Memory Alpha
Memory Alpha
Memory Alpha
62,081
pages
in: Memory Alpha maintenance

Memory Alpha:Category suggestion archive/Production POV/Archive 1

< Memory Alpha:Category suggestion archive
Sign in to edit

Category:Non-sentient animals[]

I think this could be a good category, filled with references to all the non-sentient creatures from Star Trek, such as Spot, Butler and even Picard's Lionfish Livingston. What does anyone else think? zsingaya 15:33, 30 Jan 2005 (CET)

Is this a suggestion for a "list" of individual pets? In that case, I'd suggest another category title, Domestic animals (or Pets, although I'd prefer the former). If it is a category of "animal species", it should be called that, (or "non-sentient species", perhaps) - but in that case, the category shouldn't contain any individual animals... -- Cid Highwind 18:40, 2005 Jan 30 (CET)

Well, there are references to individual animals, perhaps a category showing the different non-sentient animals in Star Trek would be useful, because it could then link to the individual animals. I'm not sure how many official pets were mentioned, off the top of my head, I can only think of Spot, Butler, Picard's fish, Janeway's Dog, Archer's Dog Porthos, although I'm sure there must be more. There must be a way to integrate them with un-named non-sentient species, such as Targ. zsingaya 21:25, 30 Jan 2005 (CET)

The problem is that one category for both "individual animals" and "animal species" would be mixing two completely different concepts - a similar idea would be to have one category for both Worf (a member of one sentient species) and Romulans, Ferengi and Bajorans (other sentient species). Also, I think that "non-sentient animals" would be a redundant title. Aren't animals non-sentient by definition? -- Cid Highwind 22:22, 2005 Jan 30 (CET)
There already is a List of pets and a "List of non-sentient lifeforms" I'm not sure anything else is needed. Tyrant 22:31, 30 Jan 2005 (CET)Tyrant
OK then, looks like there's no point. Thanks anyway. zsingaya 13:04, 31 Jan 2005 (CET)

A list is not a category. "Pets" might be the most specific name for such a grouping. I vote for a Category:Pets. It would be a sub-category of a larger "animalia" type group I would think. Drhaggis 08:02, 1 Feb 2005 (CET)

Any further thoughts or should these be archived, voted on or resubmitted? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:43, 16 Mar 2005 (EST)

Real People (9-8-05)[]

Not the most elegant-sounding category, but how about something to the extent of Category:Real people listing people mentioned or seen in Star Trek but who existed in real life and are not merely fictional characters, such as Leonardo da Vinci, Samuel Clemens, Amelia Earhart, and Stephen Hawking?--T smitts 03:20, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • The thing is, the perspective is outside looking in...since M/A is written in the Star Trek universe POV, they are all technically "real", unless they were created on the holodeck or come from a novel (ie Dixon Hill). --Alan del Beccio 03:42, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • I can understand that. However by that logic, we really shouldn't have entries for episodes, series, movies, actors, writers, etc., should we? Nor should we have categories for things like performers for each series, as we do.--T smitts 06:56, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • I Support the idea, but the name definitely needs anew. - AJHalliwell 06:42, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. I would like to see something like this but with a better name.--T smitts 07:12, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Aren't these people already in the Humans category? Anyway, it should be something like Category:Historical Earth figures or something along those lines, as all characters here are "real" from M/A's POV. Actually, that might not work either, since the likes of James T. Kirk, Richard Daystrom, and even Khan Noonien Singh can also be considered historical Earth figures. Truth-be-told, I'm not sure how such a category could work here, and until a way is found, I'm afraid I must Oppose the suggestion. Not a strong oppose, mind you, but an oppose nonetheless. --From Andoria with Love 06:52, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • RE:T smitts. Well there is obviously a line between what is in and what is out...and production stuff: episodes, actors, etc fit into that, but making lists from the outside looking in crosses that line. It goes into that whole issue we had with the creation of the Judaism page and filling it with the outside influences of Judaism to Trek. --Alan del Beccio 07:24, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Hm, good points have convinced me to re-think this, especially the note of POV. - AJHalliwell 07:31, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Somehow, I had a feeling this would be the response this category suggestion would get. I still think it would be a good idea but oh well. Whatever.--T smitts 07:35, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying I'm against it, I'm just saying we need to fomulate a way to do this. I mean, these individuals already belong to Category:Humans -- creating a "Real Humans" type category to stack these individuals in would be horribly redundant. Why not just create a list of those people as a reference, similar to those POV articles based on multi-appearance characters and actors. --Alan del Beccio 07:54, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not quite sure what you mean, but maybe someone can explain it to me. (Don't bother trying to now, it's too late where I am right now for anything to sink in.)--T smitts 08:04, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with what was said (re:POV) - oppose, unless someone finds a really good category title. -- Cid Highwind 23:24, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Storyline categories for episodes (Alison9)[]

(Moved from single suggestion for Category:Episodes)

This is all very linear. I would like to see episodes categorized by other means as well. For instance, primary storyline. A possible tree for this could be:

Culture

  • Federation
    • Human
    • Vulcan
    • Trill
    • Betazoid
  • Bajoran
  • Klingon
  • Romulan
  • Ferengi
  • Borg
  • Dominion
  • Cardassian

Storyline

  • Medical
  • First Contact
  • Character Death
  • Romance
  • War

Alison9 08:36, Jan 13, 2005 (CET)

Comments[]

I see some problems with this suggestion. First, we would have to find other category names - Category:Klingon might be a good category for "everything Klingon", and I think we shouldn't use a category for both "in-universe" and "meta-trek" articles at the same time. Second, there are many episodes that could be categorized in several of those categories - do we really want that, how would a "Category:Romantic episodes" be useful? Third, some of this information already exists - if an episode presents important information about Klingon culture, for example, it most likely is alread listed on Klingon or one of the Klingon subpages. -- Cid Highwind 09:35, 2005 Jan 13 (CET)

