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

Brain Edit

A subcat to Category:Anatomy with all the anatomical parts of the brain as well as things like neurotransmitters etc. There is a list on the brain page to start this category. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kennelly (talk • contribs) at 14:49, December 15, 2016 (UTC).

I like the idea, but is that the best name for it? How about "Nervous system"? --LauraCC (talk) 15:56, December 16, 2016 (UTC)
"Brain anatomy" seems like the obvious term for what you seem to want to be doing. I too think that "brain" is a bit too vague: it seems like the proposed category would be intended for brain components, but if it's just called "brain" people might not get that and put things like "lobotomy", "cranial implant" or "aneurysm" in it. Otherwise, Support. -- Capricorn (talk) 08:17, December 18, 2016 (UTC)
I suppose if there are enough that fall into such a category, we could add "neurological conditions" as well. --LauraCC (talk) 18:29, December 22, 2016 (UTC)
And a neurotransmitter isn't anatomy, it's a chemical. So that wouldn't go in a "brain anatomy" category. --LauraCC (talk) 20:52, April 10, 2017 (UTC)

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)

Law enforcement personnel Edit

Category:Law enforcement personnel: We have a category for military personnel, but none for law enforcement personnel, of which, there are many, namely beginning with those listed at United States law enforcement personnel. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 03:19, April 15, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose for the same reasons as last time. This includes Starfleet personnel in the operations division, but not all of them, so categorization becomes problematic at best, especially since you could also argue all Starfleet/military personal are/can also be law enforcement. - Archduk3 04:01, April 15, 2017 (UTC)

Well there certainly must be a better alternative than the one you offer, because the fellows listed are certainly not Starfleet, nor military, nor civilians, yet are clearly in their own self contained grouping that should be collected under one category. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 01:13, April 17, 2017 (UTC)

If the category's raison d'etre can be clearly indicated that this is non-Starfleet personnel, then I have no real issue with it. The other possibility is to potentially include Starfleet "police" (if there have been any identified, which I'm not sure that there have been...) -- sulfur (talk) 01:44, April 17, 2017 (UTC)
There are a handful of Starfleet/post 21st century "police", or uppercase "S" Security, named, and anyone in lowercase "s" security can reasonably be considered to be in law enforcement too. I'm not too concerned about a bunch of unnamed operations division pages, but pages like United States armed forces personnel, or JAGs. Deciding if the "military" is in law enforcement as whole would also help, since Kirk wasn't harassing Harry Mudd because he was bored, and all we ever see the Nazi SS do is kill people without names while arresting our heroes. IDing who should be in this category (like Worf), and who should not be (like Alexander because of the Ancient West program), and if we should just have subcategories under this, would go a long way to convincing me this won't just lead to years of arguing over having Nazis and Odo in the same category, or if Archer is a better cop than Commander Collins since he pretty much did her job for her.
The issue I'm getting at is "law enforcement" is much bigger than just "US law enforcement", but making a category for the latter only begs why it isn't in a category for the former, and it gets a pretty messy there. - Archduk3 13:28, April 17, 2017 (UTC)
You could call it "police personnel", signifying members of a police force. Or "civilian law enforcement personnel" to remove the military aspect. --LauraCC (talk) 15:48, April 17, 2017 (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)

Communication Edit

In reviewing how things are organized with Category:Literature, then looking at the larger picture, "Literature" (if not "Category:Arts as a whole) should be under the non-existent category "Communication" umbrella of Category:Culture, as Category:Linguistics, Category:Languages, Category:Alerts, Category:Communications technology (which would need to be reorganized, as a result) are all forms of or related to "Communication", yet none coincide with each other directly. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 14:32, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

I suppose. Can you think of anything that would fall under "Communication" and not any of those then-sub-categories? --LauraCC (talk) 16:50, May 19, 2017 (UTC)
Just saw communing and small talk, which is not communications technology itself but a process enabled by technology. Would that be one example? --LauraCC (talk) 17:03, July 5, 2017 (UTC)

FamilyEdit

A category for the familial titles and aspects of being/becoming a family, such as adoption. orphan, legal guardian etc. Subcat of Culture. --LauraCC (talk) 17:33, June 9, 2017 (UTC)

That name isn't going to work, and I'm not sure if this idea will either. - Archduk3 07:43, June 10, 2017 (UTC)

Well, we could call it "Category:Familial connections"...or "Interpersonal relationships"--LauraCC (talk) 16:05, June 12, 2017 (UTC)

"Family" is perfectly acceptable. The namesake article is the focal point of the entire concept/list aspect of the topic. Everything that would be categorized is already linked to the page and clearly distinct. To say something isn't going to work, at this point, is purely unsubstantiated. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 19:03, June 26, 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the name is the best thing we could use for the "is" statement, as in "Earth is [a] planet", if you're trying to put everything mentioned in one cat. While stuff like "a brother is family" works well enough, the others, like "an orphan is family", not so much. - Archduk3 (on an unsecure connection) 23:03, July 10, 2017 (UTC)

What about my earlier suggestion of "Interpersonal relationships"? --LauraCC (talk) 15:36, July 12, 2017 (UTC)

This is pure nitpickery. A child without a family is an orphan. There is a family connection, and would also be the KISS solution (Wikipedia would appear to agree) because I don't want a dozen subcategories to a thing when only a couple will do. At this point, our category catalog is so diluted with fine tuning categories it's about useless unto itself. So, if Star Trek has made one thing clear, the definition of family is more than what's trying to be made of this suggestion. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 15:58, July 12, 2017 (UTC)
The category tree is becoming overly "fine tuned", see right here for an example, and it's not "nitpickery" to point out that a catch all category bending the guideline all categories have been based on isn't inherently better than a navigation template, which once again wasn't even considered as far as I can tell. I don't see any argument here on why a category would be the better solution, and, if it isn't apparent, a small list that can be grouped and labeled is better than a small list that can't, even if it has to be directly on the page instead of a click away. - Archduk3 (on an unsecure connection) 19:15, July 12, 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)

Fees and payments Edit

Subcat of "Economics" dealing with types of fees and charges for various things.

--LauraCC (talk) 19:34, July 7, 2017 (UTC)

Surprised at the amount of fees we have... yeah this could work. -- Capricorn (talk) 19:14, July 10, 2017 (UTC)

Many of these were formerly red links until I created them...--LauraCC (talk) 19:16, July 10, 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)

Production POV categories Edit

Puppeteers Edit

A subcat of "Category:Performers"(?) for all who operated puppets on a Star Trek production.

--LauraCC (talk) 16:57, January 12, 2017 (UTC)

We have other options also: 1) include this list in a background note @ the in-universe article Puppeteer (which only has one reference - I've already added a short note saying the shows used puppeteers to operate small moving creatures) 2) create a real-world page (a la Stand-in) for this role (my preference if a category isn't made) --LauraCC (talk) 17:32, January 18, 2017 (UTC)

I just wonder how the real-world article and the in-universe one would be disambiguated? "(Real world)"? "(Production)"? --LauraCC (talk) 19:00, January 18, 2017 (UTC)

I previously disambiguated United States Postal Service in universe from United States Postal Service (real world) that way, but I don't particularly like that approach either. --LauraCC (talk) 19:20, January 19, 2017 (UTC)

There is actually no reason not to have both a cat unto its own and a real world article for puppeteer (I added Don Dow and David Sosalla and, where applicable, some official movie credits to your list); the latter then serves as the "portal page" for the cat, just like the stand-in example you mentioned. What I'm less sure about however, is the subbing under "performers" of the new cat (which btw I Support). I'm wondering if subbing under "Special and Visual effects staff" isn't the more applicable one, since the items these people puppeteer are in essence special effects, and it are they that are "performing", not their operators (and if memory serves that dichotomy is adhered to in motion picture credits; puppeteers, when credited, are not listed under cast); in this respect they do not differ from motion control riggers who are putting the physical studio starship models though their paces...
As to the disamb, I'm in agreement that "real world" is a bit awkward looking, but for the Postal Service (as a collectible company, it precludes merging with the in-universe article as a background section, which I would otherwise have preferred), it is correct in its description and in concordance with how the production POV template is worded, so I can live with it. If a puppeteer page is created the disamb "Production" has my preference to indicate that these real world people actually worked on Star Trek live-action productions, as opposed to the Postal Service...Sennim (talk) 07:38, March 17, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions. --LauraCC (talk) 20:55, April 10, 2017 (UTC)

Puppeteers. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 18:44, July 10, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. So is there still then a need for a category? --LauraCC (talk) 18:45, July 10, 2017 (UTC)

Probably. I just penciled the page in because it's likely the list isn't complete yet. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 18:52, July 10, 2017 (UTC)

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)

Unauthorized publications Edit

For all reference, etc, Star trek books written without authorization. --LauraCC (talk) 14:53, August 17, 2017 (UTC)

Maintenance categories Edit

Special features Edit

I'd like to propose a Category:Special features, subbed under Category:Specials and on par with Category:Documentaries for the following reasons:

  • An increasing number of MA Editors find it worthwhile to include separate entries for these kind of productions, which I, btw, find entirely justified (especially produced with its own production staff in the vast majority of cases, it is a bit odd that a twenty minute (commercial) special like The Star Trek Logs: An MTV Big Picture Special Edition warrants its own entry, whereas something like the in-depth In Conversation: Rick Berman and Brannon Braga or The Trek Not Taken should not under its own category.)
  • Inclusion of the category would differentiate between those documentaries produced as an independent, stand-alone, production {see the definition currently employed on its portal page), contrary to those especially produced for a home media format. Currently, most of them are subbed under the in my opinion incorrect cat "Documentaries"
  • These home media format special features increasingly receive their own individual entries on IMDB, which has become a premier source of tracking down the lesser know Star Trek documentaries. As these specials are not seldomly listed without the source publication, the misconception may arise that these are "stand-alone" productions.
  • It chimes perfectly with the already existing image categories Category:Memory Alpha images (documentaries) and Category:Memory Alpha images (special features).
  • When introduced, a nav bar akin to the ones employed for book, or home media formats series, can be employed for the individual special feature articles, employing their respective home media format page as the "portal".
  • Being a MA editor myself, I find it increasingly difficult to keep track of remembering where I saw/heard what on which special, especially with the proliferation of such productions resulting from the remastered releases...Having something like the proposed category, might at the very least alleviate some of that stress...

My two cents..--Sennim (talk) 15:53, March 7, 2017 (UTC)

You've certainly given this a lot of thought...:)--LauraCC (talk) 16:13, March 8, 2017 (UTC)
Support, provided that this category is in Documentaries, as these special features are still a documentary, of a different sort when compared to the stand alone versions, but still falling under the broader definition that readers are likely to use, unless I've missed one that couldn't be considered a documentary in any respect. - Archduk3 03:23, March 9, 2017 (UTC)
Question: would titled gag reels fall under this proposed category? I don't think those are documentaries per se. --LauraCC (talk) 15:24, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

I'm impartial to the new cat being either listed alongside or subbed under "Documentaries", both options work for me...As to the gag reels, you could also consider them this way, as a special kind of behind-the-scenes registration...--Sennim (talk) 10:18, March 10, 2017 (UTC)

Support. --LauraCC (talk) 18:26, August 17, 2017 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.