Category talk:English terms derived from Star Trek

duplicate category
This category seems to be a duplicate of "category:en:Star Trek." I would suggest for this category to be merged and deleted. Nicole Sharp (talk) 03:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

RFD discussion: June–December 2021
Merge with Category:en:Star Trek. DAVilla 09:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that particular category, but do note that Category:English terms derived from the Bible and Category:en:Bible are not the same thing and should not be merged. 85.201.169.175 09:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have raised this before too. We have a number of these overlapping categories relating to fictional universes. For example, I think there are two such categories relating to Star Wars too. I’m thinking we should retain the “Terms derived from” categories and delete the ones which just have the name of the franchise, to emphasize that the category is not supposed to contain all sorts of franchise-related terms that don’t satisfy CFI. — SGconlaw (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose merger. These are obviously different; is a term derived from Star Trek (but used in other contexts!), but  is a term about Star Trek (but not a term used by the franchise itself!). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I see your point. In that case, the categories should have clear usage notes explaining their scope. (There still remains the difficulty of people not seeing the notes, but at least the difference between the categories should be stated explicitly.) — SGconlaw (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose merger. One category is used for the topical categorization tree (Category:Star Trek). The other is used for the etymological categorization tree (Category:English terms derived from Star Trek). It isn't really possible to have a category fall under both trees given the way the categorization system is currently structured. This means a merger would likely result in the new consolidated category being difficult or impossible to access from one tree. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 12:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep separate per Metaknowledge. The 'terms derived from' category is already pretty clearly scoped in its name, and I'm not sure how to make the 'topic' category's text/scope any clearer short of directly contrasting (and cross-linking) the two categories—perhaps that's what we should do; compare Category:Louisiana Creole French language vs Category:