FANDOM


Memory Alpha  AboutPolicies and guidelinesCategory tree → Category suggestions

Please make sure you have read and understood Memory Alpha's category approval policy before editing this page. Category suggestions can be used to suggest a single category, multiple categories in the same "tree branch" or "parent category," or to determine which categories will contain or be contained by other categories. From there, they may either be approved and enacted by moving the discussion from this page to the new category's talk page, or, if not approved, moving the discussion from here to the category suggestion archive.

One of the reasons we discuss categories first is because we need to ensure that the category tag, when circumstances call for it, contains the correct sort keys to arrange the list in a predetermined order.

This page is broken down into sections:

  • In-universe categories: These categories are intended to be use for in-universe articles, and should be named to maintain Memory Alpha's POV.
  • Production POV categories: These categories are for use on production articles, which are written from the real world POV, and as such should be have the {{real world}} template on them.
  • Maintenance categories: These categories are used in the maintenance of Memory Alpha, and would include the audio and image files for example. These categories can have either a in-universe or real world POV.

In-universe categories Edit

Subspace communication Edit

To replace Template:Subspace, unless it could be edited into "technology" and "types of communications" sections. --LauraCC (talk) 19:39, February 1, 2017 (UTC)

--LauraCC (talk) 19:46, February 1, 2017 (UTC)

I've left off sortkeying some of the ones in category "subspace" that I recognize as communication related until the category idea is rejected or accepted. --LauraCC (talk) 17:19, February 2, 2017 (UTC)

I'm not exactly clear on why it needs replaced, unless we're on a mission to eliminate all of these navigational-type templates. I wouldn't be opposed to a category of "Subspace communications" for these articles as a sub-cat of "Communications technology", but I don't really know that it's necessary. I'd like to hear some other opinions. -- Renegade54 (talk) 20:40, February 16, 2017 (UTC)

Those that are more like a diagram/table and less like a long list, such as Template:Enterprise conn officers are fine. My problem with the subspace communications one is that it's not organized like that. It's just an alphabetical list. --LauraCC (talk) 20:46, February 16, 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly what it is, an alphabetical list linking articles in two distinct categories: "Subspace" and "Communications technology". It *has* grown longer over time from when it was first implemented, though, so it *may* be time to retire it in favor of another approach. Anyone else? -- Renegade54 (talk) 22:14, February 16, 2017 (UTC)
Support. - Archduk3 12:35, February 19, 2017 (UTC)
I'm not entirely convinced. I think it is fine as is. --| TrekFan Open a channel 19:56, January 23, 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so we have a maybe, a yes, and a no. If you don't count me, it's tied. TrekFan, do you have any reasons why you like it as is? --LauraCC (talk) 15:02, April 6, 2018 (UTC)

Eating establishments Edit

There sure are an awful lot of restaurants and bars in the DS9 establishments and Earth establishments categories. --LauraCC (talk) 20:05, May 5, 2017 (UTC)

Support the idea but Oppose about the name. Any better category name? Tom (talk) 12:01, May 7, 2017 (UTC)

My first instinct is "Restaurants"...but what about the jumja stick kiosk? --LauraCC (talk) 16:36, May 9, 2017 (UTC)

If you add hotels then that's horeca, I suppose. Can't imagine the people in Star Trek ever using that term though. -- Capricorn (talk) 07:50, May 10, 2017 (UTC)
An "eatery" is any "informal" place to eat, while a "dining establishment" is any place you can eat dinner, and generally implies a "fine" in front of it when compared to the low end of what eatery covers. Since this category is clearly not going to replace the above mentioned categories, and one can only assume it would be in the establishments category, I don't think we need to overthink this and create multiple categories based on the minutia of the many, many terms used for "place where you can buy ready to eat things for your food hole" in the English language. While I'm pretty opposed to the "eating" option, any of the other ones would be fine whenever someone gets around to doing the actual work for the suggester. - Archduk3 08:12, May 10, 2017 (UTC)

"Culinary establishments"? --LauraCC (talk) 19:42, June 22, 2017 (UTC)

Though I haven't seen the complete list of what is proposed to go in this category, but "restaurant" applies to every example listed thus far. By definition a restaurant (and by default an "eatery") is simply: "a business establishment where meals or refreshments may be procured", and as such a "bar", a "food kiosk", a "café", "Ten Forward", and the "Replimat" are all types of restaurants. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 19:03, June 26, 2017 (UTC)

Botany Edit

Subcat of biology for specifically plant-related biological topics. "Plants" would then be a subcat of that. Things like cell would stay under biology. --LauraCC (talk) 19:04, June 29, 2017 (UTC)

etc... --LauraCC (talk) 17:49, July 13, 2017 (UTC)

Borg spatial designations Edit

Subcat of "Regions" and "Borg". There are a heaping helping of grids listed on the page. --LauraCC (talk) 16:41, August 2, 2017 (UTC)

Having them all in one one category allows non-grids to be included too. Or we could template this, I suppose. --LauraCC (talk) 17:34, February 24, 2018 (UTC)

Philosophers Edit

As per the list of names on the Philosophy page. --LauraCC (talk) 17:30, September 8, 2017 (UTC)

There are currently 20. The listing by species is helpful, however, so possibly leave that there, too. --LauraCC (talk) 17:35, February 24, 2018 (UTC)

Unnamed homeworldsEdit

Subcat of Unnamed planets and homeworlds, now that we have the former. For homeworlds that are named things like "Bob's homeworld" and "Irene's species homeworld". --LauraCC (talk) 15:07, May 4, 2018 (UTC)

Oppose, no rationale. - Archduk3 05:39, May 5, 2018 (UTC)

USS Discovery dedication plaque personnelEdit

I would like to suggest the creation of the USS Discovery dedication plaque personnel category. I am working to completion on the names listed on the plaque and I would like to have these names sorted. Thanks.--Memphis77 (talk) 02:35, May 8, 2018 (UTC)

Production POV categories Edit

Reference book series Edit

It would become a subcategory of Category:Reference books, and, perhaps, Category:Novel series.

