Memory Alpha
Memory Alpha
Memory Alpha
62,043
pages
in: Memory Alpha maintenance

Memory Alpha:Category suggestion archive/In-universe/Archive 1

< Memory Alpha:Category suggestion archive
Sign in to edit

People by century[]

I suggest categorizing various people (all members of a sentient species) by the century in which they lived. When near completed, it would be a pretty large category. The Categories would be:

  • Category:Distant past people (for anyone mentioned from this era)
  • Category:Early history people (for anyone mentioned from this era or seen in Time travel episodes to this era.)
  • Category:19th century people (for anyone mentioned from this era or seen in "Spectre of the Gun")
  • Category:20th century people (for anyone mentioned from this era or seen in Time travel episodes to this era.)
  • Category:21st century people (for anyone mentioned from this era or seen in "Carpenter Street" or "11:59".)
  • Category:22nd century people (for anyone mentioned from this era or seen in Star Trek: Enterprise)
  • Category:23rd century people (for anyone mentioned from this era or seen in Star Trek: The Original Series and TOS-era movies)
  • Category:24th century people (for anyone mentioned from this era or seen in TNG-era series and movies)
  • Category:Future people (for anyone mentioned or glimpsed in the future in Star Trek)

and perhaps even a Category:Alternate timeline people to categorize any articles on people seen in alternate timelines/alternate universes (not alternate versions of a regular universe character) with a possible subcategory being Category:Mirror universe people (although that might take away from the Mirror universe category).--Tim Thomason 19:31, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The problem with this (I brought this up several times already in response to similar suggestions) is that a too fine subcategorization scheme makes the whole thing too noisy - we would end up with so many categories for each article, that, while the category page might be a nice listing of articles, the equally important category listing on the article page would be humongous and nearly useless. Take Picard for example, he would appear in Distant Past, Early History, 21st Century, 24th Century and Future if I'm not missing anything - combine that with the already existing bunch of "XXX personnel" and other people categories, add some other potential or already-suggested subcategories, shake thoroughly, and you might end up with well over 20 categories or more for some of the main articles. Because of that, I don't agree with this suggestion - what about a collection of good, old lists instead? :) -- Cid Highwind 20:00, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that many Wikipedia articles have "YYYY births" and "YYYY deaths" categories, I find those very useful, and while not feasible in Memory Alpha, I figured something along the lines of 23d century people, etc. would be equally useful. I should have also stipulated that I don't think little time travel adventures should count at which century they are from. So, Picard would just be 24th century, Kirk just 23rd, McCoy and Spock would be 23rd and 24th, April would be 22nd and 23rd, and T'Pol would be 21st and 22nd. I think these categories, if accepted, would be one of the main and easiest-to-use categories and would apply to virtually every person category on Memory Alpha. This doesn't seem to be very feasible as a list (unlike, say, Category:Starbases or Category:Episodes, or virtually any of the categories that I have suggested above). I personally feel this is one of the more "broader" categories, but, oh well.--Tim Thomason 22:30, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Oppose, I don't see a reason for this. We've got year ref.'s on almost every page as is. - AJHalliwell 20:35, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Archived --Alan del Beccio 08:11, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Starfleet ranks[]

With Category:Starfleet captains already around, I think that maybe they should have categories for all of the ranks. The pages for Starfleet commanders, Starfleet lieutenants, and Starfleet ensigns are already categorized into the "nonexistant" categories (albeit erroneously).

and maybe even Category:Starfleet civilian personnel to cover all probable civilians working on Starfleet ships and at Starfleet bases (Boothby, Mot, etc.).--Tim Thomason 12:57, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I Oppose cat's for Lieutenants, Ensigns, Commander, Admirals, etc. Captain's is iffy even, cause as ranking goes, people get promoted. Technically, if there was an admiral, we could assume they were a lieutenant, a lieutenant (JG) an ensign, a captain, a commander; numerous references that aren't really necessary. Enlisted I support though. - AJHalliwell 22:21, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but we shouldn't assume like that. Most Admirals have never been seen or referred to as any of the ranks, and according to my suggestion (I didn't make this clear) only people either seen with the rank, in the proper timeline, or mentioned with the rank (Picard was a lieutenant when...' etc.) would be categorized. That would shorten it up compared to what you're suggesting. None of the admirals are categorized as Captain, except a couple who were seen as captains. Also, I don't see any problem with an Admiral category, compared to the others.--Tim Thomason 19:40, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I agree with AJ - because it sort of breaks Memory Alpha's typical point of view, because we'd still end up with some articles categorized in several categories and because, apparently, the existing category for starfleet captains hasn't gone through this approval process (or has it? its talk page is empty). Oppose and either remove the starfleet captain category or, perhaps, rework it into a Category:Captains for all characters that captained a ship (not restricted to Starfleet). – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cid Highwind (talk • contribs) at 22:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC).
Archived --Alan del Beccio 08:11, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Andorian glass beads and other illegal items[]

First, is it my imagination when I remember references to Andorian glass beads? I can't find any mention of them at all in MA but I'm sure I've heard the phrase somewhere, or something very similar.

And while I'm at it: Is there any evidence to support the idea that some "illegal" items such as the beads, and Rigelian flamegems, etc are illegal not because of any specific property, but perhaps because the Federation has some rule allowing member planets to regulate commerce in products that are indigenous to only a single planet? Seems to make sense that common minerals and commodities would have a common market, but that rare or unique items such as the beads or Terran pearls would be controlled by the race that produces them and no other species could trade in them. Speculation at this point, but any reference, even slight, to some system like that (for instance, an Andorian trader selling the beads when others can't) would help expand the understanding of the Federation economy and the various goods mentioned. Logan 5 14:54, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps an article listing contraband items might go into more depth about this. "Catgory:Contraband" perhaps? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:00, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
User:Oshah stated "Maybe we should start a category: organised crime, passive movements, and groups explicitly labelled terrorists" in an edit of Terrorism, also Crimes, Punishments and Capital punishment are requested at Memory Alpha:Requested articles. I point this out because these things seem to be leaning in a similar direction and it might be helpful to keep them all together during such discussion. Jaf 02:37, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Actually they were Andarian glass beads. And I was thinking "consumables"/"Category:Consumables" for this, as well as Foods and beverages, currencies, silks, and any other item that has some sort of value. --Alan del Beccio 23:46, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Technologies[]