Could you define meta-trek? If an episode is a first contact medical I don't see how multi-categories is harmful. Wikipedia does it and gives a lot of value added, IMHO. To me the purpose of an encyclopedia is to help people find things. It's all well and good to find them in order, but I find myself wanting to go back and see certain storylines. Today I'm all about Kira/Odo, but three weeks from now I might want Janeway/Chakotay. As for your last point, given your example, do you think the culture categories aleady exist as entries and therefore should be taken away from the suggested tree? I actually think there is a more fundamental issue here. The category conversation seems to be driven by what is too much work and what isn't as opposed to long term gain. I think that might stem from not wanting to have incomplete information live. I think that can be solved by just deciding on a convention and then letting people create the proposed categories at will. That would mean I would create Category: Romantic episodes - Kira/Odo, Category: Romantic episodes - Jadzia Dax/Worf. The character names would be listed alphabetically but not every couple would have to be listed at once, contributors could add cannon couples as they were interested. Would that be a reasonabnle compromise? Alison9 09:57, Jan 13, 2005 (CET)

"Meta-Trek" is a term we inofficially use for articles that aren't part of the Trek-universe itself. Generally, articles about "Trek items" (characters, planets, starships, ...) should be written as if they really exist (in-universe point of view). This leaves articles about Star Trek as a franchise, including episode summaries, articles about actors, directors, novels, video games etc. These are two separate classes of articles, and we try to avoid mixing those two as far as possible. As mentioned above, a "Category:Klingon" should contain Klingon people, Klingon ships and Klingon weapons, but not episodes about Klingons. Regarding your suggestion, I think that a "List of ..." article would be a much better choice in this case. In my opinion, a category is a good choice if more member articles could be added later (a "Jadzia/Worf romance" category would be pretty much finalized right now), if many editors might be willing to contribute to that category and/or if an article can't be categorized in several categories on the "same level" in a category tree at the same time. -- Cid Highwind 11:42, 2005 Jan 13 (CET)

Production-named species (11-07/05)[]

Hope this is the right place and way to suggest this. I think it would be useful to have a category of such species because it would make it easier to identify which aliens' names come from episodes and which were only named in production notes (Efrosians, Zaranites, etc).--StAkAr Karnak 14:21, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose: This category would be in the wrong POV, and I don't think that is really allowed. Perhaps, a list would be allowed?--Tim Thomason 06:53, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Mild Oppose: I agree with Tim; I think a list would be best in this case, plus I'm not entirely sure there's enough to justify its own category. However, I'm not sure how it would be in the wrong POV, since we already have Category:Performers, Category:Directors, and the like. --From Andoria with Love 05:00, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: What I meant on the wrong-POV, is that on the canon articles, as opposed to Franchise articles, I don't think there should be a group of production-related categories on an article like that, the same reason we don't categorize all of the Performers as Humans, even though they are. (unsigned by User:Tim Thomason)
  • Archived --Alan del Beccio 08:11, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

"Real" characters[]

I've created this production category on MA-fr to list all historical figures which really existed or still exist in "our" world (authors, musicians, rulers, scientist...) to distinguish them from other fictionnal characters : Bach, Berlioz, Bizet, Blair, Bradbury, Brahms, Brezhnev, Clemens, Crockett, daVinci, Dickens, Einstein, Fermat, Galilei, Gutenberg, Hawkins, Hitler, Hugo, Keats, Lenine, London, Mozart, Napoléon, Newton, Nietzsche, Pasteur, Poe, Presley, Richelieu, Shaekespeare, Sinatra, Spinoza, Verne, Wonder, Presidents of the USA... and many others - Philoust123 14:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Mildly oppose -- I'm not sure I see the need for this meta-category. I think the fewer meta-categories the better as that distracts from the focus of this collaboration...creating a "in-universe" encyclopedia. --Alan del Beccio 17:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Artists[]

"Category
Production artists"

Another sub-category of Category:Production staff for such people as artists, whether book covers, comics, or set decoration. -- Sulfur 12:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This might be better suited as its own seperate category if its going to be for books and the like, as those products are seperate from those officially licensed by Paramount Pictures and therefore not involving the production staff from the shows or films. --From Andoria with Love 07:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The other possibility there is to have a couple of "artist" categories, one for books, comics, etc (which are still officially licensed by Paramount), and one for the set decorators, painters, etc. Regardless, we do need one for artists, we have a right stack of them now. -- Sulfur 11:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Holodeck Episodes[]

A category listing episodes that contained the holodeck/holosuite as the main plot or a major plot point, but not nessisarily just used briefly. I.e. "The Big Goodbye" but not "Encounter at Farpoint". --UTS DeLorean 00:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: I'm not saying no, I'm just questioning whether there are enough of these to warrant a category. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Starship simulators[]

The category was created without discussion against policy, and quite frankly what it is supposed to be baffles me. It includes PC real-time-strategy games, tabletop games, and more, many of which don't seem to be "starship simulators" at all. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

groups any games which simulate actual operation of a starship, from a variety of perspectives. encompasses video games as well as board games. unifying factor is whether they depict various systems aboard starships with some degree of complexity. --Sm8900 18:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You are going to be able to label just about every single Star Trek game that way. Hell, even the Elite Force FPS series does that to some extent. It does not seem useful to me. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I am also baffled by what is being put in the category, as it just seems to be every Star Trek game involving a starship(which is pretty much all of them). A discussion about it would have helped define what should be in it, assuming there was support for creating it(which I do not neccesarily support at this time).--31dot 18:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
oh. you actually think so? what about games which depict only role-playing, or shooting games. I meant actual operation of a starship, not "being a starship crewman." thanks. --Sm8900 18:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
ok, forget it then. thanks anyway., --Sm8900 18:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, you're right. there's no diffrence between how starship operations is depicted in Star trek Starfleet Command, or StarFleet Battles and how it's depicted in say Judgment Rites. that's a good point. sorry i missed it before. thanks. --Sm8900 18:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
We're just going by your own definition, which ended with unifying factor is whether they depict various systems aboard starships with some degree of complexity. What doesn't that include? As we already have a games category, there is no need to create a duplicate category to cover the same things.--31dot 18:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your reply. it doesn't include Judgment Rites. is that distinction clear, or is that your question? ie, how this category would not include that. want to make sure i'm answering your inquiry, so let me know. thanks.
to answer you in advance, this is not for games which merely depict a starship crew in action. it is only for games which depict starshiop operation as detailed, complex vehicles. I don't mind if you're opposed to this category, but i'm unclear as to why you think this includes every game. thanks. --Sm8900 20:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I agree with OC and 31dot. – Cleanse 23:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. As per above. --Sm8900 02:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
All the valid scope issues aside, the category title would also need to make clear that it is not an in-universe category for existing starship simulators (as the current title suggests), but a real world ("meta") category. So, definitely remove this category tag, and bring up a new one for discussion before implementing it. -- Cid Highwind 10:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Destruction of Hero Ship[]

