Memory Alpha:Category suggestions

Shortcut:
MA:CS

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.

---

Please click here to start a new discussion

---

In-universe categories

Missions and expeditions parent

I created Category:Missions and expeditions based on my rereading this, which had everyone actually agreeing that we should have the category, but not liking the name (myself in fact) or what category it should be under. I'm fine with the name as is now, and will do the work to change it if I misread that and we decide otherwise, but there wasn't a category decided to place this under, so we still need that. I did like the original suggestion of "Events", which could then cover Crossing, Fornax Disaster (categorized), Alien abduction, and other uncategorized pages, but since that failed the first time around, I'm open to suggestions. - Archduk3 14:57, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

I like Events as well; I'm not sure what else you could use instead.--31dot 09:25, August 5, 2011 (UTC)

Trill symbionts

Currently the Trill category contains both members of the Trill species and Trill symbionts, which seems odd because while symbiotic, they are defenatly two different species. I think a split would make more sense logically. -- Capricorn (talk) 03:19, November 11, 2014 (UTC)

Support. - Archduk3 20:37, November 11, 2014 (UTC)

Support. Tom (talk) 14:57, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

Holograms (disambig)

Vic Fontaine is not Human. He's a Hologram, just ask him yourself. Since the species categories are "is" categories, Holograms shouldn't be directly in other species categories.

Vic would be categorized as "Holograms (Human)" and that category would be in both Holograms and Humans, for searching purposes. - Archduk3 07:11, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

But is that useful enough to justify a huge number of new barely populated categories, and a whole new level of complexity? You'd have thins like Category:Holograms (fly), with Roy as the sole member. And maybe even categories in the format of Category:Holograms (xyz's species). Plus if this is needed then there's no real reason not to do the same with fictional characters. Or you could even have a Category:Unreferenced Material (Humans). I'm not gonna formally vote because I'm not all that involved in categories, but holograms are just holograms, methinks. Vic would probably just find a coy way of saying no if you'd flat out ask him if he was Human. -- Capricorn (talk) 08:04, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but since there are a fair number of pages in two species categories, that aren't hybrids, this was my solution without simply removing the "looks like" category. I'm not advocating for a sub-cat for Roy either, since I'm assuming that the rational originally was to make it easier to find actors or actresses if you only remember the amount of rubber attached to their face, which is why "he" isn't in animals as well as holograms. - Archduk3 00:53, February 26, 2015 (UTC)

Individual animals

From Category talk:Individual animals:

Did I miss the category talk for this new category? Tom (talk) 14:37, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was unaware that I had to alert people of doing that. Other wikias were less strict about that. I just assumed that the category was necessary because certain other wikias had the same type of category, and it seemed weird that animals had to be lumped in with sentient individuals. If you want to get rid of it I understand, but I just thought it was logical for them to ave their own category.--Bwaar (talk) 14:48, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

Personally I am not against this category and can see your point. I will move the discussion to the appropriate place to get the official way. Tom (talk) 14:57, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

I have just created a category for individual animals that had names. It seemed weird to me for animals to be lumped in with sentient characters, and I've noticed that other wikias have this category such as Memory Beta. --Bwaar (talk) 14:54, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

Memory Alpha is not a "wikia", it is a wiki, and while I'm fundamentally and morally opposed to anyone who uses the name of that company to address this site, I can find no reason to oppose this particular suggestion. - Archduk3 18:14, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

Production POV categories

Reference books into individual series

I suggest we create relevant categories underneath Category:Reference books for each of the relevant series. For example, a Category:Star Trek: The Next Generation reference books for things like the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion, and Category:Star Trek: Deep Space Nine reference books for the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion etc. Thoughts? --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 18:52, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

How many are there that would fall into each category? Can you put together a list on a sub-User page that would break them down into each grouping? -- sulfur (talk) 19:29, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

While I like the idea, I share Sulfur's "concern". I've taken a look through the list and have noticed that relatively few are series specific (TOS perhaps having the most), many of them cross-series.--Sennim (talk) 10:28, April 12, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't think this is necessary as the category is not overcrowded and this won't really help. Tom (talk) 20:03, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

Studio executives sub cat

While they are in Trek-lore not the most popular people, including with me (though I've to begrudgingly admit that it was not all woe and mayhem regarding their role, as I've discovered there were some "good" ones amongst them), I'd like to propose a "Category:Studio executives" sub-cat under Category:Production. Of the five execs of which articles are already written by other contributors, three are categorized as "Producers", but producers and execs are different beasties all-together. As overhead and studio oversight execs are formally not involved with the actual production (which is the purview of the producers, the top one btw, always selected by execs), virtually never credited and therefore not to be sub-catted under Category:Production staff as the two other ones are, even though they have considerable decision-making influence during the conceptualization phase before production starts. An important aspect which is the purview of the execs (often overlooked by lore) is the marketing of Star Trek, aside from the fact that it is they who decide if we see Star Trek on-screen at all. As you can see here, five articles were already written, but already a dozen "redlinks" await entries...On a side-note, I'd like to point out that they should not be confused with "Network executives", those of NBC in particular (and who where the ones most vigorously pushing for cancellation of TOS), though of these no articles or redlinks are yet featured on the site as far as I can ascertain.--Sennim (talk) 11:08, December 19, 2014 (UTC)

While I'm not 100% convinced that we need articles about all of these executives at the top of the chain (and especially not the network executives, etc), if people feel that these articles are worth while and relevant, then I'm OK with the category suggestion. -- sulfur (talk) 11:14, December 19, 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's why I've only included the execs whose names I came across repeatedly (discounting the fringe ones, the financial "suits" in particular) in Trek reference books and therefore think pertinent. The TMP executive quartet for example, were the most involved due to that movie's troublesome production history, Katzenberg especially. It was the absolute "top-dog", Bluhdorn (as CEO, founder and main shareholder of Gulf+Western actually the de facto owner of the Trek-franchise during 1967-1983 in the first place), who initiated the movie franchise as well as the accompanying tie-in Trek book-line and ordained the continuation of it after TMP was finished even though the TMP Paramount quartet did not seek continuation and wanted to be rid of Star Trek alltogether. On the other hand, Solow (one of the "good" guys btw) mentioned that his successor on TOS, Douglas Cramer, had few dealings with Trek, not wanting to be burned by it as the series' fate was pondered by the powers that be. Most ironically however, he is the one exec, besides Solow, who actually has an official "Executive in Charge of Production" credit; Go figure...:)--Sennim (talk) 11:42, December 19, 2014 (UTC)

Support. If we're going to have pages on them, it's better to have them properly categorized. - Archduk3 06:36, February 15, 2015 (UTC)

Support. Tom (talk) 20:02, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

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)

Breaking down Category:Novels

I would like to have sub-categories for omnibuses, eBooks, eBook omnibuses, and eBook series (inside Category:Novel series) for the Merch portal. - Archduk3 06:30, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

Support. Tom (talk) 20:01, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

No ebook omnibuses. Those should simply be in both ebooks and omnibuses I'd think. The others I'm ok with. -- sulfur (talk) 00:03, March 9, 2015 (UTC)

Since there are comic omnibuses, I'm going with the name "Novel collections" right now. - Archduk3 17:55, March 13, 2015 (UTC)