I suggest a list of each device/technology accompanied by its planet/civilization of origin (unless developed simultaneously by different planets, which would include the planets developing it).--Mike Nobody 04:09, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

This would be a list article, not a category (categories are alphabetical lists without further comments by design). Oppose as a category, but you might still want to create a "standard" article... -- Cid Highwind 13:20, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Individuals of unknown species[]

Moved from Memory Alpha:Ten Forward

I've got a category suggestion, I know there's a place for such things, but I forget where it is, feel free to move this. I'd like to see Species Unknown or something with the same meaning in order to compile the characters whose species are unknown, rather then creating pages for each one. I'm refering to the list that is starting to form under By Individual at Unnamed humanoids. Jaf 23:57, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Is this the same as that suggestion for "unnamed nonhumans" below? Otherwise, could you be a little more specific about its possible content and name? -- Cid Highwind 12:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Federation Members[]

Self-explanatory, though I really can't decide if this should apply to species, planets, or both.--T smitts 17:26, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Support: First of all, I would change the name to Category:Federation members, to conform to our capitalization standards. Then I would use the list at Federation members (a list of Planets) and use the Founding, Council, Other known, and Probable members sections of that page (about 33 member planets, from Aaamazzara to Zaran II). I wouldn't use anything else from that page, but we might have to categorize some species (Zaldans, Medusans, Saurians, Napeans) whose planet is unknown, or we could make a bunch of "Zaldan Homeworld" etc. pages and categorize them as Federation members.--Tim Thomason 00:08, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Oppose, for the moment: The question whether this applies to species, planets or both is one that we already discussed about two years ago, probably on the talk page of the "Federation members" page - and although my opinion of this has changed a little since then, I still don't think there's a definite answer either way. If we can't even decide (based on canon info) if we should include one or the other, we probably shouldn't start a category. And if we do anyway, we should only include definite members, not the proabble ones. -- Cid Highwind 21:09, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)
How about two categories: Category:Federation planets and Category:Federation species? I would support that. --From Andoria with Love 20:56, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Inhabited Star systems[]

I was looking at the star systems page earlier and it's a constantly growing page with no sub-divisions. I was wondering whether a sub-category might be appropriate for Inhabited star systems. It would list only those systems which were stated or seen to be inhabited by a known lifeform. Any system only mentioned, but not mentioned as inhabited, or any system seen but not shown to be inhabited would reside in the main category. Just seems like it would be a good way to break up the length of hte category in a helpful manner with an easy distinction. --Logan 5 01:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It is usually easiest to establish a category from a reference list of some sort. Is there such a list on the site? --Alan del Beccio 02:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we had a lengthy discussion while trying to determine exactly which planets were inhabited and which weren't some time ago - so I'd like to see a list first, too, to see if this really works. -- Cid Highwind 20:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's this list: Inhabited planets which would def. be a start. It's incomplete but any planet on this list would obviously have its parent system included. Logan 5 21:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

So wouldnt it be easier to go with Category:Inhabited planets? --Alan del Beccio 05:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
My vote is for Category:Inhabited planets as well. It's more specific, and gives a finer level of detail than one for inhabited star systems. -- Renegade54 15:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
First, this isn't an either/or question. We might want to decide to split up the star systems category, the planets category, both or neither. If the question here is whether to split up one category, working on the other won't help at all. Going back to just the star systems category, I have to ask: Will splitting up this category really help? It has about 230 entries now, which isn't too much, and the proposed split still seems rather artificial to me - any system that was being mentioned as "inhabited" might have a striving population of billions, or just some dozen scientists on a space station in the middle of nowhere. Any other system, too, might in fact be uninhabited, or have a population that was just not mentioned. Regarding this, I don't know if a split is really worth all that, considering that we would necessarily destroy a reference page for all star systems in the process (this would also be true for the planets category, of course). Why not have categories for the generic type and list articles for any subset of that? -- Cid Highwind 15:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Milky Way and Universe[]

In MA-fr, I created specific organisation categories rather than planets because it includes many other things. For example, Category:Qo'noS include articles about houses, klingon food, animals who are not necessarly related to the planet Qo'noS, that's why I created a more general category called "Klingon Empire", which can include Klingon starships, klingon territory (planets),... The same applies to Category:Romulus (Romulan Star Empire) and other great organisations. I think only Earth and Bajor should be categories in this manner because many entries are related to these planets. But I think they are badly categorized in Category:Planets because although they are planets, they cannot be called a subdivision of "planets" like "M-class planets". In the same way, the organizations categories I suggest ("Klingon Empire", "Dominion", "Romulan Star Empire", "UFP", "Borg Collective", "Ferengi Alliance", "Cardassian Union") are "organisations" but should not be categorized as subdivision of Category:Organizations.

That's why I've created another category more general which is "Milky Way" which includes those great organisations (because Dominion, Federation, Borg Collective... cover great portion of territory in the Milky Way) and planets which big background like Earth or Bajor. Many other articles will be related to the Milky Way category : Alpha Quadrant, Galactic barrier, ... as well as the categories Planets, Category:Sectors, Category:Star systems, Category:Cities.

Milky Way is also a subcategory of "Univers" which also includes many categories and articles like "Species", "Mirror-Universe", "Q Continuum"... - Philoust123 11:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ship categories[]

I think the following categories are needed:

  • Prometheus class
  • Defiant class
  • Sovereign class
  • Escort ships
  • Tactical cruisers
  • Starship technology

--Arado 17:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose all except Starship technology. We only have one Prometheus class, on Sovereign, and one escort. I don't even think tactical cruiser is a canon classification. As for defiant, we already have a template that links them. Jaz talk | novels 17:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Where is that template?--Arado 17:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

{{Defiant class starships}} --Kobi - (Talk)
Oppose XXX class: since we don't have individual ship pages the articles would be over-categorised. Logical consequence is to oppose "Escort ships" and "Tactical cruisers" as well, because they could only act as super-categories -- Kobi - (Talk) 18:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Deep Space Stations[]

Category:Deep Space stations this is a minor category that can list all the Deep Space stations mentioned Deep Spaces 3,4,5,7,9, K-7 Hazzer 04:11, 01 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. As I said with the creation of Deep space station (see its [[Talk:Talk:Space station|Talk:Deep space station]]), we already have a category for space stations (see? :D), so I really don't see the need for this one. --From Andoria with Love 04:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Command-level programs[]

