Memory Alpha
Memory Alpha
Memory Alpha
62,051
pages
in: Memory Alpha maintenance, Memory Alpha images

Memory Alpha:Category suggestion archive/Maintenance/Archive 1

< Memory Alpha:Category suggestion archive
Sign in to edit

Starting point category[]

Category:Memory Alpha or Category:Articles

I have noticed that this site doesn't have one yet, so I am proposing a category that would be a starting point for locating any article. It's subcategories would obviously be Category:Star Trek and Category:Memory Alpha maintenance. Adamwankenobi 21:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something, but what would the point of having these categories be? Category:Memory Alpha would apply to EVERYTHING on MA, and seems pointless to me, and pretty much so would Category:Articles. As for having a starting point, that is what those lists and stuff on the main page are for. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You're exactly right. The proposed new category would apply to EVERYTHING, therefore this site would be taking its first step in the right direction of cleaning up its messy categorization system. What troubles me is that the current categorization system has no real starting point. Yeah, you could say the main page serves as this but that's the responsibility of the categories—to point readers in the right direction. If we were to take this action, ONE link on the main page would suffice. The link would then point to the proposed all-encompassing category and everybody would be happy. :) Adamwankenobi 01:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Personnally, I would rather see the main page as a jumping point than to see every article get acategory added on (some already have too many). Given that, and that I feel I know understand what these categories would be (although I still do not know the difference between Category:Memory Alpha and Category:Articles), I have to vote oppose. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you fully understand what I mean. The category wouldn't be applied to every article, it would be applied to TWO CATEGORIES. And those two categories would be Category:Star Trek and Category:Memory Alpha maintenance. I tried to make that clear in my initial request. It's just a simple housekeeping maneuver. Adamwankenobi 02:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Still opposing. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't be asking yourself "Why?", but rather, "Why not?". I don't understand your ground for opposing. I can't see what this category would hurt. Adamwankenobi 02:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Read my initial vote, I include multiple "why nots" --OuroborosCobra talk 02:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
comment I've seen wikis with a category "AtoZ" that allows them to control the index, unlike Special:Allpages, which lists every page and doesn't allow you to control it. It also allows you to add sort keys. Maybe that is what the articles category would be here. --Bp 02:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, there already are "starting point categories" for two of the three basic page types we have (1.in-universe articles, 2.PPOV articles, 3.Project pages), and (as I already stated in one of the related discussions) I'm not sure if a single "starting point" even makes sense for the third type. Since we're trying to keep the different page types separate anyway, I don't see the point in tying them together by another top-level category. Why would anyone need a connected chain of categories from, for example, an in-universe article to a policy page? -- Cid Highwind 12:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't aware our categorizating system was in need of a clean-up. Nor are these categories really necessary, IMO. Oppose. --From Andoria with Love 12:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Archived -- I think the votes speak for themselves. --Alan del Beccio 23:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Television Category[]

We there should be a Category:Television Series or similar to collect together the existing Category:Episodes, and to place the master article for each series. Drhaggis 22:07, 22 Jan 2005 (CET)

Isn't Category:Episodes exactly what you are describing? It contains the 6 "series subcategories" and could contain additional information about "episodes" in general... -- Cid Highwind 23:47, 2005 Jan 22 (CET)

I'm thinking more like

  • Undetermined "Top-level Media" Category
    • Television Shows
      • Episodes
    • Movies
    • Books
    • Video Games

TV shows is where we place the episodes category, any lists of episodes, all the articles on the existing tv shows, Info on Star Trek: Phase II, any "list of X episodes" articles. Drhaggis 00:17, 23 Jan 2005 (CET)

What else would the Television Shows category contain, apart from one link to the episodes category? The Media category might be useful, but that is already being discussed in the above section. I don't see the for a Television Shows category, since we already have Category:Episodes. -- Harry 23:48, 23 Jan 2005 (CET)

Where else would we categorize master articles such as Star Trek: Voyager and their ilk? It would also hold any documentaries and specials and allow for a cross-ref with all television list categories. For example "List of XXX episodes" would go in Category:Lists and Category:Television Shows as Wikipedia does it. Is Episodes a top level category? Drhaggis 00:23, 24 Jan 2005 (CET)

Well, in the unnamed category for "out-of-universe" information that I suggested above, I guess? It would contain the "Episodes" category directly; I don't think we need another category layer between these two categories. "Books" (or better yet, "Novels" and "Reference books"?) would be another good subcategory, though. Regarding Wikipedia, keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia "about everything", including many television series. Memory Alpha is an encyclopedia about just six - we probably don't need the same level of detail as Wikipedia. Episodes would not be a top level category, but a subcategory of Trek franchise (or whatever name we choose). -- Cid Highwind 21:39, 2005 Jan 27 (CET)

Star Trek: Voyager would be considered "out-of-universe"? Odd. It may actually be easier to determine the lowest level categories first. Once most articles are categorized, forming and changing the tree is less painfull. Do we honestly think that we can "lock" the tree in place on a Wiki? Come to think of it it is less like a tree because several of the smaller nodes will cross. Drhaggis 03:10, 28 Jan 2005 (CET)

Of course... How could an article about a series (movie/novel/...) set in a fictional universe be a part of that universe? The events happening in that series are, but the series itself is not.
Regarding the suggested procedure, I think we are having this discussion page exactly because we know that we can't "lock" the tree completely - but by discussing all ideas first instead of simply implementing any or all of them, we're avoiding much redundant work and categories that simply don't make sense... -- Cid Highwind 12:03, 2005 Jan 28 (CET)
Any further thoughts or should Category:Television series suggestion be archived, voted on or resubmitted? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:43, 16 Mar 2005 (EST)
I vote to archive this discussion - the possible scope of this category in addition to the episode categories we already have is still unclear to me. -- Cid Highwind 08:46, 21 Mar 2005 (EST)

TREE[]

Suggestion A (Redge)[]

  • Characters
    • Main Characters
    • Recurring Characters
    • Guest Characters
  • Society and Culture
  • Science and Technology
  • Space Travel and Hardware
  • Production Information
    • Actors and Actresses
    • Writers and Staff
    • Directors
  • Reference

A problem I have with this tree is the fact that some articles would exist in different subcategories of the same category. Earth, for example, would belong to Locations - Planets - Alpha Quadrant planets and Locations - Space - Federation space.

