Memory Alpha:Category suggestion archive/In-universe/Archive 2

Alcoholic beverages subcats[]

Brandy and wine both have long lists. Would it be worthwhile? --LauraCC (talk) 22:34, March 9, 2016 (UTC)

Since the category fits on one page, I don't think there's much to be gained here. - Archduk 3 19:13, March 14, 2016 (UTC)

Mammals[]

There are plenty @ mammal. --LauraCC (talk) 15:29, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

The only problem is that certain alien animals are not said to be mammals, even if they share a name with an Earth mammalian species, such as Teneebian skunk and skunk. The former may share a name because of similar markings or stink or any number of commonalities other than being mammalian. --LauraCC (talk) 17:07, May 26, 2016 (UTC)

Opposed. Too problematic and no defined "place" in the category tree. - Archduk 3

Shipyards subcats[]

Using the info @ Federation shipyards and Cardassian shipyards. There's little on the pages except a list. --LauraCC (talk) 19:18, May 6, 2016 (UTC)

Is there anything left on the shipyard cat itself when we do this split? Kennelly (talk) 13:54, May 17, 2016 (UTC)

No. Since all of them fall into one of two categories, doesn't it make sense to split accordingly?--LauraCC (talk) 14:57, May 17, 2016 (UTC)

The original category may be useful eventually, given new films/shows. For now, let's just split into two. --LauraCC (talk) 21:31, June 1, 2016 (UTC)

Opposed. There's a case for the Federation cat, but none for the Cardassian one. The Federation and Cardassian shipyard pages should be merged to shipyard if they have no value other than as lists, and that doesn't leave "enough" pages for a Cardassian sub cat, nor is there a reason to create one if there's a Fed one, since there's no benefit then. - Archduk 3 05:18, June 8, 2016 (UTC)

Enterprise under Pike/Kirk[]

Is there any point to having a subsection of Category:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) personnel that lists those who served under Pike? There's only Spock as an overlap; everyone else did not serve under Kirk. --LauraCC (talk) 15:02, May 10, 2016 (UTC)

Not sure I really see the value all that much... -- sulfur (talk) 17:07, May 24, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. I also see no value in creating this. Tom (talk) 17:13, May 24, 2016 (UTC)

It might be better as a list page, then? That way we could list all canon known personnel by permanent commanding officer, and include Robert April and his wife, too. --LauraCC (talk) 16:57, May 26, 2016 (UTC)

Uniforms[]

Subcat of clothing. For all the Starfleet uniform pages, etc. --LauraCC (talk) 18:42, May 24, 2016 (UTC)

Also, a subcat of the above Category:Starfleet uniforms. There are several starfleet uniforms pages. --LauraCC (talk) 17:12, May 26, 2016 (UTC)

Opposed, no benefit. - Archduk 3 05:14, May 30, 2016 (UTC)

Not even organizational? --LauraCC (talk) 21:29, June 1, 2016 (UTC)

The clothing category is only one page, so the uniforms are not hard to find, though the Starfleet pages could have better sortkeys. We don't need categories simply for the sake of having them, there should be some benefit, either navigational or searchable, and it's not readily apparent what the benefit is to having another category for just the uniforms, and then another category for just the Starfleet ones, other than that we could. - Archduk 3 04:05, June 2, 2016 (UTC)

Deadly punishments[]

A subcat for those punishments that end in death. Needs better title. --LauraCC (talk) 20:25, May 27, 2016 (UTC)

Opposed, no benefit. - Archduk 3 05:14, May 30, 2016 (UTC)

Earth history[]

Subcat of history, matching Category:Earth geography, etc. --LauraCC (talk) 20:30, May 27, 2016 (UTC)

Opposed, no benefit. - Archduk 3 05:14, May 30, 2016 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? Category:Earth conflicts would be one category that would fit nicely in there. Items like the Post-atomic horror, etc, would go nicely in there too. --LauraCC (talk) 16:29, June 7, 2016 (UTC)

History is a "small" category and there is a large amount of "Earth history" on non-Earth centric pages. You haven't made much a case for or defined the parameters of this either. - Archduk 3 05:06, June 8, 2016 (UTC)

Okay, it would be for notable historical events that happened on Earth, not everything that happened on Earth in the past. The kind of things that would belong in a history textbook. Not that Bob ate a cheese sandwich on May 23rd, 1952. Can anyone else help me out here? --LauraCC (talk) 14:22, June 8, 2016 (UTC)

Species by home quadrant[]

Does having Category:Alpha Quadrant species, etc, make more sense than a list page? --LauraCC (talk) 19:01, June 9, 2016 (UTC)

Those whose quadrant of origin is unclear would remain in Category:Species. --LauraCC (talk) 16:49, June 13, 2016 (UTC)

There are also already lists we could merge with these categories. Delta Quadrant species, Alpha and Beta Quadrant species, and Gamma Quadrant species. --LauraCC (talk) 19:37, June 13, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose as suggested. Splitting the Alpha and Beta species is very, very problematic, and there are issues with the other two as well, mainly with overlap and species origins not actually being known, but assumed. That's more OK on a list page where notes can be added, but categories don't allow for that. - Archduk 3 04:09, June 16, 2016 (UTC)

Anything assumed would have a background note. Those known would be categorized. What else would you suggest? --LauraCC (talk) 14:21, June 17, 2016 (UTC)

"Category:Self-aware machines"[]

The above mentioned category to get rid of the list article "Self-aware machines" which has no content except the list. Tom (talk) 19:40, June 11, 2016 (UTC)

Seems logical. :) A subcat of technology and anything else you can think of. -- LauraCC (talk) 15:59, June 13, 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. Firstly the list is very speculative (because sapient=/=sentient). And secondly, the new category would compete with Category:Artificial lifeforms, another vague category that just contains whatever people feel it ought to contain. The list is crappy, no doubt about it, but I'm not sure this action would fix the problem. -- Capricorn (talk) 19:20, June 13, 2016 (UTC)

There's also this page, which is equally awkward. May I suggest an article on self-awareness as a concept, which could merge both lists into it, and, for example, tell of Picard's asking Bruce Maddox about self-awareness during Data's trial. -- LauraCC (talk) 19:25, June 13, 2016 (UTC)

Anyone concur? -- LauraCC (talk) 20:18, June 14, 2016 (UTC)

Merging the pages is the better option here IMO. - Archduk 3 03:22, June 15, 2016 (UTC)

I've created Self-awareness now. :) Merge these two lists with it at will. -- LauraCC (talk) 16:03, June 15, 2016 (UTC)