Okay, the name needs some work (please make suggestions), but I think it might be helpful to have a category for all the eps or movies where we see the destruction of the Hero ship. There are actually quite a few, if you count all the reset button episodes. --- Jaz 21:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I like it. Maybe "Main Vessel/Ship Destruction" or "Destruction of Significant Vessels/Ships"? This wouldn't include Deep Space 9, and I'm not sure how to add that in. ---- Willie LLAP 21:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. We had discussions about "story-element-categories" in the past, with the outcome that this really isn't the place for those. And, I have to add, this one is a rather random story element to base a category on... -- Cid Highwind 21:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
O'Brien Must Die. --Alan 21:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, for the reasons Cid stated.--31dot 21:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. It would invite things like "Ferengi episode", "Wesley saves the ship", "Sisko loses command", and yes, "O'Brien Must Suffer". All interesting topics, but not really necessary//appropriate as encyclopedia categories. :-)– Cleanse 00:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose along with Cid and Cleanse. And don't forget the episodes in which those poor redshirts died.--UESPA 20:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC

Different universe categories[]

I think it would be useful to have categories for the new alternate reality and the prime reality, on the pattern of the existing Category:Mirror universe. Such categories could be added to templates along with Cid Highwind's banners. I see that there was a proposal a while back for a real-world POV category, which I also think would be useful, to be added to the {{real world}} template. I'm proposing that just about all articles could be placed in one of the following categories:

Prior discussion of a real-world category is here, but I think that the problems mentioned there (such as uncertainty about whether to put novels and episodes in the category) seem to have been resolved. –Josiah Rowe 14:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever is being decided here, the final "timeline names" should be the same throughout the site - so, wait for that TF discussion to come to an end before creating any of these. -- Cid Highwind 16:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that the names should be uniform. I was assuming (probably prematurely) that there was an emerging consensus supporting "alternate reality". I certainly wouldn't create anything until there's a clearer consensus. –Josiah Rowe 17:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am a fairly new user here, but I support much of this. Anything which clearly differentiates the new timeline as being an alternate one sounds good to me.However, I don't think we need a category for the existing timeline as Category:Prime universe. we can simply provide a category for the alternate one. the alternate one only covers one movie and one set of characters. the prime universe one would be a bit unwieldy, since it would cover 4 of the five series (except for Enterprise, I assume.) --Pulsar110 12:37, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Alternate Reality novels[]

Not certain if I really put this in the right section, and I don't have a name figured out, but I was thinking perhaps a category for the novels set in the alternate reality as seen in Star Trek. This suggestion is made for a few reasons, such as sorting by the 'series' or perhaps continuity for a better term, and that there might be an interest to be able to find the books set within that reality/continuity (this part mostly would go with what I had just said, I guess). Perhaps this is already planned, I don't know I didn't see anything categorized for it and thought it should be.--Terran Officer 22:39, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

This might be better approached as simply an "alternate reality" page along the same lines as the Star Trek (Pocket) page, and just keep sorting them into novels. But I can see the possible appeal. -- sulfur 02:57, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
It might be too early for this, but I agree with the idea, something like "Novels (alternate reality)" or "Novels (alternate)". - Archduk3 03:20, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
I was planning to wait to see how the novels were labelled and/or organised before deciding on where the information will go - my current thinking is that they'd be included in Star Trek (Pocket), since they'll probably just have the Star Trek title. Each novel has a nav box in any event to link them all together. I don't think a separate category is really needed, though - all novels, regardless of series, go into Category:Novels as it stands - although it might not be a bad idea to break that one down a bit now. Even if that is broken down, they can probably still stay in the main category, like the smaller novel-only series would. -- Michael Warren | Talk 06:55, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

That's more or less what I was thinking is that they'd get into the novel category but also their own subcategory or whatever. I mention this simply because while MA only makes summaries (and not be canon) for the novels, they are/will surly be different as they continue from the movie. I suppose they might not need their own category (unless they get some sort of a 'series' title) but I thought it'd make things somewhat easier for the following of that storyline (and the fact we have a category for the things relating to the newest movie). --Terran Officer 20:36, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Michael, we should definitely postpone this decision until we know the "official" label these novels will get (if any), and then use that. -- Cid Highwind 20:58, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

Fish out of water[]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FishOutOfTemporalWater

We must have one of this kind for every character that is somehow a fish out of temporal waters in Star Trek, even sentient holodeck programs liike Moriarty... what do you say?--The Tuvixean (talk) 17:22, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

This is "original research" at best. I'm not sure that I see how it can even be easily decided upon. -- sulfur (talk) 17:37, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

Renaming and breaking down Category:Film performers[]

Replacing the current, awkwardly named category with this structure:

  • Film performers
    • TOS film performers
    • TNG film performers
    • Alt film performers

which when done should turn the one category of over 900 pages into something a bit more helpful. Needless to say, I might need some help on this one. - Archduk3 19:53, May 5, 2013 (UTC)

What category does Generations fall under? I'm not sure that I agree with this at this point in time. -- sulfur (talk) 20:02, May 5, 2013 (UTC)

Gen would be a TNG film, since that's the general consensus when it comes to packaging and the like. We could draw between the 23rd and 24th centuries instead, placing Gen in both, but I imagine that would get messy. - Archduk3 20:24, May 5, 2013 (UTC)

