Memory Alpha  AboutPolicies and guidelinesCategory tree → Category suggestions

Please make sure you have read and understood Memory Alpha's category approval policy before editing this page. Category suggestions can be used to suggest a single category, multiple categories in the same "tree branch" or "parent category," or to determine which categories will contain or be contained by other categories. From there, they may either be approved and enacted by moving the discussion from this page to the new category's talk page, or, if not approved, moving the discussion from here to the category suggestion archive.

One of the reasons we discuss categories first is because we need to ensure that the category tag, when circumstances call for it, contains the correct sort keys to arrange the list in a predetermined order.

This page is broken down into sections:

  • In-universe categories: These categories are intended to be use for in-universe articles, and should be named to maintain Memory Alpha's POV.
  • Production POV categories: These categories are for use on production articles, which are written from the real world POV, and as such should be have the {{real world}} template on them.
  • Maintenance categories: These categories are used in the maintenance of Memory Alpha, and would include the audio and image files for example. These categories can have either a in-universe or real world POV.

In-universe categories Edit

Subspace communication Edit

To replace Template:Subspace, unless it could be edited into "technology" and "types of communications" sections. --LauraCC (talk) 19:39, February 1, 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

That's exactly what it is, an alphabetical list linking articles in two distinct categories: "Subspace" and "Communications technology". It *has* grown longer over time from when it was first implemented, though, so it *may* be time to retire it in favor of another approach. Anyone else? -- Renegade54 (talk) 22:14, February 16, 2017 (UTC)
Support. - Archduk3 12:35, February 19, 2017 (UTC)
I'm not entirely convinced. I think it is fine as is. --| TrekFan Open a channel 19:56, January 23, 2018 (UTC)

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

Eating establishments Edit

There sure are an awful lot of restaurants and bars in the DS9 establishments and Earth establishments categories. --LauraCC (talk) 20:05, May 5, 2017 (UTC)

Support the idea but Oppose about the name. Any better category name? Tom (talk) 12:01, May 7, 2017 (UTC)

My first instinct is "Restaurants"...but what about the jumja stick kiosk? --LauraCC (talk) 16:36, May 9, 2017 (UTC)

If you add hotels then that's horeca, I suppose. Can't imagine the people in Star Trek ever using that term though. -- Capricorn (talk) 07:50, May 10, 2017 (UTC)
An "eatery" is any "informal" place to eat, while a "dining establishment" is any place you can eat dinner, and generally implies a "fine" in front of it when compared to the low end of what eatery covers. Since this category is clearly not going to replace the above mentioned categories, and one can only assume it would be in the establishments category, I don't think we need to overthink this and create multiple categories based on the minutia of the many, many terms used for "place where you can buy ready to eat things for your food hole" in the English language. While I'm pretty opposed to the "eating" option, any of the other ones would be fine whenever someone gets around to doing the actual work for the suggester. - Archduk3 08:12, May 10, 2017 (UTC)

"Culinary establishments"? --LauraCC (talk) 19:42, June 22, 2017 (UTC)

Though I haven't seen the complete list of what is proposed to go in this category, but "restaurant" applies to every example listed thus far. By definition a restaurant (and by default an "eatery") is simply: "a business establishment where meals or refreshments may be procured", and as such a "bar", a "food kiosk", a "café", "Ten Forward", and the "Replimat" are all types of restaurants. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 19:03, June 26, 2017 (UTC)

Borg spatial designations Edit

Subcat of "Regions" and "Borg". There are a heaping helping of grids listed on the above page. --LauraCC (talk) 16:41, August 2, 2017 (UTC)

Having them all in one one category allows non-grids to be included too. Or we could template this, I suppose. --LauraCC (talk) 17:34, February 24, 2018 (UTC)

Sleep Edit

We have Category:Death for death-related items. What about a category for "sleep"? Here is a list of the sleep-related items I've compiled.

--LauraCC (talk) 19:32, August 23, 2018 (UTC)

It would also be a subcat of Category:Biology, just as death and sex already are. --LauraCC (talk) 18:23, September 18, 2018 (UTC)

Sedative could have its own category, or navbox template. --LauraCC (talk) 21:04, February 1, 2019 (UTC)

Which of the above two methods I/we should choose to classify sedatives is the sticking point here. --LauraCC (talk) 15:01, April 30, 2019 (UTC)

Fabrics Edit

Subcat of fashion and materials. For all fabrics out of which clothing, blankets, etc is made. --LauraCC (talk) 17:50, September 13, 2018 (UTC)

Intelligence agencies Edit

Currently there are 19 listed at intelligence agency. Since these are not exactly law enforcement agencies, they don't belong in that category, yet should have their own complementary category to the existing Category:Law enforcement agencies. --Alan (talk) 14:07, March 6, 2019 (UTC)

Reasonable. Support, though keep the list there to show which planet/species each originates from (the names of some don't make that clear). --LauraCC (talk) 17:28, March 7, 2019 (UTC)

Law enforcement officers Edit

Also I believe I brought up a suggestion for law enforcement officers in the past, but I think the biggest concern was not to have it be inundated with all of the Starfleet security officers that probably qualify, in a category originally intended to collect the upwards of 20 "civilian", non-military, non-Starfleet quote unquote police officers it was originally intended to highlight. Keeping that in mind, perhaps we should establish a category for Starfleet security personnel (<-- since we're already making that distinction here as an individual thing) and subcat that into the proposed law enforcement officer category as well as the current Starfleet operations personnel category. --Alan (talk) 14:07, March 6, 2019 (UTC)

Support. --LauraCC (talk) 17:28, March 7, 2019 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to limit this to just the "police", even when they were called something else because of translated alien language, assuming that the intention isn't to include wardens and other non-police law enforcement officers. My concern about bloat wasn't just limited to Starfleet Security, but that all Starfleet personnel fit the general "law enforcement" description. Only MPs and Starfleet Security fit the description of "police personnel" as far as I can tell, and that avoids the other issues, assuming that there isn't some "canon" term problem there. - Archduk3 (on an unsecure connection) 22:05, March 8, 2019 (UTC)

Pre-Starfleet Human colonies Edit

I was rewatching discovery and realized that there have been several Star Trek episodes where the protagonists find a colony that was formed from abducted humans. I figured I would put these colonies into a single category. I know the name isn't particularly good and I am open to better names. Here are some suggested pages that would be in it:

Oldag07 (talk) 14:32, July 27, 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. The name is not great, but the scope is worse. Starfleet isn't the "arm" of any of the Earth governments that is responsible for colonization. This would work better as a navigation template since that allows for context, assuming we need this at all. - Archduk3 19:54, July 28, 2019 (UTC)
Comment. That is a pretty good idea. Anyone have a problem with a navigation template? Oldag07 (talk) 20:05, July 28, 2019 (UTC)
No, I don't. --LauraCC (talk) 16:18, July 30, 2019 (UTC)
I do. You can make a million interesting lists of certain kind of this or that, but that doesn't mean there's use for easy navigation between them. Also Omega IV most definitely does not belong in the list you've made, and nor does Gaia really. Plus, you need a much better defined scope then "Pre-Starfleet Human colonies" because that title would imply that many of these might also belong there. BTW, the planet from the 37's that you couldn't find is documented here. -- Capricorn (talk) 16:34, July 31, 2019 (UTC)
Kidnap/marooning colonies? Or something to that effect - with the colonists having no choice in the matter. --LauraCC (talk) 15:15, August 23, 2019 (UTC)

The "million different interesting things" make good categories. But I digress. Non-traditional human colonies? Oldag07 (talk) 15:42, August 27, 2019 (UTC)

Analyses Edit

There's an aweful lot of pages called "this or that analysis", which are mostly categorized in Category:Scans and Category:Reports but also sometimes elsewhere. However, an analysis is neither a scan nor a report, but rather a distinct step between them. So, an analyses category seems useful. I imagine it would go under Category:Mathematics. Furthermore, I see no problem with this category also including analysis-related pages that aren't about a specific analysis, such as Tactical Analysis Division, Tactical Analysis, or Analysis sector. -- Capricorn (talk) 21:37, October 15, 2019 (UTC)

Production POV categories Edit

Unreleased novels Edit

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 Edit

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)

Streaming companies Edit

I propose a separate "Streaming companies" category alongside Category:Broadcasters under which such companies are currently catted. Granted, their are similarities, but their are also two major differences which IMHO warrants the creation of a separate category:

  • 1)Access to shows seen on the classic broadcasters are limited to the by them assigned time-slots, whereas shows on streamers are accessible at will and at any time when featured.
  • 2)Perhaps even more pertinent, shows on broadcasters are more-or-less free, if one is to discount the generic taxes and/or license fees (in essence a tax itself), whereas a separate subscription fee has to be paid for each and every single streaming service and this is, contrary to the taxation, entirely voluntary. Case-in-point for us: broadcaster CBS Studios vs streamer CBS All Access.

A proposal to also reflect the changes in the modern digital era--Sennim (talk) 12:44, August 29, 2019 (UTC)

Support, but as a subcategory of "Broadcasters"; streaming is merely a different type of broadcasting.
Incidentally, the free/subscription distinction you suggest is not universal; for example, although these days subscription channels like HBO also have streaming services, when they began they were like traditional broadcasters (albeit available via cable rather than over-the-air). On the other hand, in the UK the BBC iPlayer is freely available to anyone (well, technically anyone who pays the TV license, but I think that was what you were referring to above), and has streaming content on demand.
Also, the category should probably be called "Streaming video companies"; there are also companies like Spotify that stream audio content. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 22:16, August 29, 2019 (UTC)

Subordinating under Broadcaster works quite nicely as well...In regard to the naming, haven't I read somewhere that a Trek audio podcast series production is in the making for next year?--Sennim (talk) 07:48, August 30, 2019 (UTC)

How many pages would actually fall into this category? - Archduk3* 16:54, August 31, 2019 (UTC)
Name it "Streaming services" - I imagine music streaming services make Trek soundtracks available, too? --LauraCC (talk) 20:03, August 31, 2019 (UTC)

@Archduk; the ones that directly come to mind are:

  • Netflix
  • CBS All Access
  • Hulu
  • Prime Video
  • Vimeo
  • iTunes

and if we are not that stringent on the subscription requirement and make the "accessibility at will" the primary focus

  • YouTube

and its kin as well – if memory serves Vimeo actually does both. I'm sure there are a couple of others streaming Trek, that have not yet been covered here, with a possible future one being the with much hoopla announced Disney+...--Sennim (talk) 11:39, September 5, 2019 (UTC)
PS: "Streaming services" would work for me too--Sennim (talk) 08:08, September 20, 2019 (UTC)

Subcategories for production staff by series Edit

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)

Maintenance categories Edit

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.