m (rm to cat talk page) Tag: sourceedit |
Tag: sourceedit |
||
| (42 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
== In-universe categories == |
== In-universe categories == |
||
| − | === Missions and expeditions parent === |
||
| − | I created [[:Category:Missions and expeditions]] based on my rereading [[Memory Alpha:Category suggestion archive#Events|this]], which had everyone actually agreeing that we should have the category, but not liking the name (myself in fact) or what category it should be under. I'm fine with the name as is now, and will do the work to change it if I misread that and we decide otherwise, but there wasn't a category decided to place this under, so we still need that. I did like the original suggestion of "Events", which could then cover [[Crossing]], [[Fornax Disaster]] (categorized), [[Alien abduction]], and other uncategorized pages, but since that failed the first time around, I'm open to suggestions. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 14:57, June 4, 2011 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | :I like Events as well; I'm not sure what else you could use instead.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 09:25, August 5, 2011 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | === Columbia dedication plaque personnel === |
||
| − | The Columbia dedication plaque now has the names of individuals. I would like to suggest that a new category be created named ''Columbia dedication plaque personnel'' for these individuals.[[User:Throwback|Throwback]] ([[User talk:Throwback|talk]]) 01:21, August 11, 2014 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | :'''Support''', we have others like these, makes sense to have this one as well..--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] ([[User talk:Sennim|talk]]) 08:10, August 11, 2014 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | I have completed the pages for this plaque.[[User:Throwback|Throwback]] ([[User talk:Throwback|talk]]) 05:14, August 16, 2014 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | === Trill symbionts === |
||
| − | Currently the Trill category contains both members of the Trill species and Trill symbionts, which seems odd because while symbiotic, they are defenatly two different species. I think a split would make more sense logically. -- [[User:Capricorn|Capricorn]] ([[User talk:Capricorn|talk]]) 03:19, November 11, 2014 (UTC) |
||
| − | :'''Support'''. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 20:37, November 11, 2014 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
=== Holograms (disambig) === |
=== 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 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. |
||
| Line 29: | Line 13: | ||
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. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 00:53, February 26, 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. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 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. [[User:ThomasHL|Tom]] ([[User talk:ThomasHL|talk]]) 22:17, April 26, 2015 (UTC) |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| − | === Reference CD-ROMs === |
||
| − | A seperate category for the CD-ROMs that currently lie inside [[:Category:Reference books]]. This I believe would make it easier to find them and would acknowledge that they're not "books" in the usual sense. '''[[User:StalwartUK|<span style="color:red">Stalwart</span>]][[User talk:StalwartUK|<span style="color:salmon">UK</span>]]''' 23:25, April 19, 2013 (UTC) |
||
| − | :'''Support''', makes sense in my opinion, --[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] ([[User talk:Sennim|talk]]) 23:37, April 19, 2013 (UTC) |
||
| − | ::'''Support'''. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 19:53, May 5, 2013 (UTC) |
||
| − | :'''Support'''. [[User:ThomasHL|Tom]] ([[User talk:ThomasHL|talk]]) 18:53, March 10, 2014 (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]]. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 22:42, April 26, 2015 (UTC) |
||
| − | === Reference books into individual series === |
||
| − | + | :::'''Oppose''' for the reasons stated above. I don't think it's necessary. --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 20:03, May 9, 2015 (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? -- [[User:Sulfur|sulfur]] ([[User talk:Sulfur|talk]]) 19:29, February 5, 2014 (UTC) |
||
| + | I'll begin removing the incorrect categories shortly then. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 19:27, May 10, 2015 (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.--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] ([[User talk:Sennim|talk]]) 10:28, April 12, 2014 (UTC) |
||
| + | ==="Capital cities"=== |
||
| − | === Studio executives sub cat === |
||
| + | A category to group together all of the [[capital city|capital cities]] mentioned in ''Star Trek''. In addition to all of Earth's capitals, there are a few more references from other planets which could also be included. --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 20:01, May 9, 2015 (UTC) |
||
| − | While they are in Trek-lore not the most popular people, including with me (though I've to begrudgingly admit that it was not all woe and mayhem regarding their role, as I've discovered there were some "good" ones amongst them), I'd like to propose a "[[:Category:Studio executives]]" sub-cat under [[:Category:Production]]. Of the five execs of which articles are already written by other contributors, three are categorized as "Producers", but producers and execs are different beasties all-together. As overhead and studio oversight execs are formally not involved with the actual production (which is the purview of the producers, the top one btw, always selected by execs), virtually never credited and therefore '''not''' to be sub-catted under [[:Category:Production staff]] as the two other ones are, even though they have considerable decision-making influence during the conceptualization phase before production starts. An important aspect which is the purview of the execs (often overlooked by lore) is the marketing of ''Star Trek'', aside from the fact that it is they who decide if we see ''Star Trek'' on-screen at all. As you can see [[Paramount Pictures#Studio executives actively involved with Star Trek productions|here]], five articles were already written, but already a dozen "redlinks" await entries...On a side-note, I'd like to point out that they should not be confused with "Network executives", those of [[NBC]] in particular (and who where the ones most vigorously pushing for cancellation of TOS), though of these no articles or redlinks are yet featured on the site as far as I can ascertain.--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] ([[User talk:Sennim|talk]]) 11:08, December 19, 2014 (UTC) |