My second issue is to query why 1280+ TNG people should exist as a category, but 900 can't exist in a movie performers category. They're in the movies. That's sufficient. I'm opposing this one at this time. -- sulfur (talk) 20:42, May 5, 2013 (UTC)

The answer to your query is simple: you have to start somewhere, and films don't have convenient seasons or, generally, "troublesome" recurring characters. - Archduk3 05:37, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

I am not quite sure about my opinion on this matter. It might be good to break down long categories but I am concerned for future category breakdowns like the split into seasons mentioned above. I think right now I would prefer keeping this category. Tom (talk) 20:59, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

Highlighting real world families[]

I have noticed families listed from the fictional universe be it Crusher, Picard, Riker. But why no recognition of real world families? Several families have contributed to Trek in the capacity of actors or crew. Westmore, de Lancie, Epper, Roddenberry, Shatner, Nimoy and others have made their mark and have every right to be cited. Wikipedia comports the same courtesy to presidents, senators, scientists, actors, you should follow their suit. -- Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 23:30, January 27, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. I see no benefit from creating these realworld categories. But good to see that you suggest this here instead of creating the categories without approval for a second time. Tom (talk) 10:22, January 28, 2016 (UTC)

Here are the families Wikipedia cites-Washington, Adams, Roosevelt, Whedon, Coolidge, McCain, Lincoln, Dallas, Polk, the Lee family of Virginia-they run the gamut of military, politics, acting, writing. These are some of the families Wikipedia has cited over the years. Why can't we show the same courtesy to the families who have made their mark here?--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 13:58, January 28, 2016 (UTC)

There aren't categories for the Crusher and Riker families, only the Picard and Raymond families, and that's because there's a large number of the latter. We don't create categories like this based on "rights" or "courtesy" or what Wikipedia does, we create categories like this based on the numbers. How many of these would have at least 5 pages? - Archduk3 15:27, January 28, 2016 (UTC)

I made a mistake on Crusher and Riker, but when you look at the fact that MULTIPLE members of say the Epper and Westmore families have had involvement in Trek. Michael Westmore has been behind the scenes, MacKenzie Westmore had acted on both TNG and VOY. I can also cite the Shatners, the Roddenberrys. There IS precedent for recognizing the families that have contributed to Trek.--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 17:34, January 28, 2016 (UTC)

How many of these would have at least 5 pages? - Archduk3 18:38, January 28, 2016 (UTC)
The Roddenberry family would have five, the Westmore family six, the Muñoz family also five. That's all. But we cover information on the page Familial connection#Real life connections. Tom (talk) 18:59, January 28, 2016 (UTC)

I took a look at the real life connections and forgot how many Crosbys had roles. So ANOTHER family can be singled out. There can also married couples such as Shannon Cochran and Michael Canavan. I think enough of a case has been made to create a family category.--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 23:22, January 28, 2016 (UTC)

I suppose the case can be made for the three with at least 5, but I'm not sure categories are the best way to proceed. It seems to me that navigational templates would work better, since they can be formatted in meaningful ways that categories can't. It might also be worth looking into making the real world list it's own page, since when collapsed the list can be missed. - Archduk3 04:48, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

My guideline for a separate family category would be 3 or more members. Adam Nimoy, Leonard Nimoy and Susan Bay all meet the minimum. Category:Nimoy family--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 13:33, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your guideline doesn't really jibe with MA practices... -- sulfur (talk) 13:55, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia disagrees because If it's 3 or more, that family gets Its own category. So John de Lancie, Keegan de Lancie and Marnie Mosiman SHOULD have under their pages, Category:de Lancie family.--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 16:21, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

MA is NOT Wikipedia. Please understand that. -- sulfur (talk) 17:02, January 29, 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the duplication, but I was writing this as sulfur was posting his reply above. :) First and foremost, we are NOT Wikipedia. Just because Wikipedia does something a certain way doesn't mean Memory Alpha does it the same way. Yes, a Wikipedia rule or policy is often a good starting point for a similar policy on MA, but that's it. Sulfur pointed out what the policy is here, so please stop pointing to Wikipedia as an authority. Second, as Archduk3 pointed out previously, categories on MA are not created as "courtesies" or "rights" or whatever... they're created as a way to index articles. While I'm not necessarily opposed to your category suggestion, I don't see that it really adds value to MA. I think there's been enough discussion back and forth, so barring any new arguments, we should probably put this to a vote. -- Renegade54 (talk) 17:07, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

For the creation of a real world family category, I vote YAY. The Epper family I wager will thank you.--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 19:15, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

Just to let you know. Only one Epper family member who worked on Trek is still alive and she's out of the stunt business for many years. So I wouldn't wager.... Tom (talk) 19:20, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

The fact that William Shatner had all 3 of his daughters involved supports a real world family category. As Spock would say, fascinating.--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 19:53, January 29, 2016 (UTC)--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 19:53, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

Comment: It seems like this whole discussion comes from the originator of the idea feeling a desire to honor these families (key terms: "[they] have every right", "courtesy", "recognizing the families", "Epper family [....] will thank you"), whereas everyone else are more experienced editors who understand the categories are technical tools indented to serve a real, utilitarian, practical purpose. The fact that a number of families have had multiple members work on Trek is without question very cool, but these categories would not add much value and would make things more complicated. There are other ways of highlighting these families, and I would suggest Jared think of other such ways. -- Capricorn (talk) 20:30, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

It would add convenience for MA visitors. If they see Shatner family, they can click on the category and have a quick reference guide. 0n Wikipedia you can click on Lincoln family and see how many relatives of the 16th president were related to him. So it would make the site more user-friendly. There is quite simply no reason to not do this.--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 22:23, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

