not sure how to add that in. ---- Willie LLAP 21:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. We had discussions about "story-element-categories" in the past, with the outcome that this really isn't the place for those. And, I have to add, this one is a rather random story element to base a category on... -- Cid Highwind 21:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
O'Brien Must Die. --Alan 21:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, for the reasons Cid stated.--31dot 21:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. It would invite things like "Ferengi episode", "Wesley saves the ship", "Sisko loses command", and yes, "O'Brien Must Suffer". All interesting topics, but not really necessary//appropriate as encyclopedia categories. :-)– Cleanse 00:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose along with Cid and Cleanse. And don't forget the episodes in which those poor redshirts died.--UESPA 20:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC

Different universe categories Edit

I think it would be useful to have categories for the new alternate reality and the prime reality, on the pattern of the existing Category:Mirror universe. Such categories could be added to templates along with Cid Highwind's banners. I see that there was a proposal a while back for a real-world POV category, which I also think would be useful, to be added to the {{realworld}} template. I'm proposing that just about all articles could be placed in one of the following categories:

Prior discussion of a real-world category is here, but I think that the problems mentioned there (such as uncertainty about whether to put novels and episodes in the category) seem to have been resolved. –Josiah Rowe 14:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever is being decided here, the final "timeline names" should be the same throughout the site - so, wait for that TF discussion to come to an end before creating any of these. -- Cid Highwind 16:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that the names should be uniform. I was assuming (probably prematurely) that there was an emerging consensus supporting "alternate reality". I certainly wouldn't create anything until there's a clearer consensus. –Josiah Rowe 17:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am a fairly new user here, but I support much of this. Anything which clearly differentiates the new timeline as being an alternate one sounds good to me.However, I don't think we need a category for the existing timeline as Category:Prime universe. we can simply provide a category for the alternate one. the alternate one only covers one movie and one set of characters. the prime universe one would be a bit unwieldy, since it would cover 4 of the five series (except for Enterprise, I assume.) --Pulsar110 12:37, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Alternate Reality novels Edit

Not certain if I really put this in the right section, and I don't have a name figured out, but I was thinking perhaps a category for the novels set in the alternate reality as seen in Star Trek. This suggestion is made for a few reasons, such as sorting by the 'series' or perhaps continuity for a better term, and that there might be an interest to be able to find the books set within that reality/continuity (this part mostly would go with what I had just said, I guess). Perhaps this is already planned, I don't know I didn't see anything categorized for it and thought it should be.--Terran Officer 22:39, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

This might be better approached as simply an "alternate reality" page along the same lines as the Star Trek (Pocket) page, and just keep sorting them into novels. But I can see the possible appeal. -- sulfur 02:57, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
It might be too early for this, but I agree with the idea, something like "Novels (alternate reality)" or "Novels (alternate)". - Archduk3 03:20, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
I was planning to wait to see how the novels were labelled and/or organised before deciding on where the information will go - my current thinking is that they'd be included in Star Trek (Pocket), since they'll probably just have the Star Trek title. Each novel has a nav box in any event to link them all together. I don't think a separate category is really needed, though - all novels, regardless of series, go into Category:Novels as it stands - although it might not be a bad idea to break that one down a bit now. Even if that is broken down, they can probably still stay in the main category, like the smaller novel-only series would. -- Michael Warren | Talk 06:55, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

That's more or less what I was thinking is that they'd get into the novel category but also their own subcategory or whatever. I mention this simply because while MA only makes summaries (and not be canon) for the novels, they are/will surly be different as they continue from the movie. I suppose they might not need their own category (unless they get some sort of a 'series' title) but I thought it'd make things somewhat easier for the following of that storyline (and the fact we have a category for the things relating to the newest movie). --Terran Officer 20:36, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Michael, we should definitely postpone this decision until we know the "official" label these novels will get (if any), and then use that. -- Cid Highwind 20:58, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

Fish out of waterEdit

We must have one of this kind for every character that is somehow a fish out of temporal waters in Star Trek, even sentient holodeck programs liike Moriarty... what do you say?--The Tuvixean (talk) 17:22, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

This is "original research" at best. I'm not sure that I see how it can even be easily decided upon. -- sulfur (talk) 17:37, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

Renaming and breaking down Category:Movies performers Edit

Replacing the current, awkwardly named category with this structure:

  • Film performers
    • TOS film performers
    • TNG film performers
    • Alt film performers

which when done should turn the one category of over 900 pages into something a bit more helpful. Needless to say, I might need some help on this one. - Archduk3 19:53, May 5, 2013 (UTC)

What category does Generations fall under? I'm not sure that I agree with this at this point in time. -- sulfur (talk) 20:02, May 5, 2013 (UTC)

Gen would be a TNG film, since that's the general consensus when it comes to packaging and the like. We could draw between the 23rd and 24th centuries instead, placing Gen in both, but I imagine that would get messy. - Archduk3 20:24, May 5, 2013 (UTC)

My second issue is to query why 1280+ TNG people should exist as a category, but 900 can't exist in a movie performers category. They're in the movies. That's sufficient. I'm opposing this one at this time. -- sulfur (talk) 20:42, May 5, 2013 (UTC)

The answer to your query is simple: you have to start somewhere, and films don't have convenient seasons or, generally, "troublesome" recurring characters. - Archduk3 05:37, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

I am not quite sure about my opinion on this matter. It might be good to break down long categories but I am concerned for future category breakdowns like the split into seasons mentioned above. I think right now I would prefer keeping this category. Tom (talk) 20:59, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

Highlighting real world families Edit

I have noticed families listed from the fictional universe be it Crusher, Picard, Riker. But why no recognition of real world families? Several families have contributed to Trek in the capacity of actors or crew. Westmore, de Lancie, Epper, Roddenberry, Shatner, Nimoy and others have made their mark and have every right to be cited. Wikipedia comports the same courtesy to presidents, senators, scientists, actors, you should follow their suit. -- Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 23:30, January 27, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. I see no benefit from creating these realworld categories. But good to see that you suggest this here instead of creating the categories without approval for a second time. Tom (talk) 10:22, January 28, 2016 (UTC)

Here are the families Wikipedia cites-Washington, Adams, Roosevelt, Whedon, Coolidge, McCain, Lincoln, Dallas, Polk, the Lee family of Virginia-they run the gamut of military, politics, acting, writing. These are some of the families Wikipedia has cited over the years. Why can't we show the same courtesy to the families who have made their mark here?--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 13:58, January 28, 2016 (UTC)