Synthetic materials[]

A subcat of Category:Materials for all materials not naturally occurring, like plexiglass. --LauraCC (talk) 17:35, March 8, 2016 (UTC)

Support. - Archduk 3 19:13, March 14, 2016 (UTC)

Only problem is that some articles don't make it clear whether something is synthetic or not. It's easier if the thing is known to be made, like the example I provided above. Is an alloy, for instance, always manmade?--LauraCC (talk) 17:00, March 15, 2016 (UTC)

This is still a sticking point with me. Move this to archives? --LauraCC (talk) 20:22, September 15, 2016 (UTC)

Plasma-related[]

For all things plasma related. I'd suggest it be called "plasma technology" (see the P section of Category:Technology) if not for plasma itself. --LauraCC (talk) 18:16, March 29, 2016 (UTC)

It may only have 9 or so, but Category:Artificial lifeforms has only 4. --LauraCC (talk) 17:32, May 26, 2016 (UTC)

Or would this be better as a box template? --LauraCC (talk) 17:29, September 15, 2016 (UTC)

Scientific names[]

For all animals and plants listed only by their scientific names and any scientific name redirects. All the animals from Phylum search mode would go here, as well as a couple species of orchids from Voyager. --LauraCC (talk) 15:12, April 8, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Personally I don't see a value in this category. Tom (talk) 17:06, April 14, 2016 (UTC)

I'd be OK with this as a redirect only category as part of the redirects tree. But not as a main one. -- sulfur (talk) 17:45, April 14, 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense. --LauraCC (talk) 17:00, August 31, 2016 (UTC)

Doctors[]

Would it make sense to have a separate subcat for doctors, as there are some medical practitioners who are neither said to be doctors or nurses but just techs; so therefore Category:Medical practitioners wouldn't be emptied by doing so. --LauraCC (talk) 18:41, October 14, 2016 (UTC)

No, the term ""doctors" is to be avoided. The category fits on one page too, so there isn't even that for a rationale. If you can find enough of the same specialists in there to justify a category, you can try, but the question, as always, is what do we gain? - Archduk 3 23:06, October 14, 2016 (UTC)

Casualty lists[]

Subcat of lists. --LauraCC (talk) 20:57, October 21, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Unnecessary. - Archduk 3 21:11, October 21, 2016 (UTC)

Starfleet titles[]

Subcat of titles, for things like Archaeology and anthropology officer, Personnel director, etc...--LauraCC (talk) 20:12, October 18, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Unnecessary. - Archduk 3 21:11, October 21, 2016 (UTC)

In what way is it unnecessary? --LauraCC (talk) 18:11, October 24, 2016 (UTC)

What about "Political titles"? --LauraCC (talk) 18:57, October 24, 2016 (UTC)

Human Authors subcat[]

There are many in the authors category. --LauraCC (talk) 18:05, May 6, 2016 (UTC)

Particularly real ones. --LauraCC (talk) 17:29, May 26, 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I guess it would be "Category:Earth authors" in most cases. --LauraCC (talk) 17:26, June 15, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Kennelly (talk) 13:00, October 25, 2016 (UTC)

Reason for opposing? --LauraCC (talk) 17:56, October 25, 2016 (UTC)

Those are two very different strings of the category tree (one by species and one by occupation) and I see no reason to combine them. Kennelly (talk) 16:26, November 1, 2016 (UTC)

Thralls[]

A category for everyone who was a thrall or a drill thrall from "The Gamesters of Triskelion", as some were named but had no species given. -- LauraCC (talk) 17:36, October 31, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. I see no reason having these few in a category. If you'll have to list them, a short list on the "thrall" article could be the solution. Tom (talk) 18:46, October 31, 2016 (UTC)

If somebody went to the Kirk page, for instance, and wanted to see by looking at the categories, all the ways Kirk could be/has been classified (which is one function of categories), that would be there. --LauraCC (talk) 18:51, October 31, 2016 (UTC)

I don't need to be told for what the categories are. I know that. But who cares the categories when there are 20+ categories for one article just to classify everything. That's for what the links in the article are for. Tom (talk) 19:06, October 31, 2016 (UTC)

I'm telling you what my understanding is, not assuming you don't know for yourself. Sorry. :) It's like the sidebar vs article link only argument. --LauraCC (talk) 19:07, October 31, 2016 (UTC)

I don't hate your idea about the list, by the way. Just wondered which was better. --LauraCC (talk) 21:36, October 31, 2016 (UTC)

Inhabitant lists[]

Counterpart to Category:Personnel lists for the pages that already list those who lived somewhere, like Tarsus IV inhabitants. --LauraCC (talk) 18:42, May 24, 2016 (UTC)

I've searched the term "inhabitants" and there's no other easy way to find all these pages except by going through reams of search list entries. --LauraCC (talk) 16:55, May 26, 2016 (UTC)

We could also include a subcat "Earth inhabitant lists" for inhabitants of san fran, etc...--LauraCC (talk) 17:25, June 15, 2016 (UTC)

Is there any necessity for distinguishing between personnel (ie workers) and mere inhabitants? --LauraCC (talk) 19:30, October 15, 2016 (UTC)

Personnel lists is the category for inhabitants list pages, unless there is a more appropriate sub category the page should be in, but all inhabitants lists should be in the personnel lists branch. - Archduk 3 19:34, October 15, 2016 (UTC)

I think maybe I might be splitting hairs. Depending on what the location is of these people, they might live and work there, or only work there. I think maybe personnel is more for ships and facilities, whereas inhabitants is for planets and colonies. --LauraCC (talk) 19:37, October 15, 2016 (UTC)

Religious objects and religious ceremonies[]

Subcats of "religion". The former for things like Veltan sex idol, Rosary, etc, and the latter a subcat of "ceremonies" as well, for ceremonies that are not secular, like a school graduation is. "Religion" proper can still hold ideas and concepts, such as the soul, afterlife, etc...--LauraCC (talk) 14:59, September 10, 2016 (UTC)

You need to show a clear category tree for the "objects" cat, which has a lot of overlap with the arts categories, and "objects" probably isn't a good name. The latter has, when comparing what's in both Religion and Ceremonies, only three pages and Category:Death ceremonies, which has a few "secular" pages in it. Not really enough to justify a cat IMO. Also, Religion isn't that big right now. - Archduk 3 00:07, October 15, 2016 (UTC)

Medical conditions sub cats[]

