Memory Alpha
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
Memory Alpha
Memory Alpha
57,147
pages
in: Memory Alpha maintenance

Memory Alpha:Category suggestions

Revision as of 20:18, 26 March 2017 by Archduk3 (talk | contribs) (reps)
Sign in to edit
Shortcut:
MA:CS
Memory Alpha About → Policies and guidelines → Category 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 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

Brain

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)

Subspace communication

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:EnterpriseHelmsmen 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)

Biochemical compounds

For those "Chemical compounds" secreted naturally by biological lifeforms rather than produced. Subcat of "Chemical compounds". Also, there's probably enough enzymes/enzyme-related pages to have an "enzymes" category. --LauraCC (talk) 17:43, February 9, 2017 (UTC)

That is, there probably will be when all those red links at "enzyme" are made into pages. --LauraCC (talk) 20:08, February 16, 2017 (UTC)

This one probably isn't a bad idea. And some of these may be miscategorized to begin with; I'm not sure, from a biochemical standpoint, what the difference is between categorizing one under "Biology" and another under "Physiology". And the ones under "Poisonous substances" are still chemical compounds, so they should also be under the "Chemical compounds" category as well, if they're not already. -- Renegade54 (talk) 22:18, February 16, 2017 (UTC)
Support if all of these can be categorized under physiology; if not, oppose, as this would be a better off as a nav template then. - Archduk3 12:35, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

What about "enzymes"? --LauraCC (talk) 21:12, February 23, 2017 (UTC)

Aside from herbicide, I don't see anything which wouldn't fall under physiology. --LauraCC (talk) 20:00, February 28, 2017 (UTC)

Klingon augments

For all who fall into the categories "Klingons" and "Augments". --LauraCC (talk) 17:45, March 1, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Unnessasary breakdown of the Augments category, and would backdoor too many other bad ideas with similar categories. - Archduk3 18:14, March 1, 2017 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I figured that might be an objection, but wanted to suggest it in case the fact that we have categories for species with only one member in them applies as precedent. I'm guessing that's neither here nor there? Thanks for clarifying. :) --LauraCC (talk) 18:17, March 1, 2017 (UTC)

What exactly is the nature of this slippery slope you're worried about? I see some value in splitting augments by species, though I'm not sure about the exact scheme. It feels counter-intuitive for them to be mixed together in one category. -- Capricorn (talk) 05:27, March 2, 2017 (UTC)
First, we have to start with the problem that all TOS/TAS Klingons aren't really Augments, just infected with an augmented flu virus, but some of them, not all though, are on this list. Remove them and there's not enough to warrent a category. Second, this is obviously also a suggestion for a Human version of this as well, but not actually saying so is disingenuous. If those two are done, the Augments category is emptied and has to move up to the "species" level of the tree, or somewhere equivalent, because it can't be subbed in the same categories as its own subs, and stops being a category just for captial "A" Augments, becuase of the TOS/TAS Klingons, but all genetically augmented people. At that point, all Denobulans and Suliban need to be subbed in there as well. The category is now useless for what it was created for. You can also pretty much use the same logic for breaking down the Hybrids category, which is a bad idea too. None of this even touches on the production categories. - Archduk3 14:26, March 2, 2017 (UTC)

Might be better as (and may already be) a list, then? --LauraCC (talk) 16:22, March 2, 2017 (UTC)

Economic documents

Includes articles in "economics" and "legal documents" and/or "reports".

--LauraCC (talk) 16:36, March 16, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose; couldn't replace both categories on the page, mixing tree branches, and no location specified. - Archduk3 19:05, March 16, 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't "Category:reports" belong in a new "category:Documents" rather than culture? --LauraCC (talk) 19:13, March 16, 2017 (UTC)

Is that what we're talking about? I though it was economic documents. - Archduk3 20:27, March 16, 2017 (UTC)

We were. But I noticed that while looking to see where it branched from. I wanted to group all documents related to purchases, payments, contracts where money/value was exchanged.etc. --LauraCC (talk) 20:30, March 16, 2017 (UTC)

Weddings

For all things, people, places related to weddings. --LauraCC (talk) 17:20, March 16, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose; scope. - Archduk3 19:05, March 16, 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for not being more clear. Things like Wedding dress, places like chapel, people like Dais bearer. There are a bunch of red linked terms that begin with the word "wedding", and a variety of types of weddings, such as Klingon wedding, Vulcan wedding, etc, as well as Divorce, etc... --LauraCC (talk) 19:09, March 16, 2017 (UTC)

Scope includes rationale and location, neither of which are obvious here. These are, again, the basic requirements for making a suggestion, and I'm not seeing how an alphabetical list is going to be better than the sectioned and ordered one we have now. - Archduk3 20:27, March 16, 2017 (UTC)

Law enforcement personnel

For all members of civilian police organizations. Would include those parties @ United States law enforcement personnel and other such people. Charley is only categorized as a Human, for instance. --LauraCC (talk) 20:47, March 24, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. This would include all Starfleet personnel, and the category name doesn't limit entries to "civilians", which is a misnomer anyways. - Archduk3 20:18, March 26, 2017 (UTC)

Fictional holograms

All the holographic individuals that fall into the "fictional characters" category. Distinguishing them from real people portrayed in hologram form. --LauraCC (talk) 21:21, March 24, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Hologram is the "species" category, and shouldn't be diluted. - Archduk3 20:18, March 26, 2017 (UTC)

Production POV categories

E3 award winners and nominees

Apparently Star Trek (video game) won some E3 awards (aka "Game Critics Awards") [1], and Star Trek: Bridge Crew was nominated recently for best vr game. [2] I'm still unsure which of the two is the proper name for the award, hence my hesitation to add it to the awards page. --LauraCC (talk) 17:23, December 31, 2016 (UTC)

Also, would the expo itself get its own page (like some magazines have, such as Prosthetics, which isn't an exclusively Trek publication) or a section on a general expo page? [3] --LauraCC (talk) 17:35, December 31, 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to wait to answer my second post about a page for the expo until this discussion is moved to a category talk page (if it ever is). --LauraCC (talk) 21:38, January 24, 2017 (UTC)

Puppeteers

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)

Maintenance categories

Anthology covers

Now that we have Category:Anthologies, it seems logical to have their covers be in "Category: Memory Alpha images (anthology covers)" rather than "novel covers". --LauraCC (talk) 20:05, February 18, 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing why we need this, since it doesn't really add anything to that tree branch. Omnibus covers are "replacing" other novel covers, but these novels were always meant to only have "one" cover. - Archduk3 21:55, February 18, 2017 (UTC)

Not anthologies of previously published entire books, but short story collection covers, like the Strange New Worlds book covers. --LauraCC (talk) 17:12, February 21, 2017 (UTC)

Special features

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)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms
Advertisement