I would like to see a category that groups pages like Red alert, Saucer separation, Multi-vector assault mode, Yellow alert, Blue alert and Counter-insurgency program. Also, the Self-destruct program would fit into this category, along with Voyager's landing sequence etc. Basically, any program that is activated that affects the entire ship or space-station. Of course, the name of the category would take a bit of thinking about. Zsingaya 08:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Weak oppose, do we have a list of things for this? I don't think we'd have enough, and "Command-leve" isn't quite accurate: as The Doctor, who didn't have even a level 3 (i think) level authorization was able to activate multi-vector assault mode. - AJ Halliwell 09:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Earth sub-categories[]

Earth transportation[]

What about Category:Earth transportation for roads, subways, etc.? - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 02:09, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I think we might need a Category:Transportation first, followed by some definitions. --Alan del Beccio 02:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Earth Regions[]

We needs to do something about all the states, provinces, etc, listed on Earth regions. Making Category:Earth regions would seem best, except that in accordance to how we have created other earth subcategories this name does not fit with the ^Category:Regions. I created the list titled Subnational entities, which it the proper name in this case, it seems to me we might start with Category:Subnational entities and sub it with Category:Earth subnational entities. --Alan del Beccio 02:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Technical Difficulties[]

Category:Technical Difficulties would just be a place for pages like Warp core breach, Hull breach, and Neutron fatigue to call home. With all the technobabble and problems the Enterprise(s), Voyager, Defiant, and Deep Space 9 run into, I don't see how this wouldn't be a full category. --6/6 Neural Transceiver 07:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I do support a category for such events, but I'm not crazy about the name... unfortunately, I currently have no ideas for another name... --From Andoria with Love 11:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not married to the name either, just wanted a place to put these articles and others like it. --6/6 Neural Transceiver 22:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Support, with a better name. -- Renegade54 19:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
It just occurred to me that some of these topics might even better be moved to their respective main article, don't you think? Why do we have a separate article about the failure of technology X, instead of just a section in the article about that technology? -- Cid Highwind 14:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow. From what I read, you are suggesting that we include warp core breach with warp core? Wouldn't that be like merging gorch with skin or headache with brain? I guess either way, oppose, I don't like the idea based on the evidence presented to support this suggestion. --Alan del Beccio 17:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Food categories[]

We have one existing example of further splitting up the Category:Earth foods with Category:Earth herbs and spices. I suggest some more categories here, like Category:Earth soups including soups,bouillons,broths and stews and Category:Earth pastry for all those cookies,cakes etc. Kennelly 17:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure a fine-grained categorization as this would be necessary. We'd end up with a bunch of subcategories with only 5-10 items, fast. -- Cid Highwind 23:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Archived --Alan del Beccio 04:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeworlds[]

I'm not so much into the whole category thing, but I was surprised that no Category:Homeworlds exists as of yet, it seems extremely useful, and was also suggested as part of several complex "category tree" suggestions here. Anyway, my rationale: this would most logically be implemented as a subcategory of Category:Planets and I guess there would be more than enough candidates for the category. (in fact, I'm volunteering myself to boldly go seeking out homeworlds on MA and tagging them as such). Capricorn 06:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not totally convinced of this as yet... Perhaps coming up with a list and putting it on your userpage or as a subpage of such might help give an idea of the actual numbers? If it does pass, I would agree to it being a subcategory, and would suggest that it replace the planet category on the article. -- Sulfur 16:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
If that category replaces Category:Planets on homeworld pages, that would break Planets (formerly a list article listing all planets by name, now a redirect to the planet category which is still supposed to have the same functionality). Alternatives would be making the suggested category an additional one (with all the problems of duplicate categorization we already discussed elsewhere), or starting this as a list of homeworlds on Homeworlds (which, I just found that out by previewing this comment, already exists. Wow). -- Cid Highwind 17:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't your worries about breaking functionality be more or less solved just simply by making "homeworlds" a subcategory? I agree that double classification is messy, which is why some more or less arbitrary lists on MA like First planets, Delphic Expanse planets, Romulan planets, etc would not be good subcategories, but there are definatly subcategories that could work. For example, if next to a "homeworld" subcategory you add subcategories for "colonies" and "uninhabited planets", there (baring perhaps some odd cases) would be zero overlap, and the list would not only not lose functionality, but actualy gain some, as they are now categorised by some very basic and very usefull key characteristics. (note that this is not an expansion of the proposal, but rather a weird attempt at trying to explain my vision of how this could enhance MA). On a sidenote, thanks for pointing out the Homeworlds page, can't believe I missed that while researching this, but it will make for the perfect consolidation should this category not be created :). And sulfur, I guess that page will adress your doubts about the numbers too. -- Capricorn 04:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I was more thinking about the alphabetical list of all planets that now exists. What, if someone is looking for a planet he only knows part of the name of? Right now, it would be one lookup in the central "planets" list - then, it would be a lookup in 3-4 lists. Also, part of my "breaking functionality" concern was regarding the possible use of DPLs (see: Forum:DPL extension to generate lists, I even used the "planets" category there as an example). Maybe there's a way to make sense of a categorization as both "planet" and "homeworld", but I'm not sure of that at the moment... -- Cid Highwind 09:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Archived --Alan 03:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Starfleet divisions[]

I was looking at Sciences division and command division and operations division and noticed none of them had a category so what about a Category:Starfleet divisions, unless there is some other category they belong in.--UESPA 19:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps they could go under Agencies? Groups? I'm neutral on this right now, I'mnot convinced yet that these three need a seperate category.--31dot 20:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What about as a sub category of Agencies?--UESPA 23:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Or Category:Starfleet? Question is, what do you want to put in these categories? The officers who served in these divisions? In that case Category:Starfleet personnel could be thinned by placing those individuals into smaller categories. --Alan del Beccio 23:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking that the original idea for this category was to simply place the divisions withing their own category(please correct me if I am wrong), but I could see dividing the Starfleet personnel up by category. I'm not sure if that would be another issue, though. Responding to the above, I could see it as a subcategory of Starfleet.--31dot 23:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
With only three divisions, I don't think the divisions need their own category or even sub-category. Category:Starfleet would be a good place for it, methinks; after all, Starfleet division is already placed there. --From Andoria with Love 23:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Archived --Alan 21:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Klingon women[]