Candidates would be:

Cezary Kluczyński (talk) 16:37, June 17, 2017 (UTC)

This is logical enough, but you're not really making a case regarding why this is needed/would be an improvement. -- Capricorn (talk) 05:00, June 18, 2017 (UTC)
Reference books are different from reference book series the same way comics are different from comic series. While a reference book is a physical thing with ISBN, reference book series is more of a concept, not physical thing. It is also logical to have reference book series category, because there is already comic series category and novel series category. Cezary Kluczyński (talk) 07:37, June 18, 2017 (UTC)
Can the silence be threated as no opposition, and category can be created? I'm not really sure if Capricorn's comment was an opposition or not. Cezary Kluczyński (talk) 17:43, June 26, 2017 (UTC)
It was just a request for a more in depth explanation as to the why, didn't state approval or disapproval. What I meant to say though was that categories exist for convenience and navigation, they're not there just because you can think it up or some other category also works that way. In other words, is this needed? Are there issues with the current approach that need solving? -- Capricorn (talk) 21:23, July 10, 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my explanation is not enough. I cannot offer any other explanation on why this is needed. Cezary Kluczyński (talk) 17:06, July 27, 2017 (UTC)

I recently ran into the problem of categorizing the Star Trek Crosswords series. Maybe something similar to Category:Star Trek literature could be created - Category:Star Trek literature series instead for now, for non-novels. The books are currently listed in Category:Games now, but they're technically lit, too, being books (and not merely rule guides to board games, say). --LauraCC (talk) 15:09, August 18, 2017 (UTC)

Star Trek short story authors Edit

For all of the authors who have ever contributed a Star Trek short story to an anthology, particularly to the SNW anthologies (many of whom don't have pages yet), many of whom have never written a full-length novel, and some of whom that have. Subcat of "Star Trek authors". --LauraCC (talk) 20:35, July 17, 2017 (UTC)

Unreleased novels Edit

There is Category:Unreleased video games, so I think a similar cat for unreleased novels as subcat of Category:Novels would make sense. The first that come to mind are those alternate reality novels which got cancelled, but I think there are a few more. Kennelly (talk) 15:35, December 14, 2017 (UTC)

Support. Maybe a list would be helpful though. Tom (talk) 19:11, February 9, 2018 (UTC)
Have to withdraw my vote and change to oppose. We already have this site which is a good article and collection in my opinion. I don't see the need of a category which would list around five of six articles. Tom (talk) 21:07, February 20, 2018 (UTC)
The undeveloped novel and reference book page actually makes me think this would be a good idea, since there are also redirects that would fit into this category, beyond the few pages we already have, so support. - Archduk3 06:37, March 14, 2018 (UTC)

Maintenance categories Edit

Memory Alpha removed featured articlesEdit

After the removal of Ayala as a featured article (forgive me if this already exists), I thought maybe a category of previously featured but since removed featured article status articles might be helpful in keeping it in members' consciousness whether an article used to be featured and could be so again if it was edited.

I've altered the text for the banner from current featured articles to come up with this text for the new banner:

"This was formerly a featured article. Prior to its removal date (date), it was considered one of the best examples of the Memory Alpha community's work, but it has since been removed from featured article status due to problems identified with its composition and comprehensiveness. If you believe this article can regain its featured status, we invite you to make whatever additions and alterations you deem necessary. Please also check the links below to see how the article has changed since it was featured."--LauraCC (talk) 17:01, March 13, 2018 (UTC)

No. If you take a moment to think about it and look around, the redundancy of this should be obvious. - Archduk3 19:28, March 13, 2018 (UTC)
Alternatively you could explain your reasoning instead of casually throwing around the word obvious. -- Capricorn (talk) 22:53, March 13, 2018 (UTC)
Maybe I'm tired of putting more thought into these responses than was put into these casual suggestions. We already have a list of all removed FAs, and it's far more useful than an alphabetically sorted category, just like the list of all articles suggested for FA status. If you don't know where those are, then you haven't read, understood, or retained the relevant policies, and if you haven't done that, you're not qualified to talk about this. If you don't even know how to begin finding these lists, then you don't know enough about how this site works to even be using this page. Everyone here is suppose to "contribute what you know or are willing to learn about," and if your interest in a topic stops at having to read a few pages, or think on something longer than it takes to type it here, at this point, you have nothing to contribute on that topic, and you should know that, if only to save everyone else the trouble. Don't come here asking me to tell you what you should already know, because I'm just going to ask for all the time it took for me to write this, and all the others before it, back, because clearly it was a waste for all of us. I'm tired of being asked to think for people who won't seem to think for themselves, I'm not the god damn search bar, and people should have an idea by the time they get here, not some random notion. If that's not obvious, the problem isn't me. - Archduk3 05:55, March 14, 2018 (UTC)
Archduk3's soliloquy aside, I am in agreement with him that this is not needed. As he states, we have a list for it. Also, I just don't think it's something that is required. An article either is an FA or not and would belong to the relevant categories. --| TrekFan Open a channel 16:45, March 21, 2018 (UTC)