IMO, it would be preferable to have one category for the "cartographic" structure (Cartography - Alpha&Beta quadrant - Federation space) and another one for the "astronomical" structure (Astronomy - Planet - Homeworld). -- Cid Highwind 16:23, 1 Oct 2004 (CEST)

I think it'd be better to separate "space travel" (starships, starship classes, space stations) from "hardware", and split "science" from "technology", and then just put the hardware with technology, since those two basically cover the same kinds of things. This would avoid a lot of overlap since science and technology aren't the same subjects, and space travel hardware is "technology" by definition anyway. -- EtaPiscium 18:38, 1 Oct 2004 (CEST)

    • I agree that a with those splits. It makes absolute sense to separate science from technology, and then put hardware and spacetravel under that. (Toddas 17:34, 18 Oct 2004 (CEST))

Suggestion B1 (Cid Highwind)[]

I suggest the following category tree for planets (see Talk:Stellar cartography). This could replace the several existing Lists of planets.

  • Locations or Places
    • Planets
      • Uninhabited planets
      • Inhabited planets
        • Homeworlds
      • Federation planets
      • Klingon planets
      • Romulan planets
      • ...

Each planet could then belong to one of the first three subcategories (uninhabited, inhabited, homeworld) plus one of the 'affiliations' (or to category:planets directly, if nothing is known about the planet). -- Cid Highwind 14:37, 6 Sep 2004 (CEST)

I've never liked the "inhabited planets" distinction. At what point is a planet "inhabited"? Does a planet with nothing but an outpost or a starbase where there is only a "semi-permanent" population count as "inhabited"? What about planets that were inhabited but aren't any longer? I think it'd be better if it were just sorted on jurisdiction, i.e. Federation, Klingon, etc. This would also sort planets in a single system together even if one is inhabited and the other is not.
Also, I think calling the categories "planets" is too restrictive. It doesn't include stars, star systems, nebulae, or any other space object that could be considered a "place". I suggest:
  • Stellar Cartography
    • Stars
    • Planets
      • Homeworlds
      • Minor bodies
    • Nebulae
    • Clusters
    • Sectors
    • Other objects
    • Neutral space
    • Federation space
    • Klingon space
    • ...
Each planet, star, star system, nebula, comet, etc could be categorized in one of the first general categories, and then in an additional category for location if applicable -- EtaPiscium 06:36, 25 Sep 2004 (CEST)
XXX space categories are a good suggestion. What exactly does "Planets -> Minor bodies'" mean, though? -- Cid Highwind 11:00, 1 Oct 2004 (CEST)
Minor bodies -- I was thinking moons, planetoids, comets, asteroids, etc. I'm not that comfortable lumping those under "planets" if we can help it. -- EtaPiscium 18:32, 1 Oct 2004 (CEST)
I like this breakdown. It makes a lot of sence and isnt overly broken down. Drhaggis 00:26, 24 Jan 2005 (CET)

Even now, there are several different suggestions for location categories, for example Alpha Quadrant planets or Federation space. One could think of more, such as Sol sector or even Sol system. Some questions:

  • How detailed should these categories become?
    • X space seems to be a good one, Y sector might be useful in some cases - it should not be created for every sector.
  • How should these categories be arranged?
    • First, I don't like the category X Quadrant planets, for the reasons stated above by EtaPiscium. We should use one "Quadrant" category for everything (additionally, Alpha/Beta should be combined in one category). In that case, should (for example) Federation space be a subcategory of Alpha&Beta quadrant, or should both categories be on the same level? -- Cid Highwind 16:12, 1 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Suggestion B2 (Cid Highwind)[]

still incomplete...

  • Astronomy
    • Stars
    • Planets
    • Moons
    • Nebulae
    • Clusters
    • Sectors (Note: A list of sectors. Each sector would go here and to an appropriate subcategory of Stellar Cartography.)
    • ...
  • Stellar Cartography
    • Alpha&Beta quadrant (Note: Should be combined. We often don't know the correct quadrant exactly.)
      • Federation space
      • Klingon space
      • Romulan space
      • ...
    • Gamma quadrant
      • ...
    • Delta quadrant
      • ...

This incomplete suggestion avoids the problem I see with suggestion A. Each object (planet, moon, ...) would appear once in an "Astronomy" subcategory and once in a "Cartography" subcategory. I will add more later. -- Cid Highwind 16:36, 1 Oct 2004 (CEST)

I'd recommend just having "homeworlds" under "planets", and then putting all other planets under the general "planets" category. This avoids the semantics of "what constitutes a colony" vs outposts, settlements, camps, multiple colonies, former colonies, etc. If necessary, the names of actual colonies themselves could be put in another category under "Planets", like "Locations", which could also include cities, land-forms, provinces, etc. -- EtaPiscium 18:44, 1 Oct 2004 (CEST)