Pretty self-explanatory. We don't really have any articles that look at things from a feminist point of view; I think this makes MA seem very un-encyclopedic. Maybe this is a starting point? --- Jaz 01:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Klingon women as a starting point for a feminist revolution on M/A? Why not Human women or for that matter, Klingon men, as a starting point for dividing up categories into sexes that could never be completed? Certainly I could see picking something that has a sizable population in a category. Otherwise, at this time, I oppose. The neutral point of view, in this case, would be the most encyclopedic. --Alan 01:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Those are all good ideas Alan Category:Women by occupation. What I'm suggesting here is another step in categorization and pretty encyclopedic. Since when is "could never be completed" a deterrence in wikis? --- Jaz 01:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

One other point; the portrayal of women in Star Trek, specifically Klingon women has been an area of discussion not only among fans, but even in academic circles (do a Google Scholar search of "Women in Star Trek"; it yields numerous articles). --- Jaz 01:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Leaning Oppose. I agree with Alan that being neutral is best. I could potentially see Female and Male categories, instead of Human females, Klingon Females, Ferengi females, etc., but splitting up each race into the sexes is too much.--31dot 22:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I've got to agree with 31dot and Alan, oppose. Especially 31dot, maybe seperate them into male and female, but not into specific categories. So unless you know that the only readers are going to be female or the only readers are going to be male, it really wouldn't be encyclopedic to write it from either point of view.--UESPA 22:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
You know, even in separating them into "women" and "men" you'd either have to see them to know with 100% certainty that they are a man or a woman, and even then, not knowing the specifics of each species gender assignment, you could only assume that if a male or female actor portrayed them, then they must be male or female. Too much guess work. So, even if you were to weed out the small portion of known males and females of, say Humans or klingons, you still have a large list of individuals whose gender is not know that would still remain in the main category, therefore instead of having one centralized location for each individual of a species, you have to thumb through three category pages to browse one species. Unlike wikipedia, which we are not, we cannot work with the same certainty that they work with when creating and describing categories. --Alan 00:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to clarify that I was not necessarily advocating doing such a thing with male and female categories, I was only saying that I could understand such a thing. Personally, I don't feel that it is necessary.--31dot 19:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Clear oppose, for the reasons stated above. Even a category set independent of some specific species (just "Male"/"Female", as suggested above) would be either really speculative, or really incomplete and useless. Generally, I don't see the need to have articles written "from a feminist point of view" (or any other subjective POV, for that matter), so that shouldn't be the basis for a set of categories, either. -- Cid Highwind 11:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to muddy the waters a little; what about the Cogenitors from the Vissian species and the J'naii? ---- Willie LLAP 18:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify my comment I didn't advocate adding male or female categories I was just saying it made more sense to seperate them into male and female than into species specific male or female categories. Also if (once again not saying do it) you were to do that you could also add something like asexuals or something along those lines. Long Live the United Earth

Shapeshifting Species[]

To be based on Shapeshifting species. It is a fairly common phenomenon in Trek, with about 14 species listed on that page. – Cleanse 01:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Native Americans[]

Category:Native Americans. I think we have a few here and I think an own category as a subcategory of Category:Humans would be good. Thoughts? – Tom 22:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what sort of precedent that would set, and whether it would be good or not. A few random thoughts- Does that mean Blacks, Whites, Asians, all should have their own category? What about different races of aliens, like Tuvok? How do we know various people aren't of mixed racial ancestry? Humans in Star Trek rarely mention their racial differences or race with regards to other Humans( "Badda-Bing, Badda-Bang") is a rare exception) so I wonder if that needs to be done here. --31dot 00:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't really like this suggestion. First, for the reasons stated above - it would set a precedent to separate by racial difference, something the shows itself try to avoid, That, and we don't really know the ancestry of many characters, so such a category would necessarily be very incomplete and speculative. Second, for a more technical reason - separating some "Humans" into a subcategory would (obviously) mean that not all Humans are listed in Category:Humans any longer. The alternative would be to categorize an article as both "Human" and "Native American" (plus more categories that would probably follow), which would just bloat the category listing on the article. -- Cid Highwind 15:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Unless you just considered it a group, but that would really only make partial sense if we were describing a specific "tribe" versus an entire people. Also, it would seem that we go so far as to indicate all the characters of the American Indian heritage on that page, but not so with Asians, Africans, etc.... --Alan 20:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand the doubts and they are clear. Perhaps a too fast proposal. – Tom 12:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Warp technology[]

What about a Category:Warp technology considering that there is so much information dealing with warp technology and at least a couple don't have categories.--UESPA 18:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Other than being more limited (an probably a subcat of), how would it be different than Category:Propulsion technology? --OuroborosCobra talk 18:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Because there is a lot about warp technology and if you're looking specifically for that it makes more sense to have it at least partially (making it a sub category makes sense to) seperated. Also propulsion technology is somewhat vague.--UESPA 19:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see the possibility of it being a sub-category of the Propulsion Tech. UESPA, create a list of articles for this category in your user space and link it from here so that people can see what you're talking about. -- Sulfur 00:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that I've taken another look at it there is so much warp technology in Category:Propulsion technology that 90% of everything in there would be in this proposed category. (I've got to learn to think before I start typing).--UESPA 05:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

East Slavic[]

I recently became curious about the number of ships in Star Trek of Russian origin and/or naming, after poking around, and not finding the answers easily, I created a nav box (Russian named Spacecraft) to summarize the answers I had found.

Shortly thereafter said creation was met with some resistance, and I quickly realized that I should have worked towards a new category. Such a category would include those articles closely associated by origin or name with Russia/USSR etc. In forming the proposal I also realized that neither Russian nor Soviet) were technically the most accurate name for my suggestion (since either has time related political overtones) either resulting in the following proposal:

This category includes people, places, and things of East Slavic (Russian, Ukrainian, & Belorussian) origin or naming. Their contributions to space exploration are especially notable as the "other half" of the space race.