If a case could be made for a real world family category Memory Alpha themselves made it. 0n the page for Michael Westmore, there is a hot link in blue Westmore family. It links to the Wikipedia article displaying the entire Westmore family tree. You say you're like Wikipedia but are not a clone of Wikipedia. To that I say If you're going to use them, where you know they have real world family categories, then there should be real world family categories here. You can't have it both ways, where you acknowledge a family that has left Its mark on Trek but not include a category that would give a Memory Alpha visitor a quick tool to see how many members of and who participated in whatever way. So it's not me who made the case for a real world family category, it was you.--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 05:30, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

It would be great if you won't repeat the same again and again. You made your point. Tom (talk) 09:15, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

Does this mean we can acknowledge real world families?--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 11:23, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

No. There is no consensus to do so. I would add that in all your time here you have never demonstrated that you actually understand how things work here. If you want to show that you do understand how things work here, then I would highly suggest you take the advice of those who have posted here. 31dot (talk) 11:36, February 1, 2016 (UTC)
Oppose this suggestion but I do think that nav boxes would indeed be helpful. 31dot (talk) 11:37, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

I thought we were putting it to a vote. So far I have not seen anything that shows results and I thought the results would be published here. Between everyday users and admin, the people's voice seems to not havew been heard, yet.--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 11:51, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

On what basis do you claim to represent "the people's voice"? 31dot (talk) 11:55, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

No voting page has been created, nothing linked (here), percentage of results yay/nay published here. It looks as though no voting on this has been taken up at all. I would say based on Wikipedia establishing the precedent, you using Wikipedia yourselves to link to the Westmore family tree and the fact that you are similar to Wikipedia coupled with your use of a category for families within the fictional universe, that Trekkies would agree that a real world family would warrant Its own honorific.--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 13:21, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

And you continue to demonstrate you have no idea how wikis work, which is through consensus, not actual voting(as anyone can register numerous usernames to 'vote' and rig the result). There is no separate page for the "vote", it is done on this page. Your leaps of logic are also quite astounding. You also had explained to you that we do not 'honor' any person or group with a category, we do so based on the merits of doing so or not. If you want to honor people, you are in the wrong place. 31dot (talk) 13:31, February 1, 2016 (UTC)
The reason we link to Wikipedia articles (as well as other external links), whether for in-universe topics or real-world topics, is to provide and direct the reader to sources of more information on the topic if they wish to dig deeper into the subject matter. It doesn't imply by any means that we agree with the content of the external links, or that we should follow any formatting or categorizing conventions that the external link uses. They're just links provided as a tool for further reading and research. We've historically provided Wikipedia links when they exist for a number of reasons: Wikipedia and Wikia (originally Wikicities) have a common origin, in that both had early involvement by Jimmy Wales and Angela Beasly and had similar goals, from an information standpoint; both are wikis, allowing the readers to interact directly with the projects; and Wikipedia has the advantage of being one site with articles on many, if not most, topics we have pages on. Just because we link to a Westmore family tree on Wikipedia means NOTHING as far as the articles we create here or how we organize information here. Again, if Memory Alpha has NO existing policy covering a particular style or formatting issue or some other procedure, we'll often look to Wikipedia or Wikia to see if one of those entities have something we can use as a starting point - why reinvent the wheel if we don't have to? But other than that, again, WE ARE NOT WIKIPEDIA, any more than we are Wookieepedia, or Memory Beta, or any other wiki. End of discussion. -- Renegade54 (talk) 15:19, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

You already indicate parent/child, husband/wife, sibling, every family dynamic, so in a sense, you yourselves have made the case for a real world family category. Walter Koenig is married to Judy Levitt, they were the parents of Andrew Koenig. Spousal and parental relationships in this family alone are demonstrated, therefore they should all have a link you can click on that says Koenig family. I would also say you should include Married couples as seen her as well as Armin Shimerman and Kitty Swink or John de Lancie and Marnie Mosiman. Category:Crosby family Denise Crosby, Mary Crosby and Spice WilliamsCrosby. You can't say a family category is unreasonable when family connections are listed all over this site.--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 18:01, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

I don't appreciate being mocked. I am rather serious about the implementation of a real world family category because it makes a lot of sense. Many families have been a part of the Trek universe, so an easy to use clickable family category would be an easy way to see how many members of that family were involved.--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 18:34, February 6, 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anyone mocking you, but I see a lot of opposition to this category suggestion, along with some suggestions for possible alternate avenues to pursue. -- sulfur (talk) 20:07, February 6, 2016 (UTC)

I thought I was done bringing it up, but Wikipedia already has family categories, politics-McCain, Dallas, Washington, Polk, Tyler, Taylor, Jefferson Davis, Lee family of Virginia, Adams, acting-Bridges, Fairbanks, Fonda, Huston, literature-Hemingway, entertainment-Whedon. If these families can get their own category for THEIR contributions to the arts, then real world families can receive such deference here. I cannot fathom the opposition to something that makes as much sense as gravy on mashed potatoes.--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 20:24, February 6, 2016 (UTC)

Stop bringing up Wikipedia. You've already been told why and I'm inclined to block you if you do it again. I would suggest that since your attempts to persuade us are failing that you work towards implementing the alternative that has been suggested to you. If you cannot do so, then move on to something else. 31dot (talk) 21:07, February 6, 2016 (UTC)

Can you create a hypothetical screencap of what that would look like? Still not sure of how to proceed with your recommendation.--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 02:19, February 7, 2016 (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)

Book categories[]

See Star Trek Cats for my reasoning.

  • "Young adult novels"
  • "Picture books"
  • "Hobby books" or "Novelty Books" (for crafting, etc)

--LauraCC (talk) 16:30, December 6, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Hobby/Novelty books. Not well enough defined really.
Oppose Young adult novels. Don't need the breakdown as such.
Neutral at this time on picture books. I'm not convinced that it's well enough defined either tbh.
-- sulfur (talk) 16:43, December 6, 2016 (UTC)
I agree it would be highly preferable if the current situation is improved upon. However, the crux is in finding the right categorization. I'd Oppose YA novels for now, as that doesn't seem needed, but hold my judgement on the rest as they don't seem quite there yet - even if really anything would be better then the current situation. -- Capricorn (talk) 18:17, December 6, 2016 (UTC)

Nominee subcats[]

Subcats for actors, production staff, writers, and productions related to Trek that were nominated for/won Emmys. Right now, everyone's in one big "nominee" or "winner" category. --LauraCC (talk) 16:21, December 31, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. This is going far into a wrong direction. Tom (talk) 16:25, December 31, 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. As above. These are collections of people. This isn't the appropriate place to break them down. -- sulfur (talk) 16:26, December 31, 2016 (UTC)

It's just that currently, the category page's wordings calls it a "list of individuals who have...". A book/film isn't a who, it's a what...Maybe I'm just splitting hairs...--LauraCC (talk) 16:41, December 31, 2016 (UTC)

Hidden category for OMID[]

A hidden category that contains all characters never seen, only referenced, whether named or unnamed. Would be added to the category automatically when the OMID (only mentioned in dialog) template is added, as movie/tv templates automatically add images to the correct film/tv image category. --LauraCC (talk) 18:02, February 2, 2017 (UTC)

Why do we need this? - Archduk3 18:21, February 2, 2017 (UTC)

For one thing, you could see at a glance those characters whose pages you'll never find an image for, and therefore curb people incessantly asking/looking for such images in vain. For those authors who refer to Memory Alpha as a resource when writing, it would also enable them to locate people whose likeness has never been (likely) described so they can name (nameless people like Pulaski's exes) or elaborate on them (Palis Delon).

It would be a hidden category in the sense that the article wouldn't show it to the casual reader, but you could go to the category page if you knew where to look and find a list of unseen characters/character redirects to choose from. --LauraCC (talk) 18:29, February 2, 2017 (UTC)

Or you could use this: Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Omid. - Archduk3 18:32, February 2, 2017 (UTC)

It's not alphabetical, and furthermore, links to the "Unnamed alien species" pages, rather than the redirects. It works, but it's not ideal. Thanks for pointing it out, though. --LauraCC (talk) 18:36, February 2, 2017 (UTC)

Why would it have to be alphabetical or not link to the unnamed alien species pages when all that's needed is some way to curb people incessantly asking/looking for such images in vain (and how much of a problem is that anyway?) Seems a bit much to ask people who create new articles to keep in mind another guideline, just so every once in a while someone can have their research process be the slightest bit more user friendly. -- Capricorn (talk) 23:24, February 2, 2017 (UTC)

Indoor filming locations[]

Either a subcat of "Filming locations" for indoor sets and stages as opposed to nature parks, etc, or a subcat of "Paramount stages". --LauraCC (talk) 18:17, February 2, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Unnecessary division of one page category. - Archduk3 18:23, February 2, 2017 (UTC)
This doesn't seem very coherent to me: you seem to want to contrast stages with outdoor shoots, but plenty of location shoots have been done partly or completely indoors. -- Capricorn (talk) 23:36, February 2, 2017 (UTC)

Pseudonyms and stage names[]

A category for names like J.J. Molloy, L.A. Graf, etc, that represent individuals more well known by other names (as in the former), or multiple people writing under one name (as in the latter). --LauraCC (talk) 16:47, January 18, 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. I can see no reason why this category should be created. Tom (talk) 19:11, February 9, 2018 (UTC)

Star Trek short story authors[]

For all of the authors who have ever contributed a Star Trek short story to an anthology, particularly to the SNW anthologies (many of whom don't have pages yet), many of whom have never written a full-length novel, and some of whom that have. Subcat of "Star Trek authors". --LauraCC (talk) 20:35, July 17, 2017 (UTC)

Not convinced -- they're still authors. Adding in this sub-cat would also end up with a lot of double-categorized authors that already exist (ie, those that have written full-length, plus novella, plus short stories). I don't see why they aren't just "authors". -- sulfur (talk) 10:37, August 7, 2018 (UTC)

Reference book series[]

It would become a subcategory of Category:Reference books, and, perhaps, Category:Novel series.

Candidates would be:

Cezary Kluczyński (talk) 16:37, June 17, 2017 (UTC)

This is logical enough, but you're not really making a case regarding why this is needed/would be an improvement. -- Capricorn (talk) 05:00, June 18, 2017 (UTC)
Reference books are different from reference book series the same way comics are different from comic series. While a reference book is a physical thing with ISBN, reference book series is more of a concept, not physical thing. It is also logical to have reference book series category, because there is already comic series category and novel series category. Cezary Kluczyński (talk) 07:37, June 18, 2017 (UTC)
Can the silence be threated as no opposition, and category can be created? I'm not really sure if Capricorn's comment was an opposition or not. Cezary Kluczyński (talk) 17:43, June 26, 2017 (UTC)
It was just a request for a more in depth explanation as to the why, didn't state approval or disapproval. What I meant to say though was that categories exist for convenience and navigation, they're not there just because you can think it up or some other category also works that way. In other words, is this needed? Are there issues with the current approach that need solving? -- Capricorn (talk) 21:23, July 10, 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my explanation is not enough. I cannot offer any other explanation on why this is needed. Cezary Kluczyński (talk) 17:06, July 27, 2017 (UTC)

I recently ran into the problem of categorizing the Star Trek Crosswords series. Maybe something similar to Category:Star Trek literature could be created - Category:Star Trek literature series instead for now, for non-novels. The books are currently listed in Category:Games now, but they're technically lit, too, being books (and not merely rule guides to board games, say). --LauraCC (talk) 15:09, August 18, 2017 (UTC)

Unreleased novels[]

There is Category:Unreleased video games, so I think a similar cat for unreleased novels as subcat of Category:Novels would make sense. The first that come to mind are those alternate reality novels which got cancelled, but I think there are a few more. Kennelly (talk) 15:35, December 14, 2017 (UTC)

Support. Maybe a list would be helpful though. Tom (talk) 19:11, February 9, 2018 (UTC)
Have to withdraw my vote and change to oppose. We already have this site which is a good article and collection in my opinion. I don't see the need of a category which would list around five of six articles. Tom (talk) 21:07, February 20, 2018 (UTC)
The undeveloped novel and reference book page actually makes me think this would be a good idea, since there are also redirects that would fit into this category, beyond the few pages we already have, so support. - Archduk3 06:37, March 14, 2018 (UTC)