I don't think that city, province, colony etc. would be valid sub-categories of planet. All those are "has a" relations ("planet has a city"), but what we should try to create (IMO) are "is a" relations ("homeworld is a planet"). As such, colony world would still be a valid category, and I think also an important one, because there are many colony worlds... -- Cid Highwind 15:50, 4 Oct 2004 (CEST)
Well, would "colony world" be articles about the colony itself, or about the planet that the colony is on? I think that in many cases it's difficult to determine whether a planet counts as a "colony world". Are we including all planets that were colonized at some point? Or just all planets that currently have a "colony" (with all the terminology pitfalls I mentioned before)?
Also, I think the whole "colony" article vs. "colony world" article is something that still needs to be clarified. If it was the actual name of the colony itself and not the planet, then I think it qualifies in the same category as a city since most colonies become cities anyway when the planet gets to a certain level of development. -- EtaPiscium 19:40, 4 Oct 2004 (CEST)
OK, I removed "colony world" from my suggestion - this as well as the "(un)inhabited planets" can continue to exist as a list. Further comments? -- Cid Highwind 23:19, 22 Dec 2004 (CET)
I like this format; it limits the possible categories that anything astronomical might fall into, and the categories are very clear so there'll be only a few cases where a something's placement might be debated. I agree that additional groupings such as "homeworld" can exist in their current list form. -- EtaPiscium 09:33, 23 Dec 2004 (CET)
Thanks for your reply. Regarding subgroupings as lists, I think any such list article should be placed in the category as well. We can use "sort keys" to include those at the top of the list, for example: [[Category:Planets| List of Homeworlds]] (note the leading blank)... Further comments/objections? Anyone? -- Cid Highwind 10:45, 23 Dec 2004 (CET)
Technically, any article (or category) can be in any number of categories, according to Mediawiki's categorization. Hence, it is technically a graph, not a tree. So Andoria could be in Category:Founding Members of the United Federation of Planets and Category:Planets. Dma 02:16, 2 Jan 2005 (CET)
Well, the goal of this whole discussion is to find out what "makes sense", not "what's possible" - of course, each article might appear in several categories, but which categories (and connections between categories) are really useful. You theoretical example Category:Founding Members of the United Federation of Planets, for example, isn't a good category because it is too limited - a navigational template would be the better choice here. -- Cid Highwind 02:22, 2005 Jan 2 (CET)

Suggestion C (Steve)[]

Well, I'm resurrecting this dinosaur with a pseudo-suggestion. Back in the days when I was a contributor to the abortive Star Trek Novel Encyclopedia Project, I developed a list of categories that I never got around to proposing to the group. Obviously they need refinement because of what MA covers vs. what STNE covered, but here they are:

  • Characters (with MA's in-universe perspective, this way of organizing characters is probably not the way to go)
    • Main Characters
    • Recurring Characters
    • Guest Characters
    • Mentioned Characters
  • Life Forms
    • Contemporary Species
    • Noncorporeal Species
    • Ancient Species
    • Nonsentient Species
      • Animals
      • Plants
      • etc.
  • Society and Culture
    • Organizations (this could range from the Federation to the Lollipop Guild)
    • Language (including alien terms, perhaps)
    • Laws and Rituals
    • Food and Beverages
    • Religion and Philosophy
    • Books
    • Other Arts
    • History
    • Recreation
  • Science and Technology
    • Theories and Principles
    • Energy and Radiation
    • Space-Time
    • Physics and Chemistry
    • Medicine and Xenobiology
    • Military Technology
    • Computers and Communications
    • Propulsion and Transportation
    • Other Machines and Devices
  • Space Travel
    • Spaceships
    • Spaceship types
    • Space stations
    • Other vehicles
  • Stellar Cartography
    • Regions
    • Nebulae
    • Stars
    • Planets
      • Locations
    • Subplanetary objects
    • Other phenomena

Obviously a lot of these could be further subdivided. -- Steve 23:16, 15 Dec 2004 (CET)

sorting stubs[]

Memory Alpha production stubs[]

There has been a suggestion that we sort the articles in Category:Memory Alpha stubs into subcategories, such as Category:Memory Alpha production stubs, etc, ..

Please register support, opposition or comments for creating that subcategory here.

  • Support -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
  • Oppose - see below. -- Cid Highwind 13:10, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is this totally necessary? It's not like Wikipedia where obscure subjects and topics need someone who understands the content or whatever, and we also don't have an unlimited number of potential articles as they do. Basically, it seems to me that like Cid said if someone wants to fix them then fix them instead of worrying about how they're organized. Ben Sisqo 00:26, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. See comment below. --From Andoria with Love 20:54, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Memory Alpha unsorted stubs[]

I have an additional suggestion (which is why i reverted a preemptive edit that would have also removed all "production stubs" from the main stub list -- perhaps we should use the individual stub templates to double categorize all the stub articles -- and create the additional subcategory Memory Alpha unsorted stubs -- this way we can sort them as they accumulate, as well as having a master list.

Cases like this are why we have the suggestion page -- that category was enacted already and people had started to categorize articles into it, even though through discussion my changes could have been added. Please discuss a category first, as it is tedious, and resource consuming to have to go back and recategorize dozens or hundreds of articles. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

  • Support -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
  • Oppose. (What happened here? I added a comment here yesterday and am sure that it went through, but now it is missing again without any sign of it in the history? Anyway... I strongly oppose any subcategorization of stubs. First, an article should only very temporarily have "stub status". Any administrative overhead used to collect, categorize and recategorize all the different stub types might better be used to "de-stub" some of them. Second, I'm not sure if it would help anyone. Right now, we have about 800 stub articles. If someone is interested in removing those right now, why doesn't he start the work? If he's not interested, would subcategorization help in any way? Third, I fear that having a detailed subcategorization scheme for stubs would only help making them a "normal" feature of MA instead of the "necessary evil" they are. -- Cid Highwind 13:10, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. IMO, there's no need to sort what needs to be fixed rather that sorted, so get to fixing and stop worrying about sorting. --From Andoria with Love 20:54, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

POSSIBLE CATAGORY[]

A superb addition would be a columned list showing words/names used, their historical origin and the episode in which they were used.

EXAMPLE: 

         NAME                           HISTORICAL ORIGIN                    EPISODE

        SARGON                        SARGON II, KING OF ASSYRIA           "RETURN TO TOMORROW"
                                      722-705 B.C.

        BALOK                         MEMBER OF BRITISH HOUSE OF           "THE CORBOMITE MANEUVER"
                                      COMMONS (CONTEMPORARY OF WINSTON
                                      S. CHURCHILL
That can't be done with a category. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
your possible category is impossible. figure that out... i really don't like the concept anyways. --6/6 Neural Transceiver 23:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, no need to sound mean. I already told him it was impossible. There is no need to respond "it is impossible, figure that out". It makes it sound like the anon has not already learned that. You have no evidence of that. They have not responded since I first politely told them it was impossible. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A-Z[]

Creating a Category:A-Z that will include all pages, only properly sorted like Sisko, Benjamin. I first saw this at the BSG wiki, and thought it was stupid, but after some thought, I am starting to like it.