||
| + | :But how many Earth capitals were explicitly described that way? And you can't just add cities because ''we'' know they are capitals, because if you add Washington, then why not Philladelphia and NYC etc. Subsequently, this seems a category that may be more trouble then it's worth; not all that many cities will be placed there, but you'll have to be constantly vigilant because well-meaning people will incorrectly add cities they know to be capitals from real world sources. -- [[User:Capricorn|Capricorn]] ([[User talk:Capricorn|talk]]) 15:25, May 11, 2015 (UTC) |
||
| − | :While I'm not 100% convinced that we need articles about all of these executives at the top of the chain (and especially not the network executives, etc), if people feel that these articles are worth while and relevant, then I'm OK with the category suggestion. -- [[User:Sulfur|sulfur]] ([[User talk:Sulfur|talk]]) 11:14, December 19, 2014 (UTC) |
||
| + | True, but there are numerous mentions of capital cities on alien worlds. For example, [[Stratos]], [[Paradise City]], [[Angosian capital city]] and [[First City]], not to mention the Earth capital city articles that mention they are capitals of countries in the text. --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 17:09, May 11, 2015 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | Well, that's why I've only included the execs whose names I came across repeatedly (discounting the fringe ones, the financial "suits" in particular) in Trek reference books and therefore think pertinent. The ''TMP'' executive quartet for example, were the most involved due to that movie's troublesome production history, Katzenberg especially. It was the absolute "top-dog", Bluhdorn (as CEO, founder and main shareholder of [[Gulf+Western]] actually the ''de facto'' owner of the Trek-franchise during 1967-1983 in the first place), who initiated the movie franchise as well as the accompanying tie-in Trek book-line and ordained the continuation of it after ''TMP'' was finished even though the ''TMP'' Paramount quartet did not seek continuation and wanted to be rid of ''Star Trek'' alltogether. On the other hand, Solow (one of the "good" guys btw) mentioned that his successor on TOS, Douglas Cramer, had few dealings with Trek, not wanting to be burned by it as the series' fate was pondered by the powers that be. Most ironically however, he is the one exec, besides Solow, who actually has an official "Executive in Charge of Production" credit; Go figure...:)--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] ([[User talk:Sennim|talk]]) 11:42, December 19, 2014 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | ::'''Support'''. If we're going to have pages on them, it's better to have them properly categorized. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 06:36, February 15, 2015 (UTC) |
||
| ⚫ | |||
=== Collectible companies === |
=== Collectible companies === |
||
For pages in both [[:Category:Collectibles]] and [[:Category:Companies]]. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 00:31, February 15, 2015 (UTC) |
For pages in both [[:Category:Collectibles]] and [[:Category:Companies]]. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 00:31, February 15, 2015 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 17:09, 11 May 2015
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 used 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
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)
"Capital cities"
A category to group together all of the capital cities mentioned in Star Trek. In addition to all of Earth's capitals, there are a few more references from other planets which could also be included. --| TrekFan Open a channel 20:01, May 9, 2015 (UTC)
- But how many Earth capitals were explicitly described that way? And you can't just add cities because we know they are capitals, because if you add Washington, then why not Philladelphia and NYC etc. Subsequently, this seems a category that may be more trouble then it's worth; not all that many cities will be placed there, but you'll have to be constantly vigilant because well-meaning people will incorrectly add cities they know to be capitals from real world sources. -- Capricorn (talk) 15:25, May 11, 2015 (UTC)
True, but there are numerous mentions of capital cities on alien worlds. For example, Stratos, Paradise City, Angosian capital city and First City, not to mention the Earth capital city articles that mention they are capitals of countries in the text. --| TrekFan Open a channel 17:09, May 11, 2015 (UTC)
Production POV categories
Collectible companies
For pages in both Category:Collectibles and Category:Companies. - Archduk3 00:31, February 15, 2015 (UTC)
- Something we should've had a while ago -- but an optimal solution here would be to break up the company from the product. The company would fall into 'collectible companies', and then have a product page that can be the current 'catalogue' section of each page now fall into the collectibles. -- sulfur (talk) 03:47, February 15, 2015 (UTC)
I agree. I'm thinking a page for each "product line." For example: Johnny Lightning could be split to Legends of Star Trek (standard releases) and Legends Of Star Trek (White Lightning releases) or just Legends of Star Trek (Johnny Lightning). We could also just have a Johnny Lightning catalog or Johnny Lightning merchandise page, which would might make more sense for pages like Genki Wear and Kraft, which don't have "named product lines," or much of a "line" at all. - Archduk3 04:29, February 15, 2015 (UTC)
- Support, though a bit tentatively. While the suggestion ties in nicely with that of publishers and books/magazines, I'm a bit concerned with the split application resulting in a large number of additional "stub" pages the Kraft and Genki examples...I like the second subordinate suggestion, but propose Johnny Lightning product lines instead "catalog" or "merchandise". To my ears the latter two would sound too much like commercially "peddling" stuff--Sennim (talk) 11:38, February 16, 2015 (UTC)