The category would be In-universe, and along with the spacecraft, would also include articles on the countries, languages, and places involved (such as the Baikonur Cosmodrome). The category would also as noted include characters such as Pavel Chekov. –MJBurrage(T•C) 21:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose category, for the reasons stated here. The information should be placed on either the Russian or Russia page.--31dot 22:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose most definitely. We've never even heard of this term in universe, as well as the other problems I've already stated. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the category is specifically called, how is it any more or less appropriate than a Shakespeare category? –MJBurrage(T•C) 04:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Because Shakespeare, many a time, is actually given importance relative to Star Trek, such as numerous times with Picard, "The Conscience of the King", Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, just to name a few. The same most definitely cannot be said of "East Slavic", or Russia in general (beyond one naive junior officer with a penchant for claiming everything was Russian in origin, who everyone else dismissed). Again, I still feel this is based more out of interest of a single editor than anything relevant in universe or out of universe. I'm not trying to discredit your personal interest, I just feel that this isn't the way to serve it. As far as Star Trek is concerned, "Russia" hasn't been given anymore importance that I have seen than "Australia". --OuroborosCobra talk 06:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Film/TV Production[]

Specifically we could use a page/category for Jobs in film crews. I mean we have the reverse, where someone can search a movie and looking in the credits for what a specific person did in that movie. However I think it would be useful for someone to look for all "Camera Assistants" or "Special Effects artists" or whatever. It seems this would be logical? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jlandeen (talk • contribs) at 18:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC).

We have a number of those already. They're not by specific job, but rather by department at the moment. -- sulfur 18:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that, it is a rather broken setup, for example some of the categories do not exist, and some are named oddly making them hard to find. I would propose we still keep those categories, with a "Master" Category. This would include something like:

Accounting, Art department, Assistant directing, Camera / video, Cast, Casting, Consultants and technical advisers, Costumes, Craft service, Directing, Editorial, Grip department, Illustrators, Labor / Animals, Location department, Make-up and hair, Medical, Models, Music, Producing, Production, Property, Screenplay, Script supervision, Set production assistants, Sets / Rigging, Sound, Special effects, Stand-ins, Story, Stunts, Transportation, Unit Production, Visual effects, Wardrobe department, Writing,

Now normally I am not a fan of "sub-Categories" but in such a large topic this could only HELP the visitor locate necessary information. thoughts?--Jlandeen 19:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the main category at the top is Category:Production staff. The original discussions on the creation of that category and its sub-categories is at its talk page. Now, one huge issue that I can see with creating things like "camera assistants" and "cameramen" is that you may have a lot in the "assistants" category, and only one in the "cameraman" one. That's not such good category design. Perhaps some of them do not have the best names, but the overall design still holds well, I think. -- sulfur 20:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well As I proposed above, instead of having "Camera assistants" you have a listing in the "FILM / TV" category for "Camera/ Video." This allows you to throw in the "camera assistants," "Film loaders" and what haves you into that section. My proposal is not to COMPLICATE things, but rather to condense and make a single page all the current scrambled ones can be accessed from. Thus Production Staff is not fitting, nor is it adequate. This leaves out non-production categories which are numerous and without category.--Jlandeen 20:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So... the category for them would be in the Category:Camera and electrical department. That encompasses cameramen, assistants, film loaders, and so forth. We based the original categories on the breakdowns used by IMDB which is the same breakdown that actual productions use. Look at the subcategories. Production staff is only the top level. What other "non-production" categories are you suggesting? May I suggest that you put together a suggest layout with suggested category names underneath like was originally done on the talk page. It sounds like we're talking at cross purposes here, and if that continues, we're not going to be able to go anywhere. -- sulfur 20:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Any followup on this, or shall we archive this? -- sulfur 20:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Not much support, i'd say archive?--Jlandeen 22:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Events, missions, projects and expeditions[]

We have several events, missions, projects and expeditions, but I cannot think of a unilateral term to encompass them all. Here is the list, compiled from the list of uncategorized pages: Arias Expedition, Axanar Peace Mission, Bolian Operation, Fornax Disaster, Great Diaspora, Operation Lovely Angel, Operation Retrieve, Operation Watson, Pathfinder Project, shakedown cruise, Vulcan reunification, Vulcanian expedition, Xindi reunification. --Alan del Beccio 21:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Good call, but I have no idea on a single name, either. Maybe the items you list are still too diverse to be listed under one category? "Mission" could probably encompass all those "Operations", but "Project"? Not sure... -- Cid Highwind 00:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I like this, too, but don't know what to call it either. -- Renegade54 14:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I like this idea as well, perhaps calling it "Events"? Perhaps the category of Military Conflicts should be a subcategory of it, or at least this new category should be clearly defined as being nonmilitary.--31dot 15:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I support creating an events category, with military conflicts (and any other applicable existing cats) as subcategories.– Cleanse 23:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Re-opening this. I also support the "Events" category. ---- Willie LLAP 16:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I like this idea. Maybe call it 'Starfleet operations', and then have a seperate category for other operations. --- Jaz 22:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
What about a category Category:Events and missions ? – Tom 13:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Tom, those are kind of two different things though. The current break down is more than just one thing, and ranges from "political and social movements" (Vulcan reunification, Great Diaspora, Xindi reunification, Axanar Peace Mission [which could go into Category:Culture somewhere]) to "natural disasters" (Fornax Disaster, the closest thing we have to an "event") to "Starfleet expeditions" (Vulcanian expedition, Arias Expedition) to "Starfleet training missions" (Operation Lovely Angel, shakedown cruise) to "special projects/programs to develop new technology" (Operation Watson, Pathfinder Project) to "other" (Bolian Operation, Operation Retrieve) -- in other words, you really cant nail it all down with one word. --Alan 20:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest we get an Events category created first, and then debate what it should be divided into, if that is neccesary. That said, events involving Starfleet could be categorized in the Starfleet category in addition to Events("Category for all things Starfleet").--31dot 20:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you missed entirely what I was saying. Not all of these really qualify as "events", per se...not at least without a concrete definition first. --Alan 20:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I got what you said, but I thought that you were proposing subdividing such a category into more specific ones, in order to better define them. I was only saying that such a debate could come later.--31dot 20:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Banned Items/Substances[]

On the talk page for the Crimes category we have been discussing the idea of a category for banned items, objects, or substances. To get ideas on a potential name for this category I have started this thread. I 'll put my vote in for either Banned Materials or Banned Substances. I'm not sure if either of those covers objects as well as substances, but I can't think of anything better.--31dot 21:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Support – I think maybe "Banned Materials" as it covers more, but if someone can think of a better title, that would be good.– Cleanse 23:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I see some problems there: First, we would have to make sure that only objects really mentioned as "banned" show up there - for example, the fact that vole fighting is illegal somewhere doesn't make a vole a banned item itself. Second, where does an item need to be banned? Using the vole example again, it might be a crime in Bajoran space, but not necessarily under Federation law. Third, when does an item need to be banned? Romulan ale, for example, was briefly "unbanned" during the Dominion War, and we can't be sure whether a potential 23rd-century banned item is still banned in the 24th century. -- Cid Highwind 12:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Vole fighting crime now exists, and I don't believe it was ever said that Voles in and of themselves were illegal(pests, maybe, but not illegal), so I removed the crimes cat from that and it doesn't need to be listed as a banned item.

As to your other points, I think the where and when is immaterial to any categorization of it as banned. The same thing could be said for any crime- maybe murder is legal somewhere in the galaxy(among the Chalnoth, perhaps). Also, look at bribery, which is illegal in some places but legal on Ferenginar. That doesn't mean it should be removed as a crime. A banned materials category would contain any materials which are or have been banned, and thus were crimes to possess or obtain. A change in status doesn't remove its previous status, Tuvok is categorized as a Borg drone even though he is no longer one, because he was one at one point. The article itself will note when and where the item was banned. I don't think we need to speculate about what happened to the ban subsequent to the episode.--31dot 12:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess what I'm really trying to say is: If this category definition is a little "iffy", and we only have four known members at the moment, anyway - wouldn't it be better to at least start this as a list somewhere, instead of making it a full category right now? I think this list could be added to the Smuggling article, where it would also keep a direct connection to the Crimes category. By the way, the best title, whether it's for a category or a list section, would probably be Contraband... -- Cid Highwind 17:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the sound of Contraband for a name. If it ends up as a list it could be its own article, I think. I support simply a list if that's what is settled on, but I think a category is best.--31dot 18:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"Contraband" could work. In response to your concern for lack of numbers, I think there's a few more that just weren't listed as crimes in the first page. Here's a list I got so from googling "illegal" on MA:
Possibly more if the article uses roundabout terminology or doesn't currently mention the illegality.– Cleanse 01:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a bit too vague of a topic. Unlike other categories, where we generally link together common people, places, or objects, this is a mismatch of things that are only one thing here, but another thing there. --Alan 21:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The crimes category is no different than what you describe. Bribery is illegal in some places, but not others(Ferenginar). A murder can be legal(or at least justified) in some instances and not others. Terrorists generally don't consider what they do to be illegal, even though it is considered such by those the terrorism is directed against. I suspect Vole fights are legal in some parts of the galaxy. The where and when is immaterial to whether something is classified as illegal. The same should be true of contraband. --31dot 00:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I never said I agreed that "Crimes" was a good idea for category... --Alan 06:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The way I see it, "Crimes" and "Contraband" are exactly the same for the purposes of this "one thing here, but another thing there" argument (and also for Cid's note that it's unclear when something is banned, for the same thing can be said for when something is a crime) So either we delete Cat: Crimes or allow Cat: Contraband. I certainly think the latter is best, as I think Category:Crimes is absolutely essential to categorise all the criminal offence pages, and works well as a supplement to the list at Crime. Here, would it hurt to have all items noted as illegal, regardless of the jurisdiction or time, in one category?
As I've said elsewhere, consistency is the key. :-) – Cleanse 13:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure I like the idea of having a "jumble" of different types of banned items... It seems of little use?--Jlandeen 18:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

We have "jumbles" of different Crimes. That category is useful to gather together all illegal activities. Why not something similar for objects, which are not appropriate for a category of activities?--31dot 18:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well when I consider why a category should or should not be included, I consider a few things. First I say to myself, "If I were looking for something specific that would be contained in this category, how would this category help me find it." Secondly I think about organization. In both of these considerations I see problems with a "Contraband" category. First, consider looking for a contraband item. You may search for Varon-T disruptor or Venus drug, but I find it unlikely a user would think to search for "contraband" in researching the item. Additionally I do not think that there could be a clean organizational structure for the category. For starters, different races ban different things, so Romulans have little problem cutting people up with Varon-T's, yet the Federation ban's even owning one. So would you list all the races that ban each item? Or perhaps is it organized simply by each race, with a new category for what each considers contraband? I cannot say for sure that I am completely opposed to the idea, only that I think the effort could be put to better use in another situation.--Jlandeen 20:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I still think that a category is best, but I would propose a Contraband article as an alternative. The term has been used in canon, and aside from describing those examples it could also contain a list of illegal objects.--31dot 20:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Shapeshifters category[]

Following a discussion at Category talk:Chameloids, I propose a Category:Shapeshifters to unify all the various lifeforms with this ability. Species specific categories like Category:Chameloids would become subcats. I choose "shapeshifter" as a generic name since that was how Odo was referred to in early seasons of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine before the proper names Founder and Changeling became known. Starfleetjedi 00:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to hear more about the scope of this proposed category before supporting it. For example, would this category contain the articles themselves, or just the categories of the relevant species?--31dot 01:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Would it make more sense to just leave Shape Shifting capabilities "categorized" inside Shapeshifting species? I mean, what would be the benefit of having an additional category for this separate from that?--Jlandeen 18:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
OOPS I see that Shapeshifting species is done alphabetically, perhaps we can kill two birds with one stone, and just reorganize Shapeshifting species by Shape Shifting type instead of alphabetically?--Jlandeen 18:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Homeworlds (2)[]

While looking through Uncategorized Pages, I found Homeworld. Under the "See also" section on that page, there is a link to Homeworlds that lists several homeworlds. Seems logical to have Category:Homeworlds with the Homeworld page at the top. Thoughts? ---- Willie LLAP 18:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, and didn't seem to gain any traction. Not neccesarily for or against it yet, just an observation.--31dot 20:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see that. Thanks, 31dot. If the concerns noted in the archived section haven't been addressed, I'll remove this suggestion. Does anyone know if those concerns are still valid? ---- Willie LLAP 20:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Militaries[]

Category:Military agencies. A category for any military agency, from the Andorian Imperial Guard to the Luftwaffe to Starfleet. There's quite a few listed in Category:Agencies and Category:Earth agencies.– Cleanse 00:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. If we have a Law enforcement agencies cat, we should have this one, too.--31dot 00:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. I'm surprised there wasn't one before.--Long Live the United Earth 13:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The military units category could be a subcat of this.--31dot 02:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I was going to make this category but I ran into an issue.

Agencies would have two subcategories. Articles would be able to be placed in one, both, or neither of "Earth" and "Military". So how do we deal with this for the Earth military agencies? Place them in both "Earth agencies" and "Military agencies", or make a further subcat: "Earth military agencies"? Thoughts? (I'm looking at you Alan ;-)– Cleanse 05:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... Personally, I'd prefer not to have the redundancies or numerous subcategories, but seeing how Category:Law enforcement agencies was handled, it would seem that the "Earth" ones were thrown out of the Category:Earth agencies altogether, and they (eg NYPD) exist only in the one category. I'd be in favor of doing as you suggested...list all Earth agencies in one category, and then let them trickle into other categories where they can co-exist with other planet's agencies. --Alan 21:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Starship classes move[]

Move all Category:Starship classes to Category:Spacecraft classes, or if we feel so inclined, "spacecraft types" vs. "classes." This applies to the subcategories, and is based on changes implemented at Category talk:Spacecraft. This move is based on the analysis that not all vessel classes listed in "starship classes" are starship classes... While making this move, it would probably be a good idea to create a new subcategory for Category:Federation starship classes, nay, Category:Federation spacecraft classes called Category:Federation shuttle classes (or "types") as there are several. --Alan 21:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem creating separate classes for spacecraft classes and types. I'm not sure if it's entirely necessary, though. "Spacecraft classes" doesn't sound very good, though... maybe "ship classes"? Eh, then I'd guess we'd have to include non-starfaring ships. Anyway, I support the cat move and creation of the sub-cat. --From Andoria with Love 21:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I like "ship classes", and if there are not starfaring ships in that list, we can break them into a separate sub-category quite easily. -- Sulfur 02:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Events[]

Based on the two below, I purpose this tree under Lists:

I know Cid already said he didn't like the phenomena name, but from what I can tell, this would only cover Siren calls, the Nexus, and maybe the Fornax Disaster, all of which were naturally occurring as far as we know, and the disaster could just be placed under Events if it's a problem. - Archduk3 09:06, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

"Siren calls" and "Nexus" do in fact sound as if a "Phenomena" category might be appropriate for them - but in that case, I don't see how "Phenomena" could itself be categorized as "Event". "Fornax Disaster" is a disaster is an event, and not a phenomenon. However, the generic Supernova could be categorized as a phenomenon - in addition to or perhaps even instead of as an "astronomical object". In any case, Category:Celestial objects should be checked for potential overlap or recategorization, and perhaps a suggestion be made how the new "phenomenon" category might relate to that objects category (if it needs to relate at all).
Regarding "Events" and subcats "Expeditions" and "Conflicts" - I'm no longer totally opposed to that, but at the same time, the categorization of expeditions as events somehow doesn't quite "feel" right. Sorry, can't express it any better at the moment. Are there any alternate suggestions regarding those? -- Cid Highwind 15:51, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Since "Astronomical objects" says it's for "all classifications of astronomical objects and phenomena", Phenomena could sub under it with some reshuffling of the pages already in AO.

As for Events and Expeditions, I would agree that the names aren't perfect, but they get the job done, and I'm out of ideas on that front. - Archduk3 23:16, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

In which case, the new category should perhaps at least be called "Astronomical phenomena", to make sure that no "other" phenomenon ends up in an astronomy subcat. Also - is every phenomenon really an "object"? The above-mentioned siren calls seem to not be. -- Cid Highwind 10:16, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Moving AP up to the same level as AO under Astronomy while moving any phenomena out of the objects cat should fix that. A good number of the pages in Astronomy could potentially end up in a AP category. - Archduk3 10:53, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Mission and expeditions[]

A category to cover all expeditions and missions within the Federation as well as the ones from other species, such as Arias Expedition, Away mission, Omega training mission, Space shuttle missions, and Vulcanian expedition. – Tom 11:18, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Not a fan of the name, but support the idea. - Archduk3 13:33, September 21, 2009 (UTC)
Support. I would suggest simply "Events" as a name. As an aside, I seem to remember this or something similar being discussed before, and it didn't seem to gain traction. --31dot 20:57, September 21, 2009 (UTC)
This idea seems like it could also cover the pages listed for the proposed category below, if it was simply "Events". - Archduk3 16:46, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think an expedition can be subsumed under an "Event" category - or if it can, then this category title is so generic that it won't really be useful. I'm not opposed to the original suggestion, if a good title can be found, but I think "Event" isn't it. -- Cid Highwind 18:28, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
Expeditions could be a subcat of Events.--31dot 22:30, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
"Expeditions and Missions" seems to be a better name, because that would somewhat fit with the terminology used within the franchise, and "events" make me think of things more like a star going supernova or some sort of festival/fair, etc...--Terran Officer 22:49, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Interstellar incidents[]

A category which could feature all interstellar events, including the wars but also Fornax Disaster or maybe the nexus, too. – Tom 11:18, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Since all the wars are already, or should be, under Category:Conflicts, I don't see the need for another category for them as well, though something like Category:Interstellar phenomena could cover the other two. - Archduk3 13:31, September 21, 2009 (UTC)
"Phenomena" is typically used to describe naturally occurring things - not "artificial" ones like wars or disasters. Oppose that suggested title. "Incident" isn't much different from "Event" (see suggestion above), and as such, probably to generic to be anything but a super-category for others. -- Cid Highwind 18:31, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
I would ask that if it allows us to add these pages, would creating a "super-category" really be a bad thing? - Archduk3 01:34, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
We'd still need a "sub-category" to actually place articles in - otherwise, not necessarily, no. -- Cid Highwind 17:27, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the idea behind it, but it seems to be that "Conflicts" sounds more like the 'parent' category then anything, at least as far as the kind of things as described in the examples go. Though, I must admit... I am a bit of at a lost at what to suggest for terms, because I can agree that not everything would be an 'incident' and 'event' just seems so... off. The race Tom Paris and B'Elanna Torres participated in (I forget the exact name, the episode where they wore those flight suits) would be an 'event' but the stand off between USS Enterprise-D seems more like a conflict, or if not that then...well I don't know, an incident of some sort, I guess or something else... damn, this is hard.--Terran Officer 22:55, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Quantum physics[]

We certainly have a lot of articles that start with "quantum." I think we should have this cat. Thoughts? -Angry Future Romulan 16:23, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this for awhile, and I'm not sure the name would work, since I think most of the articles in Category:physics would also fall into this cat, instead of just the articles that start with "quantum". - Archduk3 06:47, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

Deceased characters[]

Category:Deceased characters was just created by an anonymous user, and two pages were added to it. This needs to be discussed first, and I'd oppose using the category as is. First, it has a massive POV problem (if it is supposed to be an in-universe category, it shouldn't use the term "characters"), and also, there will be a problem with the many unknowns we have. -- Cid Highwind 16:05, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Been suggested before, and opposed for the same reasons. Not only that, but from the POV of MA, everyone's dead. :) -- sulfur 16:52, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. This is pointless if you read the article, or even the sidebar, or I (or someone else) actually gets around to finishing the casualty pages. Also, POV, etc. - Archduk3 21:27, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Ditto. --31dot 21:59, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

Multiple Actor Characters[]

Moved from "Category talk:Multiple Actor Characters"

Missed MA:CS, totally out of universe, misnamed, I can go on...

Articles listed in this category included Ishka, Christopher Pike, Zefram Cochrane, Tora Ziyal, and Alexander Rozhenko. -- sulfur (talk) 00:35, March 10, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, for obvious reasons. - Archduk3 01:45, March 10, 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. I can only agree. Tom (talk) 18:53, March 10, 2014 (UTC)

"Meterology" and "Geology"[]

Currently they're all lumped together in "geoscience", but I think they could be separated now. But we would have to decide what constitutes weather, whether it's planet-localized storms or ionic storms, etc in the emptiness of space. --LauraCC (talk) 14:16, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: I think it's fine as is. --| TrekFan Open a channel 16:30, June 11, 2015 (UTC)

Capital cities[]

A category to group together all of the capital cities mentioned in Star Trek. In addition to all of Earth's capitals, there are a few more references from other planets which could also be included. --| TrekFan Open a channel 20:01, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

But how many Earth capitals were explicitly described that way? And you can't just add cities because we know they are capitals, because if you add Washington, then why not Philladelphia and NYC etc. Subsequently, this seems a category that may be more trouble then it's worth; not all that many cities will be placed there, but you'll have to be constantly vigilant because well-meaning people will incorrectly add cities they know to be capitals from real world sources. -- Capricorn (talk) 15:25, May 11, 2015 (UTC)

True, but there are numerous mentions of capital cities on alien worlds. For example, Stratos, Paradise City, Angosian capital city and First City, not to mention the Earth capital city articles that mention they are capitals of countries in the text. --| TrekFan Open a channel 17:09, May 11, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. I think a list of capital cities on the article would be sufficient. As Capricorn said this category could create constant edit wars on some city articles. Tom (talk) 18:20, June 2, 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. -- Renegade54 (talk) 00:05, June 17, 2015 (UTC)

Tricorders[]

I suspect this will be opposed, as there is a list of them on the Tricorder page. However, if we expand it to include all tricorder-related terms, we might have something. --LauraCC (talk) 18:00, December 8, 2015 (UTC)

Again the question for the benefit of having such a category? Right now we have Category:Sensor technology which also covers the few tricorder articles we have. So for me, I have to oppose. Tom (talk) 14:38, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Markonians[]

Put "Unnamed Markonians" in this cat. See "Category:R'Kaal" for precedent. -- LauraCC (talk) 20:20, January 20, 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure about this, please see below. Tom (talk) 16:50, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

I see your point. Archive this perhaps now? -- LauraCC (talk) 19:56, March 2, 2016 (UTC)

Station manager[]

Moved from "Talk:Unnamed Markonians"

There is no indication that the station manager was a Markonian. The episode only says that the ship docked at the Markonian outpost. Later, Janeway said something about the station manager. What we see is a group of completely different aliens. We don't know if the station manager is a Markonian so I think this page is not accurate and should be removed as speculation. Tom (talk) 13:58, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

Rename to "Unnamed Markonian outpost personnel" then? --LauraCC (talk) 18:51, January 31, 2016 (UTC)
And add these other individuals? --LauraCC (talk) 18:22, March 1, 2016 (UTC)

A list of personnel should at least have two entries. The "outpost personnel" would only have the station manager. A mention at the "unnamed humanoids (24th century)" section would be the best. Tom (talk) 18:25, March 1, 2016 (UTC)

Mercy Hospital personnel includes the patients, who do not work there. Were these individuals confirmed to have come from the station? --LauraCC (talk) 18:27, March 1, 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason to argue about creating a list for one individual. Tom (talk) 18:33, March 1, 2016 (UTC)

Human holograms[]

For all pages marked "Humans" and "Holograms". I refer you to Talk:Gaunt Gary for details. --LauraCC (talk) 19:30, March 1, 2016 (UTC)

See here and here. - Archduk3 19:51, March 1, 2016 (UTC)

We have "Art" and "Earth art". I'm not suggesting a myriad of splinter categories, just this one to be consistent. --LauraCC (talk) 19:54, March 1, 2016 (UTC)

Consistent with what? It can only be one or the other, not both. - Archduk3 19:57, March 1, 2016 (UTC)

Holographic representations of Humans as opposed to Klingons or made-up species. --LauraCC (talk) 19:58, March 1, 2016 (UTC)

In-universe categories are in-universe, so there is no difference between Humans and the rest. That's not the reason there's an Earth art category, it because there are enough pages to warrant one, and the Humans category needs to be removed from pages that are about a Hologram that just happens to look Human. There may be pages where the article is about both a Human and a Hologram and the hologram isn't just a holographic duplicate, but that would require a different solution. - Archduk3 20:12, March 1, 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I imagine Gaunt Gary was categorized as both because he is: there's a hologram on Voyager, which was said to be based on a real historic figure. Whether those two deserve to share a page is another question, but that would probably be why it has two categories. -- Capricorn (talk) 04:48, March 2, 2016 (UTC)
The current reasoning for not having a separate page for a holographic duplicate without agency (something worth mentioning other than they exsisted and acted as their real counterpart would) I think remains valid, but if categorization is an issue, a redirect with the hologram disambig can be created so that page can be in the Holograms category. At that point though, it might be better to have a Holographic duplicate category to complement the list. - Archduk3 04:58, March 3, 2016 (UTC)
Community content is available under the CC-BY-NC license unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms