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 used 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
Acronyms
This may be more appropriate for a list page than a category, but I didn't know where else to suggest it. I looked up "acronym" and there are some articles that say "(abcdefg) was an acronym for (list of terms)". So a category for every phrase more commonly/only known by an acronym or a list (if such a thing doesn't exist)? --LauraCC (talk) 17:53, December 15, 2015 (UTC)
Well, like MACO or TCARS. There's a page for Klingonese with a table list of words and their definitions, even though some of these words have their own pages. --LauraCC (talk) 20:56, December 15, 2015 (UTC)
- There are enough for a cat, as this covers pretty much everything using a "blank" sortkey in starship classifications category, but this mostly covers redirects outside of those, as page titles should be the whole phrase if we know it. Since these are mostly "invisible" in the latter sense, I would support a category for these to make finding them easier. - Archduk3 03:25, December 16, 2015 (UTC)
Some are listed on the starfleet agencies template, but this would help find non-starfleet acronyms too, like CPR etc. --LauraCC (talk) 20:24, December 18, 2015 (UTC) Any more support votes? --LauraCC (talk) 15:41, January 8, 2016 (UTC)
Genres
See movie for the list of genres. --LauraCC (talk) 21:29, January 17, 2016 (UTC) It may be expanded to include book and music genres as well, hence the category. --LauraCC (talk) 16:57, January 22, 2016 (UTC) Would it go in Arts and music under genres? Or would all genres thus listed be in the "genres" category? --LauraCC (talk) 17:31, January 22, 2016 (UTC)
Insects
Might be useful sub cat of animals. --LauraCC (talk) 21:45, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
Though, maybe Category: Invertebrates might work. --LauraCC (talk) 18:59, January 20, 2016 (UTC)
Here's the list, User:LauraCC/Insects. --LauraCC (talk) 18:43, January 22, 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. We could start with "Earth insects" for now until it's clear where other alien species belong. --LauraCC (talk) 17:59, January 26, 2016 (UTC)
- I doubt we'll ever know where other alien species belong if we can't know it now. That's a concern I have, just because something is called Betelgeuzian maggot or something, can we be sure enough to classify something we know nothing about that as part of the insect class of the arthropod phylum as known on Earth. The precedents of category:felines and canines would suggest yes, but still...
- But I do like the less risque option of "Earth insects", support on that one. -- Capricorn (talk) 18:25, January 29, 2016 (UTC)
Any other supports for this? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by LauraCC (talk • contribs).
Markonians
Put Unnamed Markonians in this cat. See "Category:R'Kaal" for precedent. -- LauraCC (talk) 20:20, January 20, 2016 (UTC)
Scientific Occupations
A category for all those pages which currently have both the Science and Occupations category, like Quantum theorist, Exobiologist, Biologist etc. Kennelly (talk) 17:13, January 23, 2016 (UTC)
- Could you come up with a full list? Tom (talk) 13:58, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
- Anthropologist,Archaeologist,Astronomer,Astrophysicist,Biochemist,Biologist,Botanist,Chemist,Cosmologist,Cyberneticist,Entomologist,Exobiologist,Exogeologist,Exolinguist,Exozoologist,Ethnobotanist,Geneticist,Geophysicist,Hematologist,Historian,Linguist,Marine biologist,Mathematician,Meteorologist,Microbiologist,Micropaleontologist,Mineralogist,Molecular paleontologist,Oceanographer,Paleontologist,Physicist,Quantum theorist,Robotics scientist,Sociologist,Stellar physicist,Thanatologist,Thermologist,Xenologist,Zoologist. Those I found after a quick view over the Occupations category. Kennelly (talk) 15:21, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Sounds good to me. Tom (talk) 16:50, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
Gemstones
This list might be a good category. -- LauraCC (talk) 20:08, January 27, 2016 (UTC)
- Support. And the the list article could be redirected into the category as there is no content but the list. Tom (talk) 10:23, January 28, 2016 (UTC)
Production POV categories
Collectible companies
For pages in both Category:Collectibles and Category:Companies. - Archduk3 00:31, February 15, 2015 (UTC)