Further to the suggestion about psychological conditions, how about sub cats for "diseases" and "injuries"? --LauraCC (talk) 21:50, September 23, 2016 (UTC)

One at a time, make psychological conditions first. - Archduk 3 17:12, October 15, 2016 (UTC)

Just did. :) --LauraCC (talk) 18:13, October 24, 2016 (UTC)

First off, you missed some psychological conditions, the least of which is space madness! Second, the whole point of using the term medical conditions is to not have to quibble about what is a disease/injury/symptom/etc. For example: what is a headache? - Archduk 3 12:08, October 25, 2016 (UTC)

I'd only gone through the "psychology" category by that point, so now I hope I've fixed it. I would imagine injury applies to wounds and bruises and fractures. --LauraCC (talk) 17:40, October 27, 2016 (UTC)

Political movements[]

For Category:Philosophical movements involved in politics specifically, such as the resistance movements. Some are just religious, or ideal-based. --LauraCC (talk) 17:17, October 27, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. No benefit. - Archduk 3 20:08, November 16, 2016 (UTC)

"Fuels" and "Explosives" []

From the Materials and substances page. I think there's enough on each list to warrant a category each. --LauraCC (talk) 17:16, November 15, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. - Archduk 3 20:16, November 15, 2016 (UTC)

Didn't realize that explosives had one already. But why not fuels? --LauraCC (talk) 20:18, November 15, 2016 (UTC)

Transportation[]

Would hold Category:Vehicles, Category:Roads, and things like Riding animals, which are used for transportation as well as recreation. --LauraCC (talk) 18:48, November 15, 2016 (UTC)

Where is this suppose to go? - Archduk 3 20:16, November 15, 2016 (UTC)

I'm not certain. This was posed as a result of animals not being vehicles, but used for transportation nonetheless. --LauraCC (talk) 20:30, November 15, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Unnecessary tangling of the the category tree. - Archduk 3 20:30, November 16, 2016 (UTC)

Unclassified starships[]

To match Category:Unnamed starships, for those ships that were not given a classification (either). --LauraCC (talk) 21:48, November 18, 2016 (UTC)

Would also include V'ger and the like, and be a subcat of Category:Starships. --LauraCC (talk) 18:30, November 21, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. We don't categorize pages by class/type. - Archduk 3 01:02, November 22, 2016 (UTC)

Astronauts[]

See list @astronaut. Subcat of Category:Scientists or Category:Military personnel. --LauraCC (talk) 21:54, November 18, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Those pages aren't in those categories, and there aren't enough. - Archduk 3 01:02, November 22, 2016 (UTC)

Supercategory "Engineering"[]

See my earlier reasoning in the above post as to why this would be a good idea. --LauraCC (talk) 21:38, November 30, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Scope issues. - Archduk 3 01:08, December 1, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Tom (talk) 19:20, December 1, 2016 (UTC)

Classifications[]

Pursuant to Talk:Class 3 humanoid, how about Category:Classifications? Would have as subcats the pre-existing categories "spacecraft classifications" and "astronomical classifications", as well as contain all the other types of "classes", such as Classification R-3. --LauraCC (talk) 19:10, October 31, 2016 (UTC)

Where is this suppose to go? - Archduk 3 20:58, November 14, 2016 (UTC)

Unsure. Maybe in Category:Science? Anyone else have any ideas? --LauraCC (talk) 21:32, November 30, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose, no rationale. - Archduk 3 01:08, December 1, 2016 (UTC)

Basically what it boils down to is I'm asking for Category:Categorizations (in universe). LOL. It's something which overlaps into science and non-science fields. --LauraCC (talk) 18:00, December 1, 2016 (UTC)

Would this be better as a template too? --LauraCC (talk) 19:13, December 1, 2016 (UTC)

Engineering conditions[]

A possible better name for the suggestion seen here. Now that the incidents are redirects, we can still have those redirects filed in such a category. And in the interest of nomenclatural consistency, it matches "medical conditions". --LauraCC (talk) 17:58, October 27, 2016 (UTC)

Comment. I am not quite sure about this. Can you come up with a full list? Tom (talk) 18:49, October 31, 2016 (UTC)

Blackout (power) and Brown out come to mind. The previous article also listed warp core breach, hull breach, and neutron fatigue. Explosive decompression, etc. It's really hard to find these because they're all over the place; that's one of the reasons I, like others, thought this a category worth making in the first place. There's no super category called "Engineering" to put them in, either. Some are in "energy", some in "physics", and so on. --LauraCC (talk) 19:05, October 31, 2016 (UTC)

The "Engineering" category is more or less Technology, and the examples aren't technology, they are just related to technology. This is why a full list of articles that this would apply to is needed, since that would help with naming and where this should be in the tree, or if it should be a category at all. - Archduk 3 19:21, November 6, 2016 (UTC)

Engineering makes me think of a ship/station, etc's engineering section and all things related to it. Technology could be an alien electric toothbrush.

I have a partial list above; would appreciate others helping me add to it, if they can think of something that goes there, using my examples as, well, examples (of the kind of thing that goes there.) As I said above, it's hard to find them, they're everywhere. --LauraCC (talk) 19:26, November 6, 2016 (UTC)

....so far --LauraCC (talk) 16:08, November 16, 2016 (UTC)

Surely that's enough to have a category (though as all the "leaks" are effectively one page, at leak, maybe not)? Does this name I've proposed work for you? --LauraCC (talk) 20:33, November 30, 2016 (UTC)

I suppose it could be also a subcat of Category:Events. --LauraCC (talk) 21:36, November 30, 2016 (UTC)

So "Engineering events" or lump it in with Traffic accident and the like as "Accidents and mishaps". --LauraCC (talk) 20:30, December 6, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. I see that you've tried to create something but this seems not good, IMO. I have concerns in creating this. Tom (talk) 08:54, December 7, 2016 (UTC)

Which concerns? We could add Bullet hole and make it "Damage". --LauraCC (talk) 16:03, December 9, 2016 (UTC)

That's the problem. You'll see the next discussion and changing the whole thin red line of your suggestion. It is hard to follow something which had not enough time thought about. Having another look, these "incidents" are somehow more like "physical reactions" or something and not related to engineering/technology in that way. Tom (talk) 17:30, December 12, 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I understand. And then a subcat of physics and events, if that's how this is resolved? --LauraCC (talk) 19:14, December 14, 2016 (UTC)

Dishes or recipes[]

