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

---

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)

Suicide Category

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

"Category:Performer suicides"

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

Strong Oppose. Not a useful or beneficial grouping of articles. The nature of their deaths is not related to their having appeared in Star Trek. Readers will therefore not be provided with a helpful navigational device with such a collection, which categories are intended to provide. Most importantly, I feel such a category is highly inappropriate. -- Michael Warren | Talk 21:39, October 2, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. What DH said. How is this any different than, say, "LGBT performers" or even "Performers who drove Porsches"? Not encyclopedic, fannish, morbid, and not necessary. -- Renegade54 (talk) 01:36, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

Support: From an academic standpoint, a category like that would be interesting. I read once that something like seven to ten Star Trek actors have committed suicide - I wonder why? Anyway, I think saying its morbid or inappropriate sounds a bit like censorship, but I can understand the feelings. BTW, an LGBT category would be interesting too - are there any openly gay Star Trek actors? On a side note, I once had the privilege of meeting Roger Carmel around 1985 and he was an incredibly nice man. I was very distressed to hear later that he killed himself only to be relieved after reading here that people today believe he died of a heart attack. -Fleet Captain October 2, 2015

Oppose. Currently actors are not categorized based on the facts of their personnel lives, if you really want to make a major shift in what we do, why on Earth start with something so controversial and privacy-intrusive? Why not at the very least gently test the waters by creating "Category:Deceased performers" (and hey, that one might actually be useful anyway) and see how well that goes. In any case, I think this can only end well as part of a wider effort: if the only way we categorized the private lives of performers would be by if they committed suicide or not, then that would have the unintended effect of being highly stigmatizing. -- Capricorn (talk) 07:24, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Per reasons listed above. Tom (talk) 09:40, October 5, 2015 (UTC)

Maintenance categories

Subcategories of Spaceship interiors

Things like "spaceship bridges" "spaceship engineering sections", etc. --LauraCC (talk) 16:56, September 30, 2015 (UTC)

While I am not completely a fan of this idea I see the need to break down the Category:Memory Alpha images (spaceship interiors) otherwise it will get crowded more and more. I am opposing a general breakdown and think that only the main areas need a subcategory, like

• Category:Memory Alpha images (spaceship bridge interiors)
• Category:Memory Alpha images (spaceship sickbay interiors)
• Category:Memory Alpha images (spaceship engineering interiors)
• Category:Memory Alpha images (spaceship quarters interiors)

Maybe I am missing one or two but I don't think a category for every corner, corridor or section is required. Tom (talk) 17:46, September 30, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my point. Maybe Recreation interiors for holodeck/rec room or laboratory interiors as well? --LauraCC (talk) 17:55, September 30, 2015 (UTC)

Note that we don't need to put "spaceship interiors" on every single image that shows a bit of the interior, such as was done on File:Euphoria.jpg. It shows no interior of value. That's not the focus of the image. -- sulfur (talk) 17:58, September 30, 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. Invariably it seems that when I miss one, someone adds it. I just thought it was an aid if someone's looking for pictures from indoors. --LauraCC (talk) 18:02, September 30, 2015 (UTC)