- Something we should've had a while ago -- but an optimal solution here would be to break up the company from the product. The company would fall into 'collectible companies', and then have a product page that can be the current 'catalogue' section of each page now fall into the collectibles. -- sulfur (talk) 03:47, February 15, 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. I'm thinking a page for each "product line." For example: Johnny Lightning could be split to Legends of Star Trek (standard releases) and Legends Of Star Trek (White Lightning releases) or just Legends of Star Trek (Johnny Lightning). We could also just have a Johnny Lightning catalog or Johnny Lightning merchandise page, which would might make more sense for pages like Genki Wear and Kraft, which don't have "named product lines," or much of a "line" at all. - Archduk3 04:29, February 15, 2015 (UTC)
- Support, though a bit tentatively. While the suggestion ties in nicely with that of publishers and books/magazines, I'm a bit concerned with the split application resulting in a large number of additional "stub" pages the Kraft and Genki examples...I like the second subordinate suggestion, but propose Johnny Lightning product lines instead "catalog" or "merchandise". To my ears the latter two would sound too much like commercially "peddling" stuff--Sennim (talk) 11:38, February 16, 2015 (UTC)
- Support - I prefer the "... product lines" suggestion as well. -- Renegade54 (talk) 19:04, November 12, 2015 (UTC)
Highlighting real world families
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)
- 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)
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)
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 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)
Geoscience split
Could we split geology and weather into subcats? --LauraCC (talk) 18:43, February 4, 2016 (UTC) There's lots of storms on the list. --LauraCC (talk) 18:35, February 6, 2016 (UTC)
Maintenance categories
Split Comic series into subcats
One for each corresponding show series it encompasses and one for the Alternate reality? --LauraCC (talk) 20:28, December 15, 2015 (UTC)
- Too many fall across shows to have show versions. Perhaps by publisher, but I'm not a big fan of that idea either.
- The only one that I don't mind the sound of it alt reality vs prime reality. -- sulfur (talk) 20:45, December 15, 2015 (UTC)
I agree. But certain comics such as Star Trek: Countdown (omnibus) would fall into both categories, as some of it takes place in the prime universe's future. Other than that, not a lot of crossover. --LauraCC (talk) 15:50, December 31, 2015 (UTC) So are we good to go with this? --LauraCC (talk) 15:41, January 8, 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not yet convinced on this. I think that it's more beneficial to break down by publisher, but a prime v alternate reality listing may work. I'm not totally certain of the value though. -- sulfur (talk) 15:43, January 8, 2016 (UTC)
Post production staff
See Talk:Alec Peters for details. -- LauraCC (talk) 17:30, February 2, 2016 (UTC)
- Definitly not post-production. Please don't use this wrong description. He has nothing to do with in-universe productions of Trek. Tom (talk) 17:36, February 2, 2016 (UTC)
But would it fit as a category for those who remastered episodes, as I suggested there? --LauraCC (talk) 17:38, February 2, 2016 (UTC)
- I cannot see the connection between the post-production staff and the CBS Digital staff who worked on the remastered versions?! Please provide at least one reason why these two "groups" should be connected. We already have Category:CBS Digital staff. Tom (talk) 17:44, February 2, 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought it meant anyone who worked on something after the fact. Oops. --LauraCC (talk) 17:48, February 2, 2016 (UTC)
- Check Post-production for a description what covers this department and you can see we already have split it into several "production staff" categories. Tom (talk) 17:51, February 2, 2016 (UTC)
See the same talk page for my new suggestion: "Event staff" - covering exhibitions, music concerts, etc. --LauraCC (talk) 17:22, February 3, 2016 (UTC)
- In regard to Laura's (good) suggestion, up for consideration "exhibit and attraction staff" to have it correspond with the existing "Category:Star Trek exhibits and attractions"-page...--Sennim (talk) 15:40, February 8, 2016 (UTC)