Subcat of Category:Foods. For things which aren't individual foods such as Mushroom or apple, but rather prepared from multiple foods, such as Chocolate chip pancake or Grilled vegetable panini. --LauraCC (talk) 19:52, December 14, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. No rational for breakdown of category Foods. - Archduk 3 22:01, December 18, 2016 (UTC)

Earth fictional characters[]

Subcat of Category:Fictional characters. --LauraCC (talk) 20:56, December 22, 2016 (UTC)

This is most of that category and may have scope issues. You're going to have to list what would be where first on a subpage. - Archduk 3 12:59, December 23, 2016 (UTC)

Bajoran religious leaders[]

For all the kais, prylars, ranjens, bajoran monks, and vedeks. --LauraCC (talk) 18:19, December 23, 2016 (UTC)

You're talking about all the titles or the specific individuals? Tom (talk) 18:46, December 23, 2016 (UTC)

Individuals with those titles. Sorry I wasn't more clear. :) We could have a Bajoran religion category too, I suppose. --LauraCC (talk) 18:50, December 23, 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure if I like thte suggested title. Most of them are no "leaders". Tom (talk) 21:23, December 23, 2016 (UTC)

What then? Religious practitioners is too vague, anyone who subscribes to a religion is a practitioner. :) --LauraCC (talk) 21:25, December 23, 2016 (UTC)

What about "Bajoran clergy"? 31dot (talk) 21:34, December 23, 2016 (UTC)

"Clergy" is never used in dialogue. But yeah, that could work. --LauraCC (talk) 21:36, December 23, 2016 (UTC)

Or "Bajoran religious officials". 31dot (talk) 21:38, December 23, 2016 (UTC)

Sure. --LauraCC (talk) 21:39, December 23, 2016 (UTC)

If you're looking for leaders you'll have to check the Category:Bajoran government officials as the official leaders are listed there. You'll have to be precise what your intention is when suggesting a category. Right now you don't want to add every Bajoran who has a religious occupation and I missed the point of this category suggestion. Tom (talk) 21:40, December 23, 2016 (UTC)

Their names are all scattered on the respective title pages. There's not enough for any one title to have a category. --LauraCC (talk) 21:42, December 23, 2016 (UTC)

Kais (?) are not government officials(with the exception of Winn). 31dot (talk) 21:47, December 23, 2016 (UTC)

And Ranjens and Prylars are no religious leaders. Back to my initial question, what will you list in this category which right now has no name? All Bajorans who have anything to do with religion? All religious leaders? Or every Bajoran who has a religious title? And 31dot, the Kai is a religious leader, so a government official and also has influence in the government per the article here on Memory Alpha. Tom (talk) 21:56, December 23, 2016 (UTC)

Individual people who have a religious occupation in the Bajoran religion. Prylars and ranjens are monks, so maybe Category:Bajoran monks? --LauraCC (talk) 21:58, December 23, 2016 (UTC)

The Bajoran religion isn't part of the government; having influence in the government isn't the same as being in the government. The Bajoran government is not like that of Vatican City(where The Pope is head of state). 31dot (talk) 22:01, December 23, 2016 (UTC)

How many pages, not including unnamed pages, are we talking about? - Archduk 3 23:54, December 23, 2016 (UTC)

Thirty one.

Kais

Prylars

Ranjens

Vedeks

Monks

Unnamed monk

We probably have enough for a subcat of Vedeks as well (nineteen). How about "Bajoran religious personnel"? --LauraCC (talk) 14:39, December 24, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Category:Religious leaders is the category for these, as they are leaders in the way that the average follower of the religion isn't. This category would only pointlessly subdivide that category, since it won't combine any categories on these pages. - Archduk 3 05:12, December 29, 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, "religious figures" and "religious leaders" are not the same thing for the purposes of MA? One is a historical personage, not necessarily a leader, while the other is always someone in a position of authority? It seems there might be some overlap between those, and this category might bridge it for all Bajoran religion entities among both. Alternately, Category:Bajoran religion might suffice for all Bajoran things said to be religious (Pah-wraiths, pagh) and not secular (Bajoran Central Archives, etc). --LauraCC (talk) 17:50, December 29, 2016 (UTC)

A religious figure is a god/prophet/messenger/angel/etc. while a religious leader is a person in the "church" for said figure(s), as opposed to a person who follows the teachings of, or simply goes to, said "church." The only overlap is Dukat and Sisko, but don't need to be in leaders because figures already implies that. I also oppose any further religious subdivisions as unnecessary at this time. Categories don't replace articles. - Archduk 3 07:42, December 30, 2016 (UTC)

Not even for "Vedeks"? It might look nicer to link to Category:Vedeks at the bottom of the vedek article, than having a long list there. A list is only helpful in that instance if it organizes the individuals into several smaller groups. --LauraCC (talk) 15:46, December 30, 2016 (UTC)

You and I clearly have different opinions on what a "long list" is. There are things to say about that list, and ways to format it that aren't as long. - Archduk 3 17:14, December 30, 2016 (UTC)

I'm open to that. --LauraCC (talk) 17:15, December 30, 2016 (UTC)

Talaxia[]

A category for all things relating to Talaxia, such as all the foods, Talaxian rondo, etc. --LauraCC (talk) 18:42, January 10, 2017 (UTC)

Why does this need to be a category and not a template, or exist at all for that matter? - Archduk 3 20:04, January 10, 2017 (UTC)

There are categories for Qo'nos, Bajor, etc. that people have used to categorize things from that place that don't fall into any other category related to the place. --LauraCC (talk) 20:06, January 10, 2017 (UTC)

...and that says nothing about why this one needs to exist. Those categories serve a function that can't be filled by an article or template reasonably or as well as a category does, so why is a category the best option for this case, and why do we need anything beyond a list on the article? - Archduk 3 20:12, January 10, 2017 (UTC)

I was just going by what's been done in the past. I suppose it could be done with a list. --LauraCC (talk) 20:16, January 10, 2017 (UTC)

Numbered sectors and named sectors[]

Subcat of Category:Sectors. More of an organizational thing than anything else. We can argue about whether a number is a name or not...the fact that there are both suggest that there's maybe some overlap, or it depends on who's designating it as such... --LauraCC (talk) 16:47, January 26, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Unnecessary subdivision of category on one page. - Archduk 3 17:33, January 27, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. This causes people to have to take an extra step of figuring out in which of two categories a sector goes in, and for what? Just because a category is a bit on the heavy side doesn't mean it has to be split in some completely arbitrary way.-- Capricorn (talk) 10:49, January 28, 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I withdraw this. --LauraCC (talk) 22:04, January 31, 2017 (UTC)

Holoprograms[]

Janeway Lambda One

For all characters\places/things appearing in that holoprogram.