Here are the pros in contrast to Special:AllPages:

  • It would be a true alphabetical index; all the pages would be sorted correctly using category sort keys. We have a lot of names and common articles/prefixes like "The" and "USS" and "IKS".
  • Only actual pages would be listed, not redirects or hack pages like %s.
  • It would be easier to browse, using the category TOC template.

Also:

  • The bot can implement it fairly easily, using already existing template info on each page.

--Bp 04:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I really don't see the benefit to having this page. I do not think that it is going to be used, and therefore there is not much reason in my mind to have it. Also, it makes something else for new members and such to have to remember when creating articles. I just do not see a good reason to do this. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Some of the "cons" that come to mind:
  • Would make the "Uncategorized articles" special page completely useless.
  • Would add another step to article creation, or alternatively
  • Would need regular bot runs to see which pages still need to be categorized here
  • Would be much work for something that, I believe, is not terribly useful. If I know I'm looking for Benjamin Sisko, I wouldn't use an Alphabetical index - neither "B" nor "S".
    • In a heavily hyperlinked database like this, an alphabetical index of all pages is the least useful way of n

avigation, anyway.

So, regarding all this, I don't think such a category would really be useful - but perhaps I'm missing something? -- Cid Highwind 13:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

MA Campaigns[]

I think there should be provisionnal categories for specific campaigns :
Unnamed people : For example, looking for all the unnamed people on a serie. I presume that a bot can put this campaign category on all the episodes of TNG for example. In that case, when someone is watching a TNG episode, he knows he should look carefully at the unnamed people to see if they are all listed. After adding the unlisted one, he then removes this category. At the end, when this category is empty, the campaign is over and we know for sure, that all this people are listed, because for the moment, we don't know which episodes are ckecked or not. - Philoust123 15:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, we'd only know that for each episode there's someone who believes that he found all possible "unnamed people" (or whatever it is we're looking for at the moment, and that's not even counting mild vandalism by simply removing these tags unchecked). However, these might be useful tools, but on the other hand, I really don't want to see yet another message template or admin category on an article ("oppose"), and if this proposal goes through, I think we all now well that it won't stop at one or two of those categories. What about restricting this to the episode talk pages, I'd support that? That way, someone who wants to take part in this campaign can find episodes just as easily while there won't be an additional distracting message for someone who actually just wants to read about the episode... -- Cid Highwind 10:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. I really don't think any of this would be necessary. --From Andoria with Love 07:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Memory Alpha episode templates[]

Not my suggestion, but taken from Category talk:Templates:

-- Cid Highwind 18:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Support! (at least the first 3) -- Renegade54 19:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Mental note: It should be noted that we have quite a few unused templates that are just lounging around that should be saved or tossed at some point--Alan del Beccio 01:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
First three categories apparently accepted, discussion as of this point copied to Category talk:Memory Alpha templates. Keeping this here to further discuss the final suggestion. -- Cid Highwind 10:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Image categories by episode (created, about 700)[]

Categories such as Memory Alpha images (SER - Episode Title)
These could be used to create image categories/galleries for individual episodes - for example by adding these category links to a new image template, like done here: {{imagescreenshot}}. Something like this has been requested on IRC and here: Memory Alpha:Bot requests. -- Cid Highwind 14:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Templates[]

That's an idea for a category page (If it does not already exist...) where templates can be listed, ranging from starship pages, to people pages, to templates used throughout MA for various reasons. In sort a list of the templates on MA.--Terran Officer 05:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we are already doing that over at Category:Memory Alpha templates, which is at least somewhat further subdivided into templates based upon use (like Category:Memory Alpha navigational templates). --OuroborosCobra talk 05:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

People Image Category[]

Sometimes I have trouble finding pictures of people. So I was thinking maybe we could make some categorys like Category:Deanna Troi and Category:Seven of Nine? Maybe something different? I'd help! – The preceding unsigned comment was added by TrekkyStar (talk • contribs).

You mean Category:Memory Alpha images (individuals)? That's our "people" category. --Alan 01:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm assuming Trekkystar is proposing that there be individual categories for each major character. So if you wanted to see all the Deanna pics, you could. A good place to find these pictures is (and should be) the character's page. But I'm unsure whether a category is needed. – Cleanse 01:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A lot of pictures that are pictures of Deanna can't be found on the character's page. --From TrekkyStar Open Hailing Frequencies 02:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well if the images are properly wiki-linked, you should be able to find all Deanna Troi images via what links here. --Alan 02:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
If I understand TrekkyStar correctly, I believe that he wants categories in the same vein as Category:Memory Alpha files by production (DS9: Duet), such as "Memory Alpha images by character/person/individual/etc". If that is the case, I would support creating those categories. Right now, there are 16 images on her page. There are probably many more of her. In response to Alan's first comment: Category:Memory Alpha images (Betazoids) only has three images, all pertaining to Deanna. Aren't there more Betazoids?---- Willie LLAP 02:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, maybe Category:Memory Alpha images by character (Deanna Troi) instead of Category:Deanna Troi. So can I start doing this idea? --From TrekkyStar Open Hailing Frequencies 14:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I would rather we get through the second stage of categorization before categorizing those categories down further. Give it some time to work itself out. --Alan 16:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Unnamed species images[]

A Category:Memory Alpha images (unnamed species) to relieve the category Category:Memory Alpha images (individuals) and to collect all the unidentified aliens, including the ones from "Silent Enemy" and many of the species seen on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. – Tom 13:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Necessary yet? Doesn't seem like there is too many yet. Would have 1 to 3 items in each category? Perhaps it could wait till the list starts to fill up a bit more. As it is, it is not difficult to find the necessary items in the list.--Jlandeen 20:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that he means pictures of individuals that we don't have a species name for. There are a fair number of those. I'd like to see a category like that for each species we do know about, so that we can categorize even better, and have as few as possible in the individuals category. -- sulfur 20:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Sulfur. Thats what I thought. – Tom 07:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Pages to be merged?[]

Should we possibly add a category to all the pages that we attempt to merge? Such as Category:Memory Alpha pages with merge suggestion. (seems a bit long...) Would help in keeping track of them. Some of these pages have had a merge template on them for quite some time now. — Morder 18:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Right now, we have a simple way to see what pages have the template... see what links there. Why add an extra category? It won't tell us what's been on the list for a long time. -- sulfur 18:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought about that but nobody seems to check it. :) I figured a category that would show up under Category:Memory Alpha maintenance would at least show you that x number of pages are pending a merge...if it was a sub-category. And - we could use dpl to add the list to another page.... — Morder 18:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Psst... hey, Morder. [[Memory Alpha:Pages to be...|Check it out]]. :-D --From Andoria with Love 06:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought we already discussed this! :) Now you're publicly humiliating me... :( Yeah, I was looking for a list of pages under the categories and didn't think to look there :) — Morder 06:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify with everyone else, Morder and I discussed this on IRC. I brought the page to his attention there, and he asked me to bring it up here. I just thought I'd have some fun while doing it. Anyway, now everyone's in the know. :-P --From Andoria with Love 07:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki "top" category[]

I would like to suggest a new category, which can serve as the top-level category for all other categories on this wiki. it can be called "Main" or something similar. Another alternative name would be "Root". The central reason I am suggesting this is that currently two of the biggest categories, Category:Lists and Category:Star Trek, are contained only in "Category:Memory Alpha orphaned categories".

I feel there is little reason that our two biggest categories need to be considered "orphaned." Creating one main hierarchical category would remedy that situation. It would also give more unity, coherence and centrality to other people's continuing efforts here at this wiki. --Pulsar110 12:32, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

At that point the "main" category becomes an orphan too. To be honest, the Lists, Star Trek, and Maintenance categories have been done that way since (more or less) the get-go. They were put into the "orphaned" category so that they were no longer orphans. If there were a special keyword category that could be used to be an automatic top level one, then that might be a good option, but as far as I understand, there isn't one at all. Right now, the three categories I mention all have vastly different logics, and are all in different POVs. -- sulfur 12:37, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

ermm, but that's the point. ok, we could call it "content", and then it could be a subcategory of the "Maintenance category." there is a benefit to having a category for purely hierarchical and organizational reasons. also, once it's created, it could potentially be a place for a number of other top-level categories as well. --Pulsar110 12:43, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Humour me... avoid the hypothetical "other" top-level categories. In our category tree, what else might fit in as a top-level category (other than maybe "images")? Admittedly, the tree has grown a bit organically, but we've also tried to keep it fairly rigidly defined with "maintenance" being the "real world, wiki related", "star trek" being the in-universe stuff, and "lists" being not much more than a place to define... well... lists of stuff. I'm just not entirely certain that I see the benefit for "organizational" reasons just yet. -- sulfur 12:46, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Well, for one thing we could redo much of the category structure. cultural works of art such as the actual series, and perhaps other cultural works of art like novels, could perhaps be one top-level category. objects on the shows, such as equipment and technical items, should all be another top-level category. these two could be made separate from each other. currently, the Star trek category serves as a catch-all for most or all categories. --Pulsar110 12:51, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

As sulfur already mentioned, we have a pretty rigid naming scheme for categories going on - and, I think, not for the worse. "In-universe" categories get names without any prefix (for example Category:Starships), categories for "franchise" articles (also often called "real world articles") are prefixed with "Star Trek" - and last but not least, all maintenance categories (which aren't encyclopedic content in the first place) are prefixed with "Memory Alpha".
Essentially, the reason for having three different category trees, is that we have articles for three different main purposes on this wiki - and I see no real use for some artificial category that connects those three. In fact, I think that the two "content root categories" shouldn't even be listed as an "orphaned category" (because they don't have a parent category by design). This could be achieved by delisting them there, or by making the orphan category a HIDDENCAT. -- Cid Highwind 13:12, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think the current structure also prevents anyone from coming along sometime in the future and changing it if the community wishes to. for example, there are categories for culture, art, science, etc. What if someone decides a little further down the road that they'd like to give a more prominent role to some or all of these? the answer is that they can't. it's good if a wiki's structure in categories can be a bit open to subtle change and evolution. --Pulsar110 18:31, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a "possible, future reorganization" of subcategories of our main in-universe category is relevant in a discussion about a supercategory for that main category. -- Cid Highwind 21:31, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Category:Memory Alpha images (Augments)[]

While this hasn't been created yet, there are already several images in it. I assume this would go under Humans and Klingons if created, but I'm not really sold on it myself. - Archduk3 04:13, June 28, 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the images that were in this category. I'll leave this here for a bit longer if anyone wants to make a case for it. - Archduk3 22:36, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

Reference books into individual series[]

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

How many are there that would fall into each category? Can you put together a list on a sub-User page that would break them down into each grouping? -- sulfur (talk) 19:29, February 5, 2014 (UTC)
While I like the idea, I share Sulfur's "concern". I've taken a look through the list and have noticed that relatively few are series specific (TOS perhaps having the most), many of them cross-series.--Sennim (talk) 10:28, April 12, 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't think this is necessary as the category is not overcrowded and this won't really help. Tom (talk) 20:03, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

Holograms (disambig)[]

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

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

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

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

Oppose. In my opinion this is not necessary. The way it is now, listing them first in the Category:Holograms and second in the category of the species represented is way enough instead of creating xxx subcategories which will make it harder to navigate through the category tree. Tom (talk) 22:17, April 26, 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather loose the "looks like" categories on these pages than keep things the way they are, since the "is" connection between the page and the non-Hologram category simply isn't there. The "looks like" categories aren't necessary enough to muddle up categories other than the Hologram one, and I don't want to set a precedent where Arne Darvin could be in Category:Humans. - Archduk3 22:42, April 26, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose for the reasons stated above. I don't think it's necessary. --| TrekFan Open a channel 20:03, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

I'll begin removing the incorrect categories shortly then. - Archduk3 19:27, May 10, 2015 (UTC)

Memory Alpha Images (hybrids)[]

This would be a desgination for people like Naomi Wildman and B'Elanna Torres,Spock, etc.

Right now they seem to only be listed under whatever their non-Human heritage is. --LauraCC (talk) 15:55, July 23, 2015 (UTC)

I personally can't see a reason why we would need to list them in a new category. --| TrekFan Open a channel 16:16, August 6, 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. I also see no need. Tom (talk) 09:04, August 24, 2015 (UTC)

Medical tests[]

A medical procedure would be like a surgery such as Tonsillectomy, whereas a test would things like blood count and biopsys. Are there enough to justify this? --LauraCC (talk) 17:33, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

A test is a procedure. If there's 5+, then maybe it could become a subcategory of procedures, but I still lean to it simply being a procedure. -- sulfur (talk) 16:11, July 23, 2015 (UTC)

Based on their descriptions, I've found 11. Biopsy, Blood count, Blood screening, Cerebral micro-section, Fundoscopic examination, Histolytic analysis,Robbiani dermal-optic test, Sero-amino readout, Stress reaction test, and X-ray, as well as whatever Kirk is doing here [1]--LauraCC (talk) 16:42, August 6, 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we could put them with "medical scans" under the new category "medical diagnostics" with two subcategories, one for scans and one for other tests which are either not identified as scans or are physical examinations of tissue. what do you think? --LauraCC (talk) 15:41, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

I think I am with Sulfur on this. The category Medical procedures is quite wide and a good place for the tests, too. Tom (talk) 09:39, August 24, 2015 (UTC)

Subcat "Symptoms"?[]

Some conditions are also symptoms of other conditions, like headache. --LauraCC (talk) 19:50, July 24, 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think such a category is really useful/necessary. Any other opinions? Tom (talk) 09:39, August 24, 2015 (UTC)

Suicide Category[]

There are at least four Star Trek actors who committed suicide. A category for these unfortunate events should be added. i created one on my own initiative, however it was immediately deleted and I was directed here. I recommend:

"Category:Performer suicides"

Thank you. -Commodore75 (talk) 18:02, October 2, 2015 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. Not a useful or beneficial grouping of articles. The nature of their deaths is not related to their having appeared in Star Trek. Readers will therefore not be provided with a helpful navigational device with such a collection, which categories are intended to provide. Most importantly, I feel such a category is highly inappropriate. -- Michael Warren | Talk 21:39, October 2, 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. What DH said. How is this any different than, say, "LGBT performers" or even "Performers who drove Porsches"? Not encyclopedic, fannish, morbid, and not necessary. -- Renegade54 (talk) 01:36, October 3, 2015 (UTC)
Support: From an academic standpoint, a category like that would be interesting. I read once that something like seven to ten Star Trek actors have committed suicide - I wonder why? Anyway, I think saying its morbid or inappropriate sounds a bit like censorship, but I can understand the feelings. BTW, an LGBT category would be interesting too - are there any openly gay Star Trek actors? On a side note, I once had the privilege of meeting Roger Carmel around 1985 and he was an incredibly nice man. I was very distressed to hear later that he killed himself only to be relieved after reading here that people today believe he died of a heart attack. -Fleet Captain October 2, 2015
Oppose. Currently actors are not categorized based on the facts of their personnel lives, if you really want to make a major shift in what we do, why on Earth start with something so controversial and privacy-intrusive? Why not at the very least gently test the waters by creating "Category:Deceased performers" (and hey, that one might actually be useful anyway) and see how well that goes. In any case, I think this can only end well as part of a wider effort: if the only way we categorized the private lives of performers would be by if they committed suicide or not, then that would have the unintended effect of being highly stigmatizing. -- Capricorn (talk) 07:24, October 3, 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Per reasons listed above. Tom (talk) 09:40, October 5, 2015 (UTC)

Infrastructure[]

For things like bridges, roads, manholes, etc. -- LauraCC (talk) 19:13, November 20, 2015 (UTC)

Again, I am not against such a category. Please come up with a full list. Tom (talk) 15:22, November 21, 2015 (UTC)
Two things: first, manhole seems unlike the other two examples. A sewer might be infrastructure, but a manhole is merely an object used in constructing that bit of infrastructure. Calling a manhole infrastructure seems like calling a brick a building. Secondly, I take it that this would be a subcategory of Architecture? Only, Architecture already has a horrible subcategory, Structures. Currently it seems pretty arbitrary what was placed where (stable is in architecture, barn in structures :-s) That's bad enough, but it can get worse: your example bridge currently sits in Architecture for example, but it seems like a good example of a structure and I think that would be the case for most infrastructure. So this added category would not so much give things that don't currently have a good category a home, but it would often increase the number of seemingly correct choices from two to three. I don't really have a solution, but the situation over there is already not great, and I fear this would only make it worse. -- Capricorn (talk) 19:57, November 21, 2015 (UTC)

Civilians[]

For those personnel who live on a ship or station without being said to work on it, such as Molly O'Brien, for instance. Should we distinguish between mere residents and employed crew members? -- LauraCC (talk) 21:22, November 20, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. I see no value in creating this category. Tom (talk) 15:22, November 21, 2015 (UTC)

Split "requested articles"[]

Maybe we should split into "In-universe requested articles" and "real world requested articles". – The preceding unsigned comment was added by LauraCC (talk • contribs).

Oppose. I don't see the benefit. Tom (talk) 18:58, December 6, 2015 (UTC)

I just thought it would help. We divide real and imaginary world everything else. -- LauraCC (talk) 19:00, December 6, 2015 (UTC)

Venues[]

Should we make pages for and then categorize venues where exhibitions are held? Star Trek: The Starfleet Academy Experience appears at multiple venues. --LauraCC (talk) 19:15, April 29, 2016 (UTC)

This is not the place for this discussion, because these pages don't already exist, and, unlike holographic duplicates, this isn't part/a continuation of several other category suggestion discussions. Use the forum. - Archduk3 02:48, April 30, 2016 (UTC)

Lately it seems my forum posts don't get discussed by many or any, in some cases. --LauraCC (talk) 18:10, May 6, 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, if you followed through more and we're less all over the place, more people might have the time and the mental energy to engage. When pages like this aren't cluttered, new suggestions are more visible, at the very least. Just my opinion, and I'm not trying to be anything other than helpful, but you need to be less concerned with getting people's validation and more bold in just getting the job done. It can be fvery frustrating to be doing less than you can, but you'll actually get more done around here that way. - Archduk3 19:50, May 6, 2016 (UTC)

Split Comic series into subcats[]

One for each corresponding show series it encompasses and one for the Alternate reality? --LauraCC (talk) 20:28, December 15, 2015 (UTC)

Too many fall across shows to have show versions. Perhaps by publisher, but I'm not a big fan of that idea either.
The only one that I don't mind the sound of it alt reality vs prime reality. -- sulfur (talk) 20:45, December 15, 2015 (UTC)

I agree. But certain comics such as Star Trek: Countdown (omnibus) would fall into both categories, as some of it takes place in the prime universe's future. Other than that, not a lot of crossover. --LauraCC (talk) 15:50, December 31, 2015 (UTC) So are we good to go with this? --LauraCC (talk) 15:41, January 8, 2016 (UTC)

I'm not yet convinced on this. I think that it's more beneficial to break down by publisher, but a prime v alternate reality listing may work. I'm not totally certain of the value though. -- sulfur (talk) 15:43, January 8, 2016 (UTC)

What about Category:Memory Alpha images (IDW comic book covers) being split by series? --LauraCC (talk) 16:06, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

Split Category:Comics[]

So we could have Category:DC Comics, Category:IDW Comics, etc. --LauraCC (talk) 20:27, May 26, 2016 (UTC)

How would this effect the already existing sub cats? - Archduk3 05:14, May 30, 2016 (UTC)

Some comics would naturally be in both, if, for instance, an IDW comic was also an adaptation. --LauraCC (talk) 16:26, June 7, 2016 (UTC)

Literary, not figuratively, the least relevant sub-cat to the question in the bunch, so I'm going to assume you didn't think this through, and oppose for now due to a lack of categorization clarity. - Archduk3 05:31, June 8, 2016 (UTC)

Would this make it easier to find than going to the comic publisher's page? --LauraCC (talk) 18:42, August 5, 2016 (UTC)

Stunt performer images[]

To restart a short discussion we had eight years ago, I see the point to split the "Category:Memory Alpha images (stunt performers)" because of the pov problem we have with it right now. My suggestion is: We keep the image category to collect the images of stunt performers from behind the scenes and create a subcategory "Category:Memory Alpha images (stunt doubles)" to sort all the images of stunt doubles we have. To be further consistent without creating a new pov problem, we could have the hidden category "Category:Memory Alpha images (stunt actors)" to gather all the images which depicting stunt performers but have an in-universe pov. This would also be a subcategory of the "Category:Memory Alpha images (stunt performers)". Any suggestions? Tom (talk) 12:58, November 13, 2016 (UTC)

I have no issue with splitting the categories, but real world categories should be separated from in-universe categories, even at the image/file level. As such, I do like the idea, but I dislike the execution.
Perhaps a template added to these images (similar to the remastered concept) might be better to indicate that this is a "stunt double" image, rather than mixing the POVs on such categories.
One of the big issues I currently have with the usage of the "stunt performer" image category is that it's being used for any appearance of someone who has done stunts on a Trek show, whether they are playing a character on screen, acting as a stunt double for only a single scene, or otherwise.
I DO have issue with only indicating stunt performers in this manner, as I see no reason why they should be split out in this manner, while other performers aren't done in the same way.
As such, I oppose the current concept of the category split for those reasons, but again, I do appreciate the idea, I do like the idea, but I think that we need to find an alternate avenue to implement it. -- sulfur (talk) 13:27, November 13, 2016 (UTC)

Medical conditions image category[]

I'm sure images of injuries, such as this one and those of individuals afflicted with an illness with visual symptoms like this would belong in a medical condition category. Or would "medicine" be the best? That's what I'm doing now. --LauraCC (talk) 18:30, February 29, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't see a benefit from this. Tom (talk) 10:14, November 20, 2016 (UTC)

Unused and deleted subcats[]

Would there be any interest in splitting this category into further subcategories, such as "Unused production material (individuals)", etc? Or would that work better as a list? --LauraCC (talk) 18:10, August 26, 2016 (UTC)

It would make finding such types of things easier in these massive categories. --LauraCC (talk) 15:01, September 10, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Without a clear structure this seems to go nowhere. Tom (talk) 10:14, November 20, 2016 (UTC)

MAI (uniforms)[]

Pretty sure this will be shot down, as so many images show uniforms, but if it was limited only to images posted for the purpose of showing a uniform variant...--LauraCC (talk) 20:14, December 23, 2016 (UTC)

It would be a pain in the neck to institute, for sure...--LauraCC (talk) 21:55, December 23, 2016 (UTC)

If you have no intention of doing the work to make a category, stop wasting everyone else's time by suggesting these. Oppose, for the obvious reasons already alluded to. - Archduk3 16:14, December 24, 2016 (UTC)

Deleted scene images by TV series/film series[]

I know we only have 133 images total in the deleted scene category, but I thought from an organizational standpoint it might be consistent with how we divide episode images now. I suggested series divisions rather than by individual episode, as that would be too small a division for now. This seems like a compromise. --LauraCC (talk) 17:43, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Unnecessary as these images should already be in the appropriate production's category. - Archduk3 18:03, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it sort of like how we have "Remastered images from episode X" as a subcat of "images from episode x"? --LauraCC (talk) 18:06, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

No, not even close. Do you check the category tree before suggesting these things? - Archduk3 18:18, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

Not as often as I ought to. My enthusiasm runneth over.

Question: do images (real-world) of a DVD box set belong in the same category as an image from the film (in universe)? Asking because while looking at the "Beyond" images category, I saw a few images of DVD boxes. --LauraCC (talk) 18:22, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

That category isn't an in-universe category. Film and episode image categories are "real world" ones. -- sulfur (talk) 23:34, January 31, 2017 (UTC)

I guess what I was getting at was, do packaging images belong in the same image category as footage images? (Like how comic book covers like this don't go in the same category as the cover of a book seen in the episode, like this. --LauraCC (talk) 16:10, February 1, 2017 (UTC)

First, use internal links for internal links. Second, your examples are apples and oranges. - Archduk3 16:20, February 1, 2017 (UTC)
One is a "real world" collection, the other an "in-universe" collection. Images by episode, images by film, etc... REAL WORLD collection. -- sulfur (talk) 16:43, February 1, 2017 (UTC)

Anthology covers[]

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

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

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

Production staff pages without a sidebar template[]

What about a hidden category for the production-staff pages without a sidebar template? --LauraCC (talk) 16:05, October 17, 2017 (UTC)

I kinda like this notion as well as I regularly come upon these and address these as I go along, but that being said, I do think imagery should take precedence as the more urgent one; I'm afraid adding yet another such category bogs up the matter a bit. Adding a sidebar is not that much of a bother for the more experienced editor, like us, when coming across an article lacking one--Sennim (talk) 11:22, October 28, 2017 (UTC)

Memory Alpha removed featured articles[]

After the removal of Ayala as a featured article (forgive me if this already exists), I thought maybe a category of previously featured but since removed featured article status articles might be helpful in keeping it in members' consciousness whether an article used to be featured and could be so again if it was edited.

I've altered the text for the banner from current featured articles to come up with this text for the new banner:

"This was formerly a featured article. Prior to its removal date (date), it was considered one of the best examples of the Memory Alpha community's work, but it has since been removed from featured article status due to problems identified with its composition and comprehensiveness. If you believe this article can regain its featured status, we invite you to make whatever additions and alterations you deem necessary. Please also check the links below to see how the article has changed since it was featured."--LauraCC (talk) 17:01, March 13, 2018 (UTC)

No. If you take a moment to think about it and look around, the redundancy of this should be obvious. - Archduk3 19:28, March 13, 2018 (UTC)
Alternatively you could explain your reasoning instead of casually throwing around the word obvious. -- Capricorn (talk) 22:53, March 13, 2018 (UTC)
Maybe I'm tired of putting more thought into these responses than was put into these casual suggestions. We already have a list of all removed FAs, and it's far more useful than an alphabetically sorted category, just like the list of all articles suggested for FA status. If you don't know where those are, then you haven't read, understood, or retained the relevant policies, and if you haven't done that, you're not qualified to talk about this. If you don't even know how to begin finding these lists, then you don't know enough about how this site works to even be using this page. Everyone here is suppose to "contribute what you know or are willing to learn about," and if your interest in a topic stops at having to read a few pages, or think on something longer than it takes to type it here, at this point, you have nothing to contribute on that topic, and you should know that, if only to save everyone else the trouble. Don't come here asking me to tell you what you should already know, because I'm just going to ask for all the time it took for me to write this, and all the others before it, back, because clearly it was a waste for all of us. I'm tired of being asked to think for people who won't seem to think for themselves, I'm not the god damn search bar, and people should have an idea by the time they get here, not some random notion. If that's not obvious, the problem isn't me. - Archduk3 05:55, March 14, 2018 (UTC)
Archduk3's soliloquy aside, I am in agreement with him that this is not needed. As he states, we have a list for it. Also, I just don't think it's something that is required. An article either is an FA or not and would belong to the relevant categories. --| TrekFan Open a channel 16:45, March 21, 2018 (UTC)

Category:Memory Alpha pages needing a sidebar[]

For those pages that absolutely should have one, but don't. -LauraCC (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

We'd need something that automatically IDs such pages, based on length and sometimes category. Examples of such pages include character pages with three paragraphs or more, conflict pages, etc. -LauraCC (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, I can't think of a way to auto-populate it or even generate a reliable list of pages for a bot to add the category to, and if anyone is willing to manually add the category to all the pages that need it, they would make better use of that time actually adding sidebars to a few of those pages. On top of that, it's not much of a problem for a page to lack a sidebar, IMO. 🖖 Mr. Starfleet Command (talk • contribs) 04:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Images of Vulcan-human hybrids[]

So many images of various Spocks, plus Lorian and Elizabeth - for anyone who's in both "Vulcan" and "Human" image categories. -LauraCC (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

When implementing, make sure we don't accidentally delete "human" image categories when there's a full human in the frame as well as Spock. -LauraCC (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, this doesn't seem to be the best way to aid navigation. 🖖 Mr. Starfleet Command (talk • contribs) 17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Memory Alpha images (species)[]

An umbrella category for all the species image categories ("Category:Memory Alpha images (Humans)","Category:Memory Alpha images (Vulcans)", etc) to fall under. -LauraCC (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

That already exists at Category:Memory Alpha images (individuals by species). 🖖 Mr. Starfleet Command (talk • contribs) 15:45, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I was looking and all I saw was many things in one place. -LauraCC (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Hidden category: "Memory Alpha incorrectly formatted redirects"[]

To find redirect pages that are not formatted in the standard way. -LauraCC (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Strong oppose: There's no way to have that category automatically generated by the redirect syntax used, so it would need to be manually added (in which case you may as well just reformat the redirect) or added by a bot (in which case the bot could just reformt the redirect instead). Furthermore, the exact formatting of the redirect is relatively trivial, so there's really no need to make more work where none is needed. 🖖 Mr. Starfleet Command (talk • contribs) 19:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Memory Alpha top level categories[]

To keep these categories out of the orphaned categories page, as they are justifiably uncategorized. Could be implemented by a template link or something. -LauraCC (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Alternately, we could put a category page in its own category (I tried it with "Memory Alpha maintenance" and it's possible. "Orphaned categories" doesn't automatically generate). -LauraCC (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose both ideas. If we created a new category to put the three top-level categories in, then we would either (1) put it in "Category:Memory Alpha orphaned categories" (in which case we'd be back to the same problem) or (2) leave it without any categories (in which case it would show up on Special:UncategorizedCategories). It wouldn't make sense semantically to categorize them within themselves, so I don't like that idea either.
I've found a way to prevent certain categories from being listed on the uncategorized categories special page, and I've sent a request to Chris to set it up. Once the work week starts, he'll likely get to it relatively quickly, then this issue will be solved.
Furthermore, I've nominated the orphaned categories category for deletion since it's purpose is also filled by the special page, which does it automatically. 🖖 Mr. Starfleet Command (talk • contribs) 19:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Great. :) -LauraCC (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

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