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)

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)

Non-guns Edit

A category for non-gun handheld weapons. Or maybe one for "Blade weapons". (The former would need a better name). Or just have category "Firearms". --LauraCC (talk) 19:26, June 16, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. No rationale, so just spewing thoughts here instead of thinking again. - Archduk3 20:26, June 16, 2017 (UTC)

Actually, after looking at energy weapon and projectile weapon, maybe categories for those would be good instead. There's a long list at projectile weapon that could be a category. Some would still fall in hand-held (rifle) while others wouldn't (Cannon) --LauraCC (talk) 20:31, June 16, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. I think you the parent category "Weapons" needs to be reassessed before we start whittling away at away at its subcategory (see: Military technology). --Alan del Beccio (talk) 19:03, June 26, 2017 (UTC)

Death Edit

As a complement to Category:Sex and reproduction. Would have Category:Death ceremonies as a subcat, as well as contain things like: Corpse, body bag, Death certificate, Vulcan funeral dirge, morgue, coffin, Rigor mortis, Decomposition, Burial, Graveyard, Burial detail, etc. --LauraCC (talk) 21:46, June 16, 2017 (UTC)

Support, very intuitive category. I guess this would go under both Category:Biology and Category:Culture? -- Capricorn (talk) 05:00, June 18, 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. --LauraCC (talk) 16:57, June 19, 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)

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)

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 & 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)

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.