--LauraCC (talk) 19:18, December 29, 2016 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes program 3A

For everything appearing in that program.

etc...--LauraCC (talk) 16:50, December 30, 2016 (UTC)

This seems like diminishing returns from the 233 page Dixon Hill category. Are these pages too much for their articles? Are any of them they really in danger of being lost in the shuffle? - Archduk 3 17:04, December 30, 2016 (UTC)

It's not that they wouldn't retain their other categorizations, just gain a new one. --LauraCC (talk) 17:06, December 30, 2016 (UTC)

I'm asking why, other than the fact that we have some for much larger and more inclusive programs, do we need these? The articles on the programs seem like they would be enough. - Archduk 3 17:40, December 30, 2016 (UTC)

Consistency, chiefly. I wonder if you think Category:The Adventures of Flotter would have worked better as a template then. Separated by "stories", "characters", and "locations"? --LauraCC (talk) 17:42, December 30, 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think we "needed" that one either. We don't "need" templates to list links on pages where all the relevant subjects are already linked, and we don't "need" categories to group them together if the main article already does that. - Archduk 3 18:12, December 30, 2016 (UTC)

It looks nicer, perhaps. And aids those who wish to find all related topics at a glance or who see the world differently (more visual learners than readers). To allow people of different learning styles/intelligence types to understand their way. I don't know. It doesn't have to be that way. It's just that there have been new templates created and old ones deleted, categories made into templates and vice versa...it's hard sometimes to know which more people will support or like. --LauraCC (talk) 18:15, December 30, 2016 (UTC)

Start with what problem you want to solve, and then ask yourself what the most natural solution is. Refine from there, making sure you have an actual problem and your solutions don't create more problems than they solve. That said, templates and categories go after subsections and lists on the hierarchy of solutions in a wiki. - Archduk 3 18:23, December 30, 2016 (UTC)

My intention was to show/list things which are mentioned/seen in these programs. Maybe Dixon Hill should be weeded, or split into two: a) things seen/said when Picard plays the program and b)stuff from that lit Data was reading, like Silent Forrester. --LauraCC (talk) 18:29, December 30, 2016 (UTC)

Earth inhabitants[]

Would there be any value to having a category like this? It might be a good place for redirects to unnamed (non-Starfleet, mostly) people who live on Earth of any century, such as all those Unnamed Humans (20th century). Joseph Sisko could go there, as a civilian who lives on Earth, as opposed to the Humans on the Omicron colony. Vulcans like Mestral, (having decided to stay on Earth) would also fall into this category. --LauraCC (talk) 17:11, January 27, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Unnecessary with to many downsides. - Archduk 3 17:33, January 27, 2017 (UTC)

There's so many San Francisco people, for instance.

19th c. - 16 entries +
20th c. -24 entries +
21st c. - 10 entries +
Alternate reality - 4 entries = 54 entries in "Unnamed Humans" pages alone (some with multiple people)

I suppose I should have started there, with a list page suggestion first? --LauraCC (talk) 17:44, January 27, 2017 (UTC)

Just curious, what are the downsides? --LauraCC (talk) 16:18, January 31, 2017 (UTC)

It catches individuals who uniquely fit into a category you wouldn't think one of their kind would, at first glance. Like how Human Stefan DeSeve is in Category:Romulan military personnel. He's probably the lone (normal, not counting Shinzon) Human there. --LauraCC (talk) 19:02, January 31, 2017 (UTC)

Programs and projects[]

For all organized scientific projects, such as Warp Five program, Pathfinder Project, Science project etc, many of which are now in Category:Missions and expeditions - the category carries connotations of travel elsewhere required to carry it out, while a project or program could be carried out in one stationary location. --LauraCC (talk) 19:12, January 27, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. There's an obvious problem in the position that these need a new category because travel is implied in the old one while listing the Warp Five program as a non-travel example, to say nothing of the Pathfinder Project. - Archduk 3 20:09, January 27, 2017 (UTC)

I meant that a mission is like going on a trip to a planet, doing something, and coming back, whereas a project can be but need not be in every instance. It's the way I think of these things. A conflict could be a mission, too, but they're both separate categories under "Category:Events". --LauraCC (talk) 20:12, January 27, 2017 (UTC)

Except the Alamo is a mission, and relatively speaking, it's not going anywhere. If your problem is with the name, it isn't going to be solved with a different category, but a different name. - Archduk 3 20:25, January 27, 2017 (UTC)

I guess so. I don't think it was a science project though...--LauraCC (talk) 20:28, January 27, 2017 (UTC)

How is putting science project and Project Genesis in the same category worth putting the Warp Five program and Bashir 62 in the same category? The line has to be drawn somewhere. - Archduk 3 20:48, January 27, 2017 (UTC)

Program, defined as "an organized project of research or construction" - on the scale of the space program. Not "I Love Lucy".--LauraCC (talk) 20:50, January 27, 2017 (UTC)

Commercial transport database passengers (not the suggested name)[]

A category for persons listed in the Commercial transport database. Many of them are just categorized as "Category:Individuals". --LauraCC (talk) 20:59, February 1, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. We don't need a worse version of the article in category form. - Archduk 3 21:36, February 1, 2017 (UTC)

Ship captains/commanding officers[]

For those captains who are not Starfleet, maybe even civilians. Category: Starfleet captains would be a subcat. --LauraCC (talk) 21:17, February 2, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Only personnel with the rank of captain are in this category, not the position, and I'm not convinced we have enough non-Starfleet personnel with a captain's rank to warrant this. - Archduk 3 18:27, February 5, 2017 (UTC)

Temporal phenomena[]

Using the list @ Temporal anomaly, etc. Subcat of "Category:Time travel", which would continue to deal with things like Temporal agent, Temporal transporter, etc, that are tech and titles. (Halted sortkeying in "Time travel" until this is decided.) --LauraCC (talk) 19:38, February 9, 2017 (UTC)

We already have Category:Subspace phenomena and Category:Astronomical phenomena, after all, this would complement it. --LauraCC (talk) 19:44, February 17, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Time travel doesn't need to be broken down and this wouldn't combine any other categories. - Archduk 3 12:35, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so how about having a larger category "phenomena" for things such as these. It could include these temporal phenomena and cultural phenomena like moral inversion, as well as scientific phenomena like Hodgkin's Law of Parallel Planetary Development. Anything else that might qualify for that? --LauraCC (talk) 21:31, February 27, 2017 (UTC)

Unless moral inversion belongs in philosophical movements, though it's not really something you deliberately move towards, but it just kind of happens. --LauraCC (talk) 20:02, February 28, 2017 (UTC)

Vehicle Development personnel[]

Using the lists at Vehicle Development (which together add up to 22 unique people), a subcat of Category:Fleet Operations Center personnel. --LauraCC (talk) 20:11, February 9, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't think we should replace those lists with a combined alphabetical one, so other than we can, I don't see a rationale here. - Archduk 3 06:44, February 20, 2017 (UTC)

Denobula[]

A Denobula category similar to those we have for Romulus, Cardassia etc. We have animals, institutions, locations, events and other stuff related to this planet which would be collected. Kennelly (talk) 14:57, February 24, 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a list? I tried earlier to suggest a Talaxia category to no avail. I dunno how your suggestion will be received. --LauraCC (talk) 15:54, February 24, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Not seeing why this can't just be a list, as there doesn't seem to be many pages this would apply to. - Archduk 3 22:31, 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. - Archduk 3 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. - Archduk 3 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. - Archduk 3 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. - Archduk 3 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. - Archduk 3 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. - Archduk 3 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. - Archduk 3 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. - Archduk 3 20:18, March 26, 2017 (UTC)

Containers[]

For items in Category:Memory Alpha images (containers), like cup, pouch, vat, vial, bottle, etc. --LauraCC (talk) 20:25, May 11, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose, rationale for image category doesn't apply. - Archduk 3 10:32, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

SS Kogin and SS Wisconsin personnel[]

Despite all passengers being listed already in table form on those pages, which has the benefit of displaying graphically who went where on said ship, would it be unreasonable to have categories for these folks? So far, they're all just "Individuals". --LauraCC (talk) 16:50, May 19, 2017 (UTC)

This is my attempt at a better category than my afore-suggested "passengers". --LauraCC (talk) 15:51, May 24, 2017 (UTC)

Whatever bug crawled inside your head and is telling you a single category on pages for people is bad, I suggest you get it out now. Oppose, again, since you've brought nothing to the table to address my objection to the last suggestion, making this a waste of everyone's time. - Archduk 3 19:55, May 24, 2017 (UTC)

Chocolate foods[]

To replace the list at Chocolate. Not all of them are desserts, either (pancakes are a breakfast food). Needs a better name. --LauraCC (talk) 18:09, May 19, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Anything can be any meal if you eat then. - Archduk 3 19:55, May 24, 2017 (UTC)

Non-guns[]

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

Oppose. No rationale, so just spewing thoughts here instead of thinking again. - Archduk 3 20:26, June 16, 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Flowers[]

Subcat of Category:Plants, using the list at flower. -- LauraCC (talk) 20:37, July 10, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. I am not sure we need this one. Tom (talk) 18:02, July 14, 2017 (UTC)

Any particular reason why? --LauraCC (talk) 17:04, July 17, 2017 (UTC)

Afterlives[]

Subcat of death and religion. For all places where people were said to go when they die, like Heaven, Hell, Gloried Way After, Next Emanation, Valhalla, etc. --LauraCC (talk) 20:02, July 17, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose, no rationale. - Archduk 3 (on an unsecure connection) 17:06, July 27, 2017 (UTC)

Holonovel characters[]

Subcat of "Fictional characters". For fictional characters who exist (only or also) in holonovels, as opposed to holograms of real individuals or fictional characters only from films or books. --LauraCC (talk) 18:47, July 19, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose, no rationale. - Archduk 3 (on an unsecure connection) 17:06, July 27, 2017 (UTC)

Causes of death[]

Maybe it's a little too soon, but a while back I proposed a "fatal punishments" category, as I noted that some ended in death and some did not. Seeing those now categorized under "death" and some medical conditions which often lead to death, such as heart attacks, electrocution, etc, I was thinking maybe there could now be a subcat of Category:Death, called "Causes of death". --LauraCC (talk) 18:27, July 3, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose, no rationale for a category over a navigation template. - Archduk 3 (on an unsecure connection) 17:06, July 27, 2017 (UTC)

Law enforcement personnel[]

Category:Law enforcement personnel: We have a category for military personnel, but none for law enforcement personnel, of which, there are many, namely beginning with those listed at United States law enforcement personnel. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 03:19, April 15, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose for the same reasons as last time. This includes Starfleet personnel in the operations division, but not all of them, so categorization becomes problematic at best, especially since you could also argue all Starfleet/military personal are/can also be law enforcement. - Archduk 3 04:01, April 15, 2017 (UTC)

Well there certainly must be a better alternative than the one you offer, because the fellows listed are certainly not Starfleet, nor military, nor civilians, yet are clearly in their own self contained grouping that should be collected under one category. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 01:13, April 17, 2017 (UTC)

If the category's raison d'etre can be clearly indicated that this is non-Starfleet personnel, then I have no real issue with it. The other possibility is to potentially include Starfleet "police" (if there have been any identified, which I'm not sure that there have been...) -- sulfur (talk) 01:44, April 17, 2017 (UTC)

There are a handful of Starfleet/post 21st century "police", or uppercase "S" Security, named, and anyone in lowercase "s" security can reasonably be considered to be in law enforcement too. I'm not too concerned about a bunch of unnamed operations division pages, but pages like United States armed forces personnel, or JAGs. Deciding if the "military" is in law enforcement as whole would also help, since Kirk wasn't harassing Harry Mudd because he was bored, and all we ever see the Nazi SS do is kill people without names while arresting our heroes. IDing who should be in this category (like Worf), and who should not be (like Alexander because of the Ancient West program), and if we should just have subcategories under this, would go a long way to convincing me this won't just lead to years of arguing over having Nazis and Odo in the same category, or if Archer is a better cop than Commander Collins since he pretty much did her job for her.

The issue I'm getting at is "law enforcement" is much bigger than just "US law enforcement", but making a category for the latter only begs why it isn't in a category for the former, and it gets a pretty messy there. - Archduk 3 13:28, April 17, 2017 (UTC)

You could call it "police personnel", signifying members of a police force. Or "civilian law enforcement personnel" to remove the military aspect. --LauraCC (talk) 15:48, April 17, 2017 (UTC)

Baseball teams[]

Most of the teams in Category:Sports organizations are baseball teams. --LauraCC (talk) 21:46, September 15, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. No rationale, again. - Archduk 3 05:57, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

Uniforms[]

A subcategory of "Clothing", for all uniform pages, Starfleet and otherwise. Could also hold things like Federation blue, Xenylon,Insignia, etc related to uniforms. --LauraCC (talk) 17:16, September 25, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Scope and duplication of a navigational template. - Archduk 3 05:57, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

I've added those other things to the template in "related topics" instead. --LauraCC (talk) 18:10, October 7, 2017 (UTC)

Klingon sarcophagus ship personnel[]

For those Klingons residing on DIS's Klingon sarcophagus ship, named and unnamed. --LauraCC (talk) 17:13, September 27, 2017 (UTC) Or Category:T'Kuvma's flagship personnel, whichever is better. --LauraCC (talk) 18:33, October 5, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose: This sort of thing would usually be a page, in this case T'Kuvma's flagship personnel. --Defiant (talk) 17:56, October 17, 2017 (UTC)

Oh, okay. And another page for unnamed, if any remain. --LauraCC (talk) 17:57, October 17, 2017 (UTC)

Identification[]

For things which are not technology but still used in identification, like Prefix code, fingerprint and Footprint. --LauraCC (talk) 18:29, October 2, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. First example is tech, the other two do not a category make. - Archduk 3 05:57, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

--LauraCC (talk) 17:10, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

Identification technology would then be a sub-cat of this. --LauraCC (talk) 18:32, October 5, 2017 (UTC)

Signature is the only new example that fits category criteria, because all the others are ID tech, or are at least a very closely related topic to ID tech, and even a sig requires some tech to be made. DNA and a retina are not "identification", but things that are used by tech for ID. There is no "subject is category" relationship here, again. - Archduk 3 05:31, October 6, 2017 (UTC)

Spore drive[]

With this odd new drive, we have a lot of terms that feel a bit out of place just litering Category:Propulsion technology. I already count a respectable list of terms in its debut episode (a quickly hacked together list: basidiosac rupture, bloom failure, mycelial network, mycelium spores, Prototaxites stellaviatori, reaction cube, Speirin, and spore drive), and it seems likely that a few more terms will show up in the rest of the series. A propulsion technology getting its own subcategory isn't unprecedented, we already have a subcategory for warp drive, which in turn has one for transwarp.
One unique feature of this proposed category is that it could and should go under both under Category:Propulsion technology and Category:Biology. -- Capricorn (talk) 13:50, October 5, 2017 (UTC)

Support. --LauraCC (talk) 15:55, October 5, 2017 (UTC)

Though it could also be a sub-cat of my proposed "botany" category. --LauraCC (talk) 18:36, October 5, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose, for now at least. I'd rather this start as a navigation template before we go full category for only a handful of pages. At the very least, a template would allow for easier changes as the plot thickens. - Archduk 3 07:37, October 8, 2017 (UTC)

Family[]

A category for the familial titles and aspects of being/becoming a family, such as adoption. orphan, legal guardian etc. Subcat of Culture. --LauraCC (talk) 17:33, June 9, 2017 (UTC)

That name isn't going to work, and I'm not sure if this idea will either. - Archduk 3 07:43, June 10, 2017 (UTC)

Well, we could call it "Category:Familial connections"...or "Interpersonal relationships"--LauraCC (talk) 16:05, June 12, 2017 (UTC)

"Family" is perfectly acceptable. The namesake article is the focal point of the entire concept/list aspect of the topic. Everything that would be categorized is already linked to the page and clearly distinct. To say something isn't going to work, at this point, is purely unsubstantiated. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 19:03, June 26, 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the name is the best thing we could use for the "is" statement, as in "Earth is [a] planet", if you're trying to put everything mentioned in one cat. While stuff like "a brother is family" works well enough, the others, like "an orphan is family", not so much. - Archduk 3 (on an unsecure connection) 23:03, July 10, 2017 (UTC)

What about my earlier suggestion of "Interpersonal relationships"? --LauraCC (talk) 15:36, July 12, 2017 (UTC)

This is pure nitpickery. A child without a family is an orphan. There is a family connection, and would also be the KISS solution (Wikipedia would appear to agree) because I don't want a dozen subcategories to a thing when only a couple will do. At this point, our category catalog is so diluted with fine tuning categories it's about useless unto itself. So, if Star Trek has made one thing clear, the definition of family is more than what's trying to be made of this suggestion. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 15:58, July 12, 2017 (UTC)

The category tree is becoming overly "fine tuned", see right here for an example, and it's not "nitpickery" to point out that a catch all category bending the guideline all categories have been based on isn't inherently better than a navigation template, which once again wasn't even considered as far as I can tell. I don't see any argument here on why a category would be the better solution, and, if it isn't apparent, a small list that can be grouped and labeled is better than a small list that can't, even if it has to be directly on the page instead of a click away. - Archduk 3 (on an unsecure connection) 19:15, July 12, 2017 (UTC)

Millennium Gate personnel[]

For all the names mentioned on the Millennium Gate poster, Shannon O'Donnel, Gerald Moss, etc. --LauraCC (talk) 17:54, November 3, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. I see no reason for this category. And "personnel" sounds very wrong. Tom (talk) 19:12, February 9, 2018 (UTC)

Tests[]

For things like the Bridge Officer's Test, Aptitude test, etc. Not medical tests. --LauraCC (talk) 16:04, March 9, 2018 (UTC)

Oppose, scope and number of pages. - Archduk 3 15:54, March 13, 2018 (UTC)

Human groups[]

For populations that are (apparently) made up entirely of Humans that are not Earth-based, a sub-cat of groups, Humans, etc. The edit war regarding Alpha and Beta Quadrant species inspired me to suggest this. --LauraCC (talk) 16:25, April 5, 2018 (UTC)

Oppose, notion vs. idea. - Archduk 3 18:04, April 5, 2018 (UTC)

I suppose "Cultural groups" (Chakotay's tribe, a cultural group, as opposed to Fan club, a fun group, or Resuscitation team, a professional group) might be better? --LauraCC (talk) 14:59, April 6, 2018 (UTC)

Acronym subcats[]

Would there be any use in adding subcats for "Rank acronyms", "Federation Starfleet agency acronyms", etc? I know that some are ambiguous as to their nature, though... --LauraCC (talk) 17:30, April 24, 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. Category is full of pages that aren't known to be acronyms in-universe, and is still only one page. - Archduk 3 17:58, April 24, 2018 (UTC)

Unnamed homeworlds[]

Subcat of Unnamed planets and homeworlds, now that we have the former. For homeworlds that are named things like "Bob's homeworld" and "Irene's species homeworld". --LauraCC (talk) 15:07, May 4, 2018 (UTC)

Oppose, no rationale. - Archduk 3 05:39, May 5, 201

Automobiles[]

Given that Memphis77 has been adding a lot of autos lately, I think a separate category for these might be acceptable. --LauraCC (talk) 15:20, July 27, 2018 (UTC)

No. - Archduk 3 00:29, July 31, 2018 (UTC)

Earth aquatic/land animals[]

Subcats of earth animals, the former for fish, seals, whales, etc, the latter for dogs, horses, deer, etc. --LauraCC (talk) 17:34, September 27, 2018 (UTC)

In favor; Seems like a good idea--Sennim (talk) 12:02, September 29, 2018 (UTC)

Oppose, unnecessary division with no obvious rationale. - Archduk 3 06:22, October 8, 2018 (UTC)

Marriage[]

For all the wedding related things, divorce, etc...--LauraCC (talk) 18:33, February 9, 2019 (UTC)

Oppose, no rationale. - Archduk 3 (on an unsecure connection) 16:19, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

Pre-Starfleet Human colonies[]

See: Talk:Colony

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)

<dpl>
category=Subspace
category=communications technology
</dpl>

--LauraCC (talk) 19:46, February 1, 2017 (UTC)

I've left off sortkeying some of the ones in category "subspace" that I recognize as communication related until the category idea is rejected or accepted. --LauraCC (talk) 17:19, February 2, 2017 (UTC)

I'm not exactly clear on why it needs replaced, unless we're on a mission to eliminate all of these navigational-type templates. I wouldn't be opposed to a category of "Subspace communications" for these articles as a sub-cat of "Communications technology", but I don't really know that it's necessary. I'd like to hear some other opinions. -- Renegade54 (talk) 20:40, February 16, 2017 (UTC)

Those that are more like a diagram/table and less like a long list, such as Template:Enterprise conn officers are fine. My problem with the subspace communications one is that it's not organized like that. It's just an alphabetical list. --LauraCC (talk) 20:46, February 16, 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly what it is, an alphabetical list linking articles in two distinct categories: "Subspace" and "Communications technology". It *has* grown longer over time from when it was first implemented, though, so it *may* be time to retire it in favor of another approach. Anyone else? -- Renegade54 (talk) 22:14, February 16, 2017 (UTC)

Support. - Archduk 3 12:35, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced. I think it is fine as is. --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 19:56, January 23, 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so we have a maybe, a yes, and a no. If you don't count me, it's tied. TrekFan, do you have any reasons why you like it as is? --LauraCC (talk) 15:02, April 6, 2018 (UTC)

Departments[]

A category for all departments, with appropriate subcategories, under Category:Organizations. These pages seem to be either under Category:Agencies or Category:Spacecraft sections. The first seems perfectly fine, while the other doesn't, since most spacecraft departments are spread out over several sections of a spacecraft, and are at the very least a group of people as well as several locations. This needs a bit more input, but it seems weird to me that Science department redirects to the group Sciences division while Engineering department is a section of a ship, not the Operations division. - Archduk 3 23:08, November 15, 2019 (UTC)

I'm doing some major work on departments right now (it just so happened you caught me having sorted out engineering department but not yet science department) and there's more or less three types: firstly, starships are organized into departments (life sciences department, exobiology department, etc). Secondly, some Federation agencies happen to be called department of this or that (Department of Temporal Investigations etc) while others... aren't, and in fact there's a dizzying array of other options (bureau, [UFP Treaty Office|office]], committee, and many more). And thirdly, there's a number of 20th century Earth local organizations that happen to be departments of various government entities (Detroit Police Department, San Francisco Department of Sanitation, etc)

These three groups have very little in common except for the word. A Starship departments category that would go under Spacecraft sections makes logical sense to me, because there's a coherent idea behind that. I'm working on an article on those that would also contain a list of those and I think there's about 8-9. But as for other departments, grouping them together just because a writer decided to incorporate the word department and not something else feels like a bad idea. That would just divide things up by a more or less arbitrary criterium, even though Federation departments really do belong under Federation agencies, Earth police departments really do belong under Earth agencies, et cetera. I think the biggest real problem underlying this is the nebulous nature of the Spacecraft sections category, which is a catch-all for a bunch of different types of things. There's a lot to be said for rethinking Spacecraft sections, but a department category is not the answer. -- Capricorn (talk) 09:04, November 16, 2019 (UTC)

Maybe subdivisions? Spacecraft departments? Starfleet departments? --LauraCC (talk) 17:46, November 19, 2019 (UTC)

Here's the aformentioned list of Starship departments, by the way. -- Capricorn (talk) 16:00, November 22, 2019 (UTC)

We should definitely take a look at spacecraft sections, and maybe agencies, if only to see if a better term would apply. It might be worth it to just rethink the entire organization tree while we're at it, there seems to be a lot of ambiguity of terms and branches doubling back. A navigation template should be enough to cover linking the spacecraft/starship departments. - Archduk 3 22:34, November 22, 2019 (UTC)

Archived. It sounds like additional discussion needs to occur on the structure suggested, which has not occurred after more than 2 weeks of inactivity. - AJ Halliwell (talk) 16:15, May 26, 2020 (UTC)

Centric episodes[]

What I think we should have is a list of episodes that center around the character or about that character. This could include movies as well. Some examples, in TOS a Spock episode is "Amok Time" because it centers around him. This could be under the character's bio page under the "played by" category, or it could be a separate category on the characters page all together. I know this is pretty suggestive, and there are episodes that center around two people. For example, "The Best of Both Worlds" is mostly a Riker episode, but I would say it is also a Picard episode since he gets assimilated by the Borg. For episodes like these we could have a "Shared Centric episodes" category next to the centric episodes category. Or, we could just have one list and include the episode on both of the character's pages (This example being Riker and Picard). -- LaxAxl 4/9/2020

Oppose until more discussion on what this would look like takes place. I think there's a lot of gray area that's open to interpretation, especially with the format of Discovery and Picard. - AJ Halliwell (talk) 18:46, April 22, 2020 (UTC)

Archived; more than two weeks of inactivity without support or discussion. - AJ Halliwell (talk) 16:15, May 26, 2020 (UTC)

Category suggestion archive
In-universe	Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Production POV	Archive 1
Maintenance	Archive 1