Archival footage performers (1)[]

I noticed that Leonard Nimoy is listed as a Discovery performer now. Having in addition "archival footage performers" would cover the use of TOS: "The Cage" footage in both DIS and TOS's episodes, as well as actors in scenes, for instance, used in TNG: "Shades of Gray", whose characters only appear in that episode by virtue of old footage from previous episodes. --LauraCC (talk) 15:49, May 8, 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. A category provides no context and the scope is unwieldily and unhelpful. Should be a page if anything, but this name is horrid. - Archduk3 06:48, May 9, 2019 (UTC)

What would you suggest instead? --LauraCC (talk) 16:56, May 21, 2019 (UTC)

"Performers who appeared in archival footage"? --LauraCC (talk) 19:33, July 30, 2019 (UTC)

Why are you excluding voice over? - Archduk3* 19:45, August 21, 2019 (UTC)

Not intentionally. "Performers who appeared in archival material"? --LauraCC (talk) 14:58, August 23, 2019 (UTC)

Without a consensus, I'd oppose and archive. - AJ Halliwell (talk) 19:08, April 22, 2020 (UTC)

Subcategories for production staff by series[]

Category:Performers contains subcategories by series (Category:TOS performers, Category:TAS performers, Category:Film performers, Category:TNG performers, etc.) Is there any particular reason why other production staff should not also be subcategorized by series? The obvious place to start would be Category:Writers. I suggest the following subcats:

  • TOS writers
  • TAS writers
  • Film writers
  • TNG writers
  • DS9 writers
  • VOY writers
  • ENT writers
  • DIS writers
  • ST writers
  • PIC writers
  • LD writers

It would be a bit of work, but I think that having those categories in addition to the existing lists would be a useful tool for readers. And if writer subcats are successful, we could consider subcats for directors, special and visual effects staff, and so forth. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 02:52, September 11, 2019 (UTC)

I think this would be particularly useful for any people who worked in a creative (and prolific) capacity, to get a sense of which world they most influenced, at a glance. Not sure if that makes sense to anyone else or not...--LauraCC (talk) 15:46, September 17, 2019 (UTC)
After thinking on this for awhile now, I'm not convinced yet this is a good idea. There are over 5000 performers while there are only 400+ writers, and every other production staff category gets smaller from there. I don't think 3 pages searching in the category is enough of a problem to be worth the other issues this would create. We also have pages for each of these which, unlike the series' performer pages, are fairly easy to maintain. It seems to me that we should just add a "series work on" option to sidebar template for production personal if all we're trying to do is make that info available quickly without reading the article. - Archduk3 19:35, September 17, 2019 (UTC)
That's a reasonable solution to this. --LauraCC (talk) 18:55, September 30, 2019 (UTC)
It looks like support for an alternate suggestion replaced this category suggestion, so without additional support or opposition I'd suggest archiving. - AJ Halliwell (talk) 19:06, April 22, 2020 (UTC)
With more than 2 weeks without activity, I'm archiving this. - AJ Halliwell (talk) 16:56, May 27, 2020 (UTC)

Series/film composers[]

Can we please categorize composers by production, such as "TOS composers", "TNG composers", "Film composers", etc? --Defiant (talk) 20:12, August 13, 2020 (UTC)

There are less than 50 composers total currently, so what is gained by bloating the number of categories on a good number of those pages and taking a small category and turning it into over 10 categories? - Archduk3 08:14, August 14, 2020 (UTC)

I should probably clarify; I didn't mean these to replace the "Composers" category but be in addition to it. --Defiant (talk) 07:15, August 15, 2020 (UTC)

Could you maybe create a list on your user page (or a sub page) with breakdowns of what you envision them to be, and how many per sub-category? For example, perhaps it might only be worth having a couple of sub-categories rather than one per series... ? -- Sulfur (talk) 14:34, August 15, 2020 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the benefit of this, or any issue it would address. - Archduk3 19:56, August 15, 2020 (UTC)

It obviously would make navigation easier, as 50 pages is a huge amount to scroll through, otherwise. Thanks for the suggestion, Sulfur. --Defiant (talk) 21:15, August 15, 2020 (UTC)

Since 200 entries in a category will all appear on one page, I'm going to call less than a quarter of that a "small" amount, and I've never thought it's a good idea to leave pages in the parent category if we create subcategories. It seems to me this is needless subdivision, which would make for harder navigation, of a small category with the only benefit being it's easier to to ID a series a composer worked on without having to actually read the article or even check the sidebar, which was my suggestion the last time something like this came up. I'm of the opinion that people should read the articles, and the problems with this would far outweigh the single, and apparently not the intended, benefit, so oppose. - Archduk3 09:31, August 18, 2020 (UTC)

Deceased performers[]

I have seen other tv show Wiki pages that do indeed have a deceased performers category, and it makes all kinds of sense to have it here.--GILESFAN411 (talk) 00:13, December 13, 2019 (UTC)

The (still far off) problem is that eventually any performer currently listed on MA will eventually wind up in said category. I don't think there's another category like that on the whole site. --LauraCC (talk) 17:08, December 17, 2019 (UTC)
Rather than "Deceased performers", as large an undertaking as it would be, what about adopting Wikipedia's births and deaths by year structure? Could take out the performer part and include production folks too. - AJ Halliwell (talk) 19:06, April 22, 2020 (UTC)
If we're going to categorize these, I would think a system that works better with Star Trek birthdays, Star Trek deaths, and {{born}} template would be better than just copying the Wikipedia system. - Archduk3 21:38, May 11, 2020 (UTC)

Child performers[]

A la Category:Deceased production staff and Category:Animal performers, what about a category for child actors? -LauraCC (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I realize that although the dead stay dead and animals stay animals, children grow up, but some actors only performed (on Trek and/or at all) as children. -LauraCC (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

This is too niche. –Gvsualan (talk) 12:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Deceased performers and deceased authors (1)[]

Subcategories of deceased production staff, as it's up to 1,297 by now. -LauraCC (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, is there a wiki shortcut for finding all the people in a category with death dates, or would you have to do it one at a time? -LauraCC (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Anyone using {{died}} should automatically be categorized as "deceased production staff", and it really wasn't designed to discriminate because it is not a manually added category. Also, it's a lot of rather unnecessary work. If you want to mess around with dpl stuff, you can probably populate a list if you cross reference both categories. –Gvsualan (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Here goes:

-LauraCC (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Writers
  • Directors
  • Producers

-LauraCC (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Audiobook

-LauraCC (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Much like the overtaking of this section with lists, I really don't see the need for this at this time. –Gvsualan (talk) 12:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

"Fan" disambiguation[]

People who began their Trek association as involved fans, not staff, a la John Trimble. I dunno how many there are, and if they all fall into at least one other category, like podcast guests, this is moot. Just asking in case. -LauraCC (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they all do and will continue to fall into at least one other category. Think of it this way: if a person has or should have a page on MA, they can't "just" be a fan. They need to be notable in some way. So we can categorize them under that. So no, I don't think we need this category (although I could be wrong). 🖖 Mr. Starfleet Command (talk • contribs) 16:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

So if a fan did something that affected official Trek (campaigned to save a series, like so) and hadn't yet appeared on a podcast, they don't get a page? Or if they do, they would fall under Category: Special thanks or the like. -LauraCC (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

If so, move this to [[:Category talk:Special thanks]]. -LauraCC (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

They would only fall under special thanks if they had been credited as such somewhere. I'm not sure if they should get a page if their notability comes only from organizing a letter campaign or the like, but if so, we could do something like Category:Organizers. 🖖 Mr. Starfleet Command (talk • contribs) 16:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Or would it be better as a page? "[[Notable fans]]". -LauraCC (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Pen names[]

A category for all pseudonyms that Star Trek productions are written/created under.

Are there any others here? "Lee Cronin" is a redirect, as Coon was credited under both names, but the other three are pen names, sometimes shared by multiple people. -LauraCC (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Real-world aliases. -LauraCC (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

CARVIC was never used for his Trek work. Which leaves 4. Which is a tiny, and not really all that useful category. -- Sulfur (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I suppose there could be more I don't know of. -LauraCC (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Soundtrack concert releases[]

Also, what about a category for productions that have aired in soundtrack concerts? -LauraCC (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

See below answer, I imagine. -LauraCC (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid I must oppose per below. 🖖 Mr. Starfleet Command (talk • contribs) 03:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Archival footage performers (2)[]

I seem to recall this being suggested elsewhere, maybe by me, possibly on this very page earlier, but anyone appearing as themselves in archival footage (so not Stephen Hawking (actor)) such as Adolf Hitler (self) and Boris Karloff (self) ought to have a category. -LauraCC (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you suggested this back in 2019, and I oppose per the arguments given then. I would say it could be a page (as AD3 suggested), but I don't think this even warrants that. 🖖 Mr. Starfleet Command (talk • contribs) 00:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose, per above. - AJHalliwell (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Theatrical releases[]

As "The Last Generation" is airing in IMAX theaters, and it is not a movie, how about a category for all Trek productions aired in theaters? Were there any other show episodes that aired in theaters? (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't think of any at the moment, but unless there are troves that I'm unaware of, I'm compelled to oppose this, as the category would be far too sparse to justify its existence. However, I think a page for this could be an excellent idea, so long as we can find other episodes that were released in theaters. 🖖 Mr. Starfleet Command (talk • contribs) 04:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe there was some DIS or SNW episode(s) that did. -LauraCC (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, I think the encyclopedic content should exist before we go trying to organize based on an idea. - AJHalliwell (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Lyricists[]

For people who wrote the lyrics to Trek songs, such as SNW: "Subspace Rhapsody" tracks, "Beyond Antares", "Sledgehammer (song)", "The Moon's a Window to Heaven" etc. Right now, the last one (John Bettis) is in "Category:Composers", which "Lyricists" could be a subcat of, or it could be a fellow subcat of "Music department" instead, since some people (but not all) are both lyricists and composers. -LauraCC (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, I don't think Star Trek has sufficient lyricists to call for this, but we should probably add "and lyricists" to the Composers category description. - AJHalliwell (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll buy that. -LauraCC (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Outdoors and indoors[]

Divide filming locations into "Interior filming locations" (such as "Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory", stage sets, etc) and "Exterior filming locations" (such as El Mirage Dry Lake Bed). -LauraCC (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I expect very little overlap (unless you consider any city where an episode is filmed as a filming location). -LauraCC (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, I'm not convinced this aides navigation more than Category:Filming locations. - AJHalliwell (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Deceased performers and deceased authors (2)[]

Subcategories of Category:Deceased production staff. All others can remain in the main category for now. -LauraCC (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per the last time you brought this up. In short, it would be a lot of work to pull off and has very few (if any) benefits. 🖖 Mr. Starfleet Command (talk • contribs) 03:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose, per above. - AJHalliwell (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
This can be done by category intersections. The main reason they were turned on was to handle things like this. -- Sulfur (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Alien words and phrases[]

I know there's probably a better term, but a category for all the uniquely alien terms expressed in their languages (some which have too few terms for their own "_____ language" category, as Vulcans and Klingons do.) So things like Vyk'tiote, Zhian'tara, etc. -LauraCC (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, I'm not convinced this would be terribly useful. 🖖 Mr. Starfleet Command (talk • contribs) 23:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a list page, first, then, to see how many we have of each species' vocab. -LauraCC (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Opppose as suggested. - AJHalliwell (talk) 03:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Episodes by show season[]

Is there any merit to creating separate categories for episodes by season? (e.g. "Category:TOS Season 1 episodes", etc.) -LauraCC (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, I don't believe this to be necessary. - AJHalliwell (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Community content is available under the CC-BY-NC license unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms