Memory Alpha:Category suggestions

Shortcut:
MA:CS

About → Policies and guidelines → Category 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 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.

---

Please click here to start a new discussion

---

In-universe categories

"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)

Oppose. I think a list of capital cities on the article would be sufficient. As Capricorn said this category could create constant edit wars on some city articles. Tom (talk) 18:20, June 2, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. -- Renegade54 (talk) 00:05, June 17, 2015 (UTC)

Processes/methods of doing something

See milling and tempering, for example. These are things that would be done to metal objects. As a skill set, or discipline, or something...can't think of the word right now. --LauraCC (talk) 16:07, June 11, 2015 (UTC)

Arguably under the current logic this might belong under category:events, though that feels like an awkward fit. So, what about having a category:activities? That's probably a bit wider then you imagined, but it's something that we don't have yet and might be useful. It could fit nicely under category:Events and contain loads of things that almost but not quite fit there (mining, cooking, sex, death, etc). – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capricorn (talk • contribs).

That makes sense. --LauraCC (talk) 17:27, June 11, 2015 (UTC)

Did I get this right? Death in a "Category:Activities"? Tom (talk) 18:02, June 11, 2015 (UTC)

Well, maybe not death, but the skilled actions such as I listed above would qualify. I asked on yahoo answers, and the suggestions were "processes" and "verbs". Thinking now, how about "techniques" or "practices" or "methods"? --LauraCC (talk) 18:05, June 11, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, death doesn't belong there, that wasn't thought through. -- Capricorn (talk) 18:47, June 11, 2015 (UTC)

What about actions resulting in death (i.e. suicide)? 31dot (talk) 20:04, June 11, 2015 (UTC)

Suicide would fit I think, though for example accident (if we had such an article) would not, since the first is something one undertakes while the second is not. -- Capricorn (talk) 15:34, June 12, 2015 (UTC)

We any closer to doing this? --LauraCC (talk) 16:47, June 25, 2015 (UTC)

"Rooms" subcategory?

Are there enough rooms to make "rooms" a subcategory of "locations"? Bedroom, kitchen, courtroom, etc... --LauraCC (talk) 15:56, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

Maybe something more far reaching like "Category:Indoor locations"? Tom (talk) 20:41, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that could work. Would it be more for structures in a grounded building as opposed to, say, the chapel on the Enterprise? --LauraCC (talk) 15:03, June 24, 2015 (UTC)

For locations like this one we have Category:Starship sections. Tom (talk) 15:18, June 24, 2015 (UTC)

True. But what constitutes a section? Any area? --LauraCC (talk) 15:20, June 24, 2015 (UTC)

A section on a starship features every section, including a bedroom when the starship has such a section though the bedroom is also part of the quarters. We have Category:Starship sections, Category:Station sections, and Category:Locations with all the sub-categories. The missing category here is about indoor locations on a planet but not on a facility, station, etc. Am I get this right? Tom (talk) 13:30, June 27, 2015 (UTC)

Yes. And bedrooms would qualify when it's, say, Jadzia Dax's childhood bedroom which probably wasn't on a starship or station. If some of the instances of a location are on ships, stations, etc, and some are not, then would both "indoor locations" and starship or station section be categories? --LauraCC (talk) 13:34, June 27, 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)