There aren't categories for the Crusher and Riker families, only the Picard and Raymond families, and that's because there's a large number of the latter. We don't create categories like this based on "rights" or "courtesy" or what Wikipedia does, we create categories like this based on the numbers. How many of these would have at least 5 pages? - Archduk3 15:27, January 28, 2016 (UTC)

I made a mistake on Crusher and Riker, but when you look at the fact that MULTIPLE members of say the Epper and Westmore families have had involvement in Trek. Michael Westmore has been behind the scenes, MacKenzie Westmore had acted on both TNG and VOY. I can also cite the Shatners, the Roddenberrys. There IS precedent for recognizing the families that have contributed to Trek.--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 17:34, January 28, 2016 (UTC)

How many of these would have at least 5 pages? - Archduk3 18:38, January 28, 2016 (UTC)
The Roddenberry family would have five, the Westmore family six, the Muñoz family also five. That's all. But we cover information on the page Familial connection#Real life connections. Tom (talk) 18:59, January 28, 2016 (UTC)

I took a look at the real life connections and forgot how many Crosbys had roles. So ANOTHER family can be singled out. There can also married couples such as Shannon Cochran and Michael Canavan. I think enough of a case has been made to create a family category.--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 23:22, January 28, 2016 (UTC)

I suppose the case can be made for the three with at least 5, but I'm not sure categories are the best way to proceed. It seems to me that navigational templates would work better, since they can be formatted in meaningful ways that categories can't. It might also be worth looking into making the real world list it's own page, since when collapsed the list can be missed. - Archduk3 04:48, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

My guideline for a separate family category would be 3 or more members. Adam Nimoy, Leonard Nimoy and Susan Bay all meet the minimum. Category:Nimoy family--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 13:33, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your guideline doesn't really jibe with MA practices... -- sulfur (talk) 13:55, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia disagrees because If it's 3 or more, that family gets Its own category. So John de Lancie, Keegan de Lancie and Marnie Mosiman SHOULD have under their pages, Category:de Lancie family.--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 16:21, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

MA is NOT Wikipedia. Please understand that. -- sulfur (talk) 17:02, January 29, 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the duplication, but I was writing this as sulfur was posting his reply above. :) First and foremost, we are NOT Wikipedia. Just because Wikipedia does something a certain way doesn't mean Memory Alpha does it the same way. Yes, a Wikipedia rule or policy is often a good starting point for a similar policy on MA, but that's it. Sulfur pointed out what the policy is here, so please stop pointing to Wikipedia as an authority. Second, as Archduk3 pointed out previously, categories on MA are not created as "courtesies" or "rights" or whatever... they're created as a way to index articles. While I'm not necessarily opposed to your category suggestion, I don't see that it really adds value to MA. I think there's been enough discussion back and forth, so barring any new arguments, we should probably put this to a vote. -- Renegade54 (talk) 17:07, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

For the creation of a real world family category, I vote YAY. The Epper family I wager will thank you.--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 19:15, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

Just to let you know. Only one Epper family member who worked on Trek is still alive and she's out of the stunt business for many years. So I wouldn't wager.... Tom (talk) 19:20, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

The fact that William Shatner had all 3 of his daughters involved supports a real world family category. As Spock would say, fascinating.--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 19:53, January 29, 2016 (UTC)--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 19:53, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

Comment: It seems like this whole discussion comes from the originator of the idea feeling a desire to honor these families (key terms: "[they] have every right", "courtesy", "recognizing the families", "Epper family [....] will thank you"), whereas everyone else are more experienced editors who understand the categories are technical tools indented to serve a real, utilitarian, practical purpose. The fact that a number of families have had multiple members work on Trek is without question very cool, but these categories would not add much value and would make things more complicated. There are other ways of highlighting these families, and I would suggest Jared think of other such ways. -- Capricorn (talk) 20:30, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

It would add convenience for MA visitors. If they see Shatner family, they can click on the category and have a quick reference guide. 0n Wikipedia you can click on Lincoln family and see how many relatives of the 16th president were related to him. So it would make the site more user-friendly. There is quite simply no reason to not do this.--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 22:23, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

If a case could be made for a real world family category Memory Alpha themselves made it. 0n the page for Michael Westmore, there is a hot link in blue Westmore family. It links to the Wikipedia article displaying the entire Westmore family tree. You say you're like Wikipedia but are not a clone of Wikipedia. To that I say If you're going to use them, where you know they have real world family categories, then there should be real world family categories here. You can't have it both ways, where you acknowledge a family that has left Its mark on Trek but not include a category that would give a Memory Alpha visitor a quick tool to see how many members of and who participated in whatever way. So it's not me who made the case for a real world family category, it was you.--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 05:30, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

It would be great if you won't repeat the same again and again. You made your point. Tom (talk) 09:15, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

Does this mean we can acknowledge real world families?--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 11:23, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

No. There is no consensus to do so. I would add that in all your time here you have never demonstrated that you actually understand how things work here. If you want to show that you do understand how things work here, then I would highly suggest you take the advice of those who have posted here. 31dot (talk) 11:36, February 1, 2016 (UTC)
Oppose this suggestion but I do think that nav boxes would indeed be helpful. 31dot (talk) 11:37, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

I thought we were putting it to a vote. So far I have not seen anything that shows results and I thought the results would be published here. Between everyday users and admin, the people's voice seems to not havew been heard, yet.--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 11:51, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

On what basis do you claim to represent "the people's voice"? 31dot (talk) 11:55, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

No voting page has been created, nothing linked (here), percentage of results yay/nay published here. It looks as though no voting on this has been taken up at all. I would say based on Wikipedia establishing the precedent, you using Wikipedia yourselves to link to the Westmore family tree and the fact that you are similar to Wikipedia coupled with your use of a category for families within the fictional universe, that Trekkies would agree that a real world family would warrant Its own honorific.--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 13:21, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

And you continue to demonstrate you have no idea how wikis work, which is through consensus, not actual voting(as anyone can register numerous usernames to 'vote' and rig the result). There is no separate page for the "vote", it is done on this page. Your leaps of logic are also quite astounding. You also had explained to you that we do not 'honor' any person or group with a category, we do so based on the merits of doing so or not. If you want to honor people, you are in the wrong place. 31dot (talk) 13:31, February 1, 2016 (UTC)
The reason we link to Wikipedia articles (as well as other external links), whether for in-universe topics or real-world topics, is to provide and direct the reader to sources of more information on the topic if they wish to dig deeper into the subject matter. It doesn't imply by any means that we agree with the content of the external links, or that we should follow any formatting or categorizing conventions that the external link uses. They're just links provided as a tool for further reading and research. We've historically provided Wikipedia links when they exist for a number of reasons: Wikipedia and Wikia (originally Wikicities) have a common origin, in that both had early involvement by Jimmy Wales and Angela Beasly and had similar goals, from an information standpoint; both are wikis, allowing the readers to interact directly with the projects; and Wikipedia has the advantage of being one site with articles on many, if not most, topics we have pages on. Just because we link to a Westmore family tree on Wikipedia means NOTHING as far as the articles we create here or how we organize information here. Again, if Memory Alpha has NO existing policy covering a particular style or formatting issue or some other procedure, we'll often look to Wikipedia or Wikia to see if one of those entities have something we can use as a starting point - why reinvent the wheel if we don't have to? But other than that, again, WE ARE NOT WIKIPEDIA, any more than we are Wookieepedia, or Memory Beta, or any other wiki. End of discussion. -- Renegade54 (talk) 15:19, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

You already indicate parent/child, husband/wife, sibling, every family dynamic, so in a sense, you yourselves have made the case for a real world family category. Walter Koenig is married to Judy Levitt, they were the parents of Andrew Koenig. Spousal and parental relationships in this family alone are demonstrated, therefore they should all have a link you can click on that says Koenig family. I would also say you should include Married couples as seen her as well as Armin Shimerman and Kitty Swink or John de Lancie and Marnie Mosiman. Category:Crosby family Denise Crosby, Mary Crosby and Spice WilliamsCrosby. You can't say a family category is unreasonable when family connections are listed all over this site.--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 18:01, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

I don't appreciate being mocked. I am rather serious about the implementation of a real world family category because it makes a lot of sense. Many families have been a part of the Trek universe, so an easy to use clickable family category would be an easy way to see how many members of that family were involved.--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 18:34, February 6, 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anyone mocking you, but I see a lot of opposition to this category suggestion, along with some suggestions for possible alternate avenues to pursue. -- sulfur (talk) 20:07, February 6, 2016 (UTC)

I thought I was done bringing it up, but Wikipedia already has family categories, politics-McCain, Dallas, Washington, Polk, Tyler, Taylor, Jefferson Davis, Lee family of Virginia, Adams, acting-Bridges, Fairbanks, Fonda, Huston, literature-Hemingway, entertainment-Whedon. If these families can get their own category for THEIR contributions to the arts, then real world families can receive such deference here. I cannot fathom the opposition to something that makes as much sense as gravy on mashed potatoes.--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 20:24, February 6, 2016 (UTC)

Stop bringing up Wikipedia. You've already been told why and I'm inclined to block you if you do it again. I would suggest that since your attempts to persuade us are failing that you work towards implementing the alternative that has been suggested to you. If you cannot do so, then move on to something else. 31dot (talk) 21:07, February 6, 2016 (UTC)

Can you create a hypothetical screencap of what that would look like? Still not sure of how to proceed with your recommendation.--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 02:19, February 7, 2016 (UTC)

Maintenance categoriesEdit

Starting point categoryEdit

Category:Memory Alpha or Category:Articles

I have noticed that this site doesn't have one yet, so I am proposing a category that would be a starting point for locating any article. It's subcategories would obviously be Category:Star Trek and Category:Memory Alpha maintenance. Adamwankenobi 21:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something, but what would the point of having these categories be? Category:Memory Alpha would apply to EVERYTHING on MA, and seems pointless to me, and pretty much so would Category:Articles. As for having a starting point, that is what those lists and stuff on the main page are for. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You're exactly right. The proposed new category would apply to EVERYTHING, therefore this site would be taking its first step in the right direction of cleaning up its messy categorization system. What troubles me is that the current categorization system has no real starting point. Yeah, you could say the main page serves as this but that's the responsibility of the categories—to point readers in the right direction. If we were to take this action, ONE link on the main page would suffice. The link would then point to the proposed all-encompassing category and everybody would be happy. :) Adamwankenobi 01:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Personnally, I would rather see the main page as a jumping point than to see every article get acategory added on (some already have too many). Given that, and that I feel I know understand what these categories would be (although I still do not know the difference between Category:Memory Alpha and Category:Articles), I have to vote oppose. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you fully understand what I mean. The category wouldn't be applied to every article, it would be applied to TWO CATEGORIES. And those two categories would be Category:Star Trek and Category:Memory Alpha maintenance. I tried to make that clear in my initial request. It's just a simple housekeeping maneuver. Adamwankenobi 02:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Still opposing. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't be asking yourself "Why?", but rather, "Why not?". I don't understand your ground for opposing. I can't see what this category would hurt. Adamwankenobi 02:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Read my initial vote, I include multiple "why nots" --OuroborosCobra talk 02:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
comment I've seen wikis with a category "AtoZ" that allows them to control the index, unlike Special:Allpages, which lists every page and doesn't allow you to control it. It also allows you to add sort keys. Maybe that is what the articles category would be here. --Bp 02:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, there already are "starting point categories" for two of the three basic page types we have ( articles, 2.PPOV articles, 3.Project pages), and (as I already stated in one of the related discussions) I'm not sure if a single "starting point" even makes sense for the third type. Since we're trying to keep the different page types separate anyway, I don't see the point in tying them together by another top-level category. Why would anyone need a connected chain of categories from, for example, an in-universe article to a policy page? -- Cid Highwind 12:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't aware our categorizating system was in need of a clean-up. Nor are these categories really necessary, IMO. Oppose. --From Andoria with Love 12:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Archived -- I think the votes speak for themselves. --Alan del Beccio 23:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Television CategoryEdit

We there should be a Category: Television Series or similar to collect together the existing Category: Episodes, and to place the master article for each series. Drhaggis 22:07, 22 Jan 2005 (CET)

Isn't Category:Episodes exactly what you are describing? It contains the 6 "series subcategories" and could contain additional information about "episodes" in general... -- Cid Highwind 23:47, 2005 Jan 22 (CET)

I'm thinking more like

  • Undetermined "Top-level Media" Category
    • Television Shows
      • Episodes
    • Movies
    • Books
    • Video Games

TV shows is where we place the episodes category, any lists of episodes, all the articles on the existing tv shows, Info on Star Trek: Phase II, any "list of X episodes" articles. Drhaggis 00:17, 23 Jan 2005 (CET)

What else would the Television Shows category contain, apart from one link to the episodes category? The Media category might be useful, but that is already being discussed in the above section. I don't see the for a Television Shows category, since we already have Category:Episodes. -- Harry 23:48, 23 Jan 2005 (CET)

Where else would we categorize master articles such as Star Trek: Voyager and their ilk? It would also hold any documentaries and specials and allow for a cross-ref with all television list categories. For example "List of XXX episodes" would go in Category: Lists and Category: Television Shows as Wikipedia does it. Is Episodes a top level category? Drhaggis 00:23, 24 Jan 2005 (CET)

Well, in the unnamed category for "out-of-universe" information that I suggested above, I guess? It would contain the "Episodes" category directly; I don't think we need another category layer between these two categories. "Books" (or better yet, "Novels" and "Reference books"?) would be another good subcategory, though. Regarding Wikipedia, keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia "about everything", including many television series. Memory Alpha is an encyclopedia about just six - we probably don't need the same level of detail as Wikipedia. Episodes would not be a top level category, but a subcategory of Trek franchise (or whatever name we choose). -- Cid Highwind 21:39, 2005 Jan 27 (CET)

Star Trek: Voyager would be considered "out-of-universe"? Odd. It may actually be easier to determine the lowest level categories first. Once most articles are categorized, forming and changing the tree is less painfull. Do we honestly think that we can "lock" the tree in place on a Wiki? Come to think of it it is less like a tree because several of the smaller nodes will cross. Drhaggis 03:10, 28 Jan 2005 (CET)

Of course... How could an article about a series (movie/novel/...) set in a fictional universe be a part of that universe? The events happening in that series are, but the series itself is not.
Regarding the suggested procedure, I think we are having this discussion page exactly because we know that we can't "lock" the tree completely - but by discussing all ideas first instead of simply implementing any or all of them, we're avoiding much redundant work and categories that simply don't make sense... -- Cid Highwind 12:03, 2005 Jan 28 (CET)
Any further thoughts or should Category:Television series suggestion be archived, voted on or resubmitted? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:43, 16 Mar 2005 (EST)
I vote to archive this discussion - the possible scope of this category in addition to the episode categories we already have is still unclear to me. -- Cid Highwind 08:46, 21 Mar 2005 (EST)

TREE Suggestion A (Redge)Edit

Discussion of suggestion AEdit

A problem I have with this tree is the fact that some articles would exist in different subcategories of the same category. Earth, for example, would belong to Locations - Planets - Alpha Quadrant planets and Locations - Space - Federation space.

IMO, it would be preferable to have one category for the "cartographic" structure (Cartography - Alpha&Beta quadrant - Federation space) and another one for the "astronomical" structure (Astronomy - Planet - Homeworld). -- Cid Highwind 16:23, 1 Oct 2004 (CEST)

I think it'd be better to separate "space travel" (starships, starship classes, space stations) from "hardware", and split "science" from "technology", and then just put the hardware with technology, since those two basically cover the same kinds of things. This would avoid a lot of overlap since science and technology aren't the same subjects, and space travel hardware is "technology" by definition anyway. -- EtaPiscium 18:38, 1 Oct 2004 (CEST)

    • I agree that a with those splits. It makes absolute sense to separate science from technology, and then put hardware and spacetravel under that. (Toddas 17:34, 18 Oct 2004 (CEST))

TREE Suggestion B1 (Cid Highwind) Edit

I suggest the following category tree for planets (see Talk:Stellar Cartography). This could replace the several existing Lists of ___ planets.

  • Locations or Places
    • Planets
      • Uninhabited planets
      • Inhabited planets
        • Homeworlds
      • Federation planets
      • Klingon planets
      • Romulan planets
      • ...

Each planet could then belong to one of the first three subcategories (uninhabited, inhabited, homeworld) plus one of the 'affiliations' (or to category:planets directly, if nothing is known about the planet). -- Cid Highwind 14:37, 6 Sep 2004 (CEST)

I've never liked the "inhabited planets" distinction. At what point is a planet "inhabited"? Does a planet with nothing but an outpost or a starbase where there is only a "semi-permanent" population count as "inhabited"? What about planets that were inhabited but aren't any longer? I think it'd be better if it were just sorted on jurisdiction, i.e. Federation, Klingon, etc. This would also sort planets in a single system together even if one is inhabited and the other is not.
Also, I think calling the categories "planets" is too restrictive. It doesn't include stars, star systems, nebulae, or any other space object that could be considered a "place". I suggest:
  • Stellar Cartography
    • Stars
    • Planets
      • Homeworlds
      • Minor bodies
    • Nebulae
    • Clusters
    • Sectors
    • Other objects
    • Neutral space
    • Federation space
    • Klingon space
    • ...
Each planet, star, star system, nebula, comet, etc could be categorized in one of the first general categories, and then in an additional category for location if applicable -- EtaPiscium 06:36, 25 Sep 2004 (CEST)
XXX space categories are a good suggestion. What exactly does "Planets -> Minor bodies'" mean, though? -- Cid Highwind 11:00, 1 Oct 2004 (CEST)
Minor bodies -- I was thinking moons, planetoids, comets, asteroids, etc. I'm not that comfortable lumping those under "planets" if we can help it. -- EtaPiscium 18:32, 1 Oct 2004 (CEST)
I like this breakdown. It makes a lot of sence and isnt overly broken down. Drhaggis 00:26, 24 Jan 2005 (CET)

Discussion of suggestion B1Edit

Even now, there are several different suggestions for location categories, for example Alpha Quadrant planets or Federation space. One could think of more, such as Sol sector or even Sol system. Some questions:

  • How detailed should these categories become?
    • X space seems to be a good one, Y sector might be useful in some cases - it should not be created for every sector.
  • How should these categories be arranged?
    • First, I don't like the category X Quadrant planets, for the reasons stated above by EtaPiscium. We should use one "Quadrant" category for everything (additionally, Alpha/Beta should be combined in one category). In that case, should (for example) Federation space be a subcategory of Alpha&Beta quadrant, or should both categories be on the same level? -- Cid Highwind 16:12, 1 Oct 2004 (CEST)

TREE Suggestion B2 (Cid Highwind)Edit

still incomplete...

  • Astronomy
    • Stars
    • Planets
    • Moons
    • Nebulae
    • Clusters
    • Sectors (Note: A list of sectors. Each sector would go here and to an appropriate subcategory of Stellar Cartography.)
    • ...

  • Stellar Cartography
    • Alpha&Beta quadrant (Note: Should be combined. We often don't know the correct quadrant exactly.)
      • Federation space
      • Klingon space
      • Romulan space
      • ...
    • Gamma quadrant
      • ...
    • Delta quadrant
      • ...

Discussion of suggestion B2Edit

This incomplete suggestion avoids the problem I see with suggestion A. Each object (planet, moon, ...) would appear once in an "Astronomy" subcategory and once in a "Cartography" subcategory. I will add more later. -- Cid Highwind 16:36, 1 Oct 2004 (CEST)

I'd recommend just having "homeworlds" under "planets", and then putting all other planets under the general "planets" category. This avoids the semantics of "what constitutes a colony" vs outposts, settlements, camps, multiple colonies, former colonies, etc. If necessary, the names of actual colonies themselves could be put in another category under "Planets", like "Locations", which could also include cities, land-forms, provinces, etc. -- EtaPiscium 18:44, 1 Oct 2004 (CEST)

I don't think that city, province, colony etc. would be valid sub-categories of planet. All those are "has a" relations ("planet has a city"), but what we should try to create (IMO) are "is a" relations ("homeworld is a planet"). As such, colony world would still be a valid category, and I think also an important one, because there are _many_ colony worlds... -- Cid Highwind 15:50, 4 Oct 2004 (CEST)
Well, would "colony world" be articles about the colony itself, or about the planet that the colony is on? I think that in many cases it's difficult to determine whether a planet counts as a "colony world". Are we including all planets that were colonized at some point? Or just all planets that currently have a "colony" (with all the terminology pitfalls I mentioned before)?
Also, I think the whole "colony" article vs. "colony world" article is something that still needs to be clarified. If it was the actual name of the colony itself and not the planet, then I think it qualifies in the same category as a city since most colonies become cities anyway when the planet gets to a certain level of development. -- EtaPiscium 19:40, 4 Oct 2004 (CEST)
OK, I removed "colony world" from my suggestion - this as well as the "(un)inhabited planets" can continue to exist as a list. Further comments? -- Cid Highwind 23:19, 22 Dec 2004 (CET)
I like this format; it limits the possible categories that anything astronomical might fall into, and the categories are very clear so there'll be only a few cases where a something's placement might be debated. I agree that additional groupings such as "homeworld" can exist in their current list form. -- EtaPiscium 09:33, 23 Dec 2004 (CET)
Thanks for your reply. Regarding subgroupings as lists, I think any such list article should be placed in the category as well. We can use "sort keys" to include those at the top of the list, for example: [[Category:Planets| List of Homeworlds]] (note the leading blank)... Further comments/objections? Anyone? -- Cid Highwind 10:45, 23 Dec 2004 (CET)
Technically, any article (or category) can be in any number of categories, according to Mediawiki's categorization. Hence, it is technically a graph, not a tree. So Andoria could be in Category:Founding Members of the United Federation of Planets and Category:Planets. Dma 02:16, 2 Jan 2005 (CET)
Well, the goal of this whole discussion is to find out what "makes sense", not "what's possible" - of course, each article might appear in several categories, but which categories (and connections between categories) are really useful. You theoretical example Category:Founding Members of the United Federation of Planets, for example, isn't a good category because it is too limited - a navigational template would be the better choice here. -- Cid Highwind 02:22, 2005 Jan 2 (CET)

TREE Suggestion C (Steve)Edit

Well, I'm resurrecting this dinosaur with a pseudo-suggestion. Back in the days when I was a contributor to the abortive Star Trek Novel Encyclopedia Project, I developed a list of categories that I never got around to proposing to the group. Obviously they need refinement because of what MA covers vs. what STNE covered, but here they are:

  • Characters (with MA's in-universe perspective, this way of organizing characters is probably not the way to go)
    • Main Characters
    • Recurring Characters
    • Guest Characters
    • Mentioned Characters
  • Life Forms
    • Contemporary Species
    • Noncorporeal Species
    • Ancient Species
    • Nonsentient Species
      • Animals
      • Plants
      • etc.
  • Society and Culture
    • Organizations (this could range from the Federation to the Lollipop Guild)
    • Language (including alien terms, perhaps)
    • Laws and Rituals
    • Food and Beverages
    • Religion and Philosophy
    • Books
    • Other Arts
    • History
    • Recreation
  • Science and Technology
    • Theories and Principles
    • Energy and Radiation
    • Space-Time
    • Physics and Chemistry
    • Medicine and Xenobiology
    • Military Technology
    • Computers and Communications
    • Propulsion and Transportation
    • Other Machines and Devices
  • Space Travel
    • Spaceships
    • Spaceship types
    • Space stations
    • Other vehicles
  • Stellar Cartography
    • Regions
    • Nebulae
    • Stars
    • Planets
      • Locations
    • Subplanetary objects
    • Other phenomena

Obviously a lot of these could be further subdivided. -- Steve 23:16, 15 Dec 2004 (CET)

sorting stubsEdit

Category:Memory Alpha production stubsEdit

There has been a suggestion that we sort the articles in Category:Memory Alpha stubs into subcategories, such as Category:Memory Alpha production stubs, etc, ..

Please register support, opposition or comments for creating that subcategory here.

  • Support -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
  • Oppose - see below. -- Cid Highwind 13:10, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is this totally necessary? It's not like Wikipedia where obscure subjects and topics need someone who understands the content or whatever, and we also don't have an unlimited number of potential articles as they do. Basically, it seems to me that like Cid said if someone wants to fix them then fix them instead of worrying about how they're organized. Ben Sisqo 00:26, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. See comment below. --From Andoria with Love 20:54, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Memory Alpha unsorted stubsEdit

I have an additional suggestion (which is why i reverted a preemptive edit that would have also removed all "production stubs" from the main stub list -- perhaps we should use the individual stub templates to double categorize all the stub articles -- and create the additional subcategory Memory Alpha unsorted stubs -- this way we can sort them as they accumulate, as well as having a master list.

Cases like this are why we have the suggestion page -- that category was enacted already and people had started to categorize articles into it, even though through discussion my changes could have been added. Please discuss a category first, as it is tedious, and resource consuming to have to go back and recategorize dozens or hundreds of articles. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

  • Support -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
  • Oppose. (What happened here? I added a comment here yesterday and am sure that it went through, but now it is missing again without any sign of it in the history? Anyway... I strongly oppose any subcategorization of stubs. First, an article should only very temporarily have "stub status". Any administrative overhead used to collect, categorize and recategorize all the different stub types might better be used to "de-stub" some of them. Second, I'm not sure if it would help anyone. Right now, we have about 800 stub articles. If someone is interested in removing those right now, why doesn't he start the work? If he's not interested, would subcategorization help in any way? Third, I fear that having a detailed subcategorization scheme for stubs would only help making them a "normal" feature of MA instead of the "necessary evil" they are. -- Cid Highwind 13:10, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. IMO, there's no need to sort what needs to be fixed rather that sorted, so get to fixing and stop worrying about sorting. --From Andoria with Love 20:54, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)


A superb addition would be a columned list showing words/names used, their historical origin and the episode in which they were used.


         NAME                           HISTORICAL ORIGIN                    EPISODE
        SARGON                        SARGON II, KING OF ASSYRIA           "RETURN TO TOMORROW"
                                      722-705 B.C.
        BALOK                         MEMBER OF BRITISH HOUSE OF           "THE CORBOMITE MANEUVER"
                                      COMMONS (CONTEMPORARY OF WINSTON
                                      S. CHURCHILL
That can't be done with a category. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
your possible category is impossible. figure that out... i really don't like the concept anyways. --6/6 Neural Transceiver 23:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, no need to sound mean. I already told him it was impossible. There is no need to respond "it is impossible, figure that out". It makes it sound like the anon has not already learned that. You have no evidence of that. They have not responded since I first politely told them it was impossible. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A-Z Edit

Creating a Category:A-Z that will include all pages, only properly sorted like Sisko, Benjamin. I first saw this at the BSG wiki, and thought it was stupid, but after some thought, I am starting to like it.

Here are the pros in contrast to Special:AllPages:

  • It would be a true alphabetical index; all the pages would be sorted correctly using category sort keys. We have a lot of names and common articles/prefixes like "The" and "USS" and "IKS".
  • Only actual pages would be listed, not redirects or hack pages like %s.
  • It would be easier to browse, using the category TOC template.


  • The bot can implement it fairly easily, using already existing template info on each page.

--Bp 04:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I really don't see the benefit to having this page. I do not think that it is going to be used, and therefore there is not much reason in my mind to have it. Also, it makes something else for new members and such to have to remember when creating articles. I just do not see a good reason to do this. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Some of the "cons" that come to mind:
  • Would make the "Uncategorized articles" special page completely useless.
  • Would add another step to article creation, or alternatively
  • Would need regular bot runs to see which pages still need to be categorized here
  • Would be much work for something that, I believe, is not terribly useful. If I know I'm looking for Benjamin Sisko, I wouldn't use an Alphabetical index - neither "B" nor "S".
    • In a heavily hyperlinked database like this, an alphabetical index of all pages is the least useful way of n

avigation, anyway.

So, regarding all this, I don't think such a category would really be useful - but perhaps I'm missing something? -- Cid Highwind 13:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

MA Campaigns Edit

I think there should be provisionnal categories for specific campaigns :
Unnamed people : For example, looking for all the unnamed people on a serie. I presume that a bot can put this campaign category on all the episodes of TNG for example. In that case, when someone is watching a TNG episode, he knows he should look carefully at the unnamed people to see if they are all listed. After adding the unlisted one, he then removes this category. At the end, when this category is empty, the campaign is over and we know for sure, that all this people are listed, because for the moment, we don't know which episodes are ckecked or not. - Philoust123 15:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, we'd only know that for each episode there's someone who believes that he found all possible "unnamed people" (or whatever it is we're looking for at the moment, and that's not even counting mild vandalism by simply removing these tags unchecked). However, these might be useful tools, but on the other hand, I really don't want to see yet another message template or admin category on an article ("oppose"), and if this proposal goes through, I think we all now well that it won't stop at one or two of those categories. What about restricting this to the episode talk pages, I'd support that? That way, someone who wants to take part in this campaign can find episodes just as easily while there won't be an additional distracting message for someone who actually just wants to read about the episode... -- Cid Highwind 10:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. I really don't think any of this would be necessary. --From Andoria with Love 07:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Memory Alpha episode templates Edit

Not my suggestion, but taken from Category talk:Templates:

-- Cid Highwind 18:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Support! (at least the first 3) -- Renegade54 19:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Mental note: It should be noted that we have quite a few unused templates that are just lounging around that should be saved or tossed at some point--Alan del Beccio 01:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
First three categories apparently accepted, discussion as of this point copied to Category talk:Memory Alpha templates. Keeping this here to further discuss the final suggestion. -- Cid Highwind 10:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Image categories by episode (created, about 700)Edit

Categories such as Memory Alpha images (SER - Episode Title)
These could be used to create image categories/galleries for individual episodes - for example by adding these category links to a new image template, like done here: {{imagescreenshot}}. Something like this has been requested on IRC and here: Memory Alpha:Bot requests. -- Cid Highwind 14:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Templates Edit

That's an idea for a category page (If it does not already exist...) where templates can be listed, ranging from starship pages, to people pages, to templates used throughout MA for various reasons. In sort a list of the templates on MA.--Terran Officer 05:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we are already doing that over at Category:Memory Alpha templates, which is at least somewhat further subdivided into templates based upon use (like Category:Memory Alpha navigational templates). --OuroborosCobra talk 05:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

People Image CategoryEdit

Sometimes I have trouble finding pictures of people. So I was thinking maybe we could make some categorys like Category:Deanna Troi and Category:Seven of Nine? Maybe something different? I'd help! The preceding unsigned comment was added by TrekkyStar (talk • contribs).

You mean Category:Memory Alpha images (individuals)? That's our "people" category. --Alan 01:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm assuming Trekkystar is proposing that there be individual categories for each major character. So if you wanted to see all the Deanna pics, you could. A good place to find these pictures is (and should be) the character's page. But I'm unsure whether a category is needed. – Cleanse 01:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Alot of pictures that are pictures of Deanna can't be found on the character's page. --From TrekkyStar Open Hailing Frequencies 02:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well if the images are properly wiki-linked, you should be able to find all Deanna Troi images viawhat links here. Use your browser's "find" function and specify "Image" and you can tab through all the images linked to Troi. --Alan 02:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
If I understand TrekkyStar correctly, I believe that he wants categories in the same vein as Category:Memory Alpha images by episode (DS9: Duet), such as "Memory Alpha images by character/person/individual/etc". If that is the case, I would support creating those categories. Right now, there are 16 images on her page. There are probably many more of her. In response to Alan's first comment: Category:Memory Alpha images (Betazoids) only has three images, all pertaining to Deanna. Aren't there more Betazoids?---- Willie LLAP 02:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, maybe Category:Memory Alpha images by character (Deanna Troi) instead of Category:Deanna Troi. So can I start doing this idea? --From TrekkyStar Open Hailing Frequencies 14:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I would rather we get through the second stage of categorization before categorizing those categories down further. Give it some time to work itself out. --Alan 16:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Unnamed species imagesEdit

A Category:Memory Alpha images (unnamed species) to relieve the category Category:Memory Alpha images (individuals) and to collect all the unidentified aliens, including the ones from "Silent Enemy" and many of the species seen on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. – Tom 13:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Necessary yet? Doesn't seem like there is too many yet. Would have 1 to 3 items in each category? Perhaps it could wait till the list starts to fill up a bit more. As it is, it is not difficult to find the necessary items in the list.--Jlandeen 20:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that he means pictures of individuals that we don't have a species name for. There are a fair number of those. I'd like to see a category like that for each species we do know about, so that we can categorize even better, and have as few as possible in the individuals category. -- sulfur 20:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Sulfur. Thats what I thought. – Tom 07:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Pages to be merged?Edit

Should we possibly add a category to all the pages that we attempt to merge? Such as Category:Memory Alpha pages with merge suggestion. (seems a bit long...) Would help in keeping track of them. Some of these pages have had a merge template on them for quite some time now. — Morder 18:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Right now, we have a simple way to see what pages have the template... see what links there. Why add an extra category? It won't tell us what's been on the list for a long time. -- sulfur 18:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought about that but nobody seems to check it. :) I figured a category that would show up under Category:Memory Alpha maintenance would at least show you that x number of pages are pending a merge...if it was a sub-category. And - we could use dpl to add the list to another page.... — Morder 18:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Psst... hey, Morder. Check it out. :-D --From Andoria with Love 06:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought we already discussed this! :) Now you're publicly humiliating me... :( Yeah, I was looking for a list of pages under the categories and didn't think to look there :) — Morder 06:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify with everyone else, Morder and I discussed this on IRC. I brought the page to his attention there, and he asked me to bring it up here. I just thought I'd have some fun while doing it. Anyway, now everyone's in the know. :-P --From Andoria with Love 07:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki "top" categoryEdit

I would like to suggest a new category, which can serve as the top-level category for all other categories on this wiki. it can be called "Main" or something similar. Another alternative name would be "Root". The central reason I am suggesting this is that currently two of the biggest categories, Category:Lists and Category:Star Trek, are contained only in Category:Memory Alpha orphaned categories.

I feel there is little reason that our two biggest categories need to be considered "orphaned." Creating one main hierarchical category would remedy that situation. It would also give more unity, coherence and centrality to other people's continuing efforts here at this wiki. --Pulsar110 12:32, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

At that point the "main" category becomes an orphan too. To be honest, the Lists, Star Trek, and Maintenance categories have been done that way since (more or less) the get-go. They were put into the "orphaned" category so that they were no longer orphans. If there were a special keyword category that could be used to be an automatic top level one, then that might be a good option, but as far as I understand, there isn't one at all. Right now, the three categories I mention all have vastly different logics, and are all in different POVs. -- sulfur 12:37, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

ermm, but that's the point. ok, we could call it "content", and then it could be a subcategory of the "Maintenance category." there is a benefit to having a category for purely hierarchical and organizational reasons. also, once it's created, it could potentially be a place for a number of other top-level categories as well. --Pulsar110 12:43, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Humour me... avoid the hypothetical "other" top-level categories. In our category tree, what else might fit in as a top-level category (other than maybe "images")? Admittedly, the tree has grown a bit organically, but we've also tried to keep it fairly rigidly defined with "maintenance" being the "real world, wiki related", "star trek" being the in-universe stuff, and "lists" being not much more than a place to define... well... lists of stuff. I'm just not entirely certain that I see the benefit for "organizational" reasons just yet. -- sulfur 12:46, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Well, for one thing we could redo much of the category structure. cultural works of art such as the actual series, and perhaps other cultural works of art like novels, could perhaps be one top-level category. objects on the shows, such as equipment and technical items, should all be another top-level category. these two could be made separate from each other. currently, the Star trek category serves as a catch-all for most or all categories. --Pulsar110 12:51, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

As sulfur already mentioned, we have a pretty rigid naming scheme for categories going on - and, I think, not for the worse. "In-universe" categories get names without any prefix (for example Category:Starships), categories for "franchise" articles (also often called "real world articles") are prefixed with "Star Trek" - and last but not least, all maintenance categories (which aren't encyclopedic content in the first place) are prefixed with "Memory Alpha".
Essentially, the reason for having three different category trees, is that we have articles for three different main purposes on this wiki - and I see no real use for some artificial category that connects those three. In fact, I think that the two "content root categories" shouldn't even be listed as an "orphaned category" (because they don't have a parent category by design). This could be achieved by delisting them there, or by making the orphan category a HIDDENCAT. -- Cid Highwind 13:12, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think the current structure also prevents anyone from coming along sometime in the future and changing it if the community wishes to. for example, there are categories for culture, art, science, etc. What if someone decides a little further down the road that they'd like to give a more prominent role to some or all of these? the answer is that they can't. it's good if a wiki's structure in categories can be a bit open to subtle change and evolution. --Pulsar110 18:31, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a "possible, future reorganization" of subcategories of our main in-universe category is relevant in a discussion about a supercategory for that main category. -- Cid Highwind 21:31, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Category:Memory Alpha images (Augments) Edit

While this hasn't been created yet, there are already several images in it. I assume this would go under Humans and Klingons if created, but I'm not really sold on it myself. - Archduk3 04:13, June 28, 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the images that were in this category. I'll leave this here for a bit longer if anyone wants to make a case for it. - Archduk3 22:36, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

Reference books into individual series Edit

I suggest we create relevant categories underneath Category:Reference books for each of the relevant series. For example, a Category:Star Trek: The Next Generation reference books for things like the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion, and Category:Star Trek: Deep Space Nine reference books for the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion etc. Thoughts? --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:52, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

How many are there that would fall into each category? Can you put together a list on a sub-User page that would break them down into each grouping? -- sulfur (talk) 19:29, February 5, 2014 (UTC)
While I like the idea, I share Sulfur's "concern". I've taken a look through the list and have noticed that relatively few are series specific (TOS perhaps having the most), many of them cross-series.--Sennim (talk) 10:28, April 12, 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't think this is necessary as the category is not overcrowded and this won't really help. Tom (talk) 20:03, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

Holograms (disambig) Edit

Vic Fontaine is not Human. He's a Hologram, just ask him yourself. Since the species categories are "is" categories, Holograms shouldn't be directly in other species categories.

Vic would be categorized as "Holograms (Human)" and that category would be in both Holograms and Humans, for searching purposes. - Archduk3 07:11, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

But is that useful enough to justify a huge number of new barely populated categories, and a whole new level of complexity? You'd have thins like Category:Holograms (fly), with Roy as the sole member. And maybe even categories in the format of Category:Holograms (xyz's species). Plus if this is needed then there's no real reason not to do the same with fictional characters. Or you could even have a Category:Unreferenced Material (Humans). I'm not gonna formally vote because I'm not all that involved in categories, but holograms are just holograms, methinks. Vic would probably just find a coy way of saying no if you'd flat out ask him if he was Human. -- Capricorn (talk) 08:04, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but since there are a fair number of pages in two species categories, that aren't hybrids, this was my solution without simply removing the "looks like" category. I'm not advocating for a sub-cat for Roy either, since I'm assuming that the rational originally was to make it easier to find actors or actresses if you only remember the amount of rubber attached to their face, which is why "he" isn't in animals as well as holograms. - Archduk3 00:53, February 26, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. In my opinion this is not necessary. The way it is now, listing them first in the Category:Holograms and second in the category of the species represented is way enough instead of creating xxx subcategories which will make it harder to navigate through the category tree. Tom (talk) 22:17, April 26, 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather loose the "looks like" categories on these pages than keep things the way they are, since the "is" connection between the page and the non-Hologram category simply isn't there. The "looks like" categories aren't necessary enough to muddle up categories other than the Hologram one, and I don't want to set a precedent where Arne Darvin could be in Category:Humans. - Archduk3 22:42, April 26, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose for the reasons stated above. I don't think it's necessary. --| TrekFan Open a channel 20:03, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

I'll begin removing the incorrect categories shortly then. - Archduk3 19:27, May 10, 2015 (UTC)

Memory Alpha Images (hybrids) Edit

This would be a desgination for people like Naomi Wildman and B'Elanna Torres,Spock, etc.

Right now they seem to only be listed under whatever their non-human heritage is. --LauraCC (talk) 15:55, July 23, 2015 (UTC)

I personally can't see a reason why we would need to list them in a new category. --| TrekFan Open a channel 16:16, August 6, 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. I also see no need. Tom (talk) 09:04, August 24, 2015 (UTC)

Medical tests Edit

A medical procedure would be like a surgery such as Tonsillectomy, whereas a test would things like blood count and biopsys. Are there enough to justify this? --LauraCC (talk) 17:33, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

A test is a procedure. If there's 5+, then maybe it could become a subcategory of procedures, but I still lean to it simply being a procedure. -- sulfur (talk) 16:11, July 23, 2015 (UTC)

Based on their descriptions, I've found 11. Biopsy, Blood count, Blood screening, Cerebral micro-section, Fundoscopic examination, Histolytic analysis,Robbiani dermal-optic test, Sero-amino readout, Stress reaction test, and X-ray, as well as whatever Kirk is doing here [1]--LauraCC (talk) 16:42, August 6, 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we could put them with "medical scans" under the new category "medical diagnostics" with two subcategories, one for scans and one for other tests which are either not identified as scans or are physical examinations of tissue. what do you think? --LauraCC (talk) 15:41, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

I think I am with Sulfur on this. The category Medical procedures is quite wide and a good place for the tests, too. Tom (talk) 09:39, August 24, 2015 (UTC)

Subcat "Symptoms"? Edit

Some conditions are also symptoms of other conditions, like headache. --LauraCC (talk) 19:50, July 24, 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think such a category is really useful/necessary. Any other opinions? Tom (talk) 09:39, August 24, 2015 (UTC)

Suicide CategoryEdit

There are at least four Star Trek actors who committed suicide. A category for these unfortunate events should be added. i created one on my own initiative, however it was immediately deleted and I was directed here. I recommend:

"Category:Performer suicides"

Thank you. -Commodore75 (talk) 18:02, October 2, 2015 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. Not a useful or beneficial grouping of articles. The nature of their deaths is not related to their having appeared in Star Trek. Readers will therefore not be provided with a helpful navigational device with such a collection, which categories are intended to provide. Most importantly, I feel such a category is highly inappropriate. -- Michael Warren | Talk 21:39, October 2, 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. What DH said. How is this any different than, say, "LGBT performers" or even "Performers who drove Porsches"? Not encyclopedic, fannish, morbid, and not necessary. -- Renegade54 (talk) 01:36, October 3, 2015 (UTC)
Support: From an academic standpoint, a category like that would be interesting. I read once that something like seven to ten Star Trek actors have committed suicide - I wonder why? Anyway, I think saying its morbid or inappropriate sounds a bit like censorship, but I can understand the feelings. BTW, an LGBT category would be interesting too - are there any openly gay Star Trek actors? On a side note, I once had the privilege of meeting Roger Carmel around 1985 and he was an incredibly nice man. I was very distressed to hear later that he killed himself only to be relieved after reading here that people today believe he died of a heart attack. -Fleet Captain October 2, 2015
Oppose. Currently actors are not categorized based on the facts of their personnel lives, if you really want to make a major shift in what we do, why on Earth start with something so controversial and privacy-intrusive? Why not at the very least gently test the waters by creating "Category:Deceased performers" (and hey, that one might actually be useful anyway) and see how well that goes. In any case, I think this can only end well as part of a wider effort: if the only way we categorized the private lives of performers would be by if they committed suicide or not, then that would have the unintended effect of being highly stigmatizing. -- Capricorn (talk) 07:24, October 3, 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Per reasons listed above. Tom (talk) 09:40, October 5, 2015 (UTC)

Infrastructure Edit

For things like bridges, roads, manholes, etc. -- LauraCC (talk) 19:13, November 20, 2015 (UTC)

Again, I am not against such a category. Please come up with a full list. Tom (talk) 15:22, November 21, 2015 (UTC)
Two things: first, manhole seems unlike the other two examples. A sewer might be infrastructure, but a manhole is merely an object used in constructing that bit of infrastructure. Calling a manhole infrastructure seems like calling a brick a building. Secondly, I take it that this would be a subcategory of Architecture? Only, Architecture already has a horrible subcategory, Structures. Currently it seems pretty arbitrary what was placed where (stable is in architecture, barn in structures :-s) That's bad enough, but it can get worse: your example bridge currently sits in Architecture for example, but it seems like a good example of a structure and I think that would be the case for most infrastructure. So this added category would not so much give things that don't currently have a good category a home, but it would often increase the number of seemingly correct choices from two to three. I don't really have a solution, but the situation over there is already not great, and I fear this would only make it worse. -- Capricorn (talk) 19:57, November 21, 2015 (UTC)

Civilians Edit

For those personnel who live on a ship or station without being said to work on it, such as Molly O'Brien, for instance. Should we distinguish between mere residents and employed crew members? -- LauraCC (talk) 21:22, November 20, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. I see no value in creating this category. Tom (talk) 15:22, November 21, 2015 (UTC)

Split "requested articles" Edit

Maybe we should split into "In-universe requested articles" and "real world requested articles". The preceding unsigned comment was added by LauraCC (talk • contribs).

Oppose. I don't see the benefit. Tom (talk) 18:58, December 6, 2015 (UTC)

I just thought it would help. We divide real and imaginary world everything else. -- LauraCC (talk) 19:00, December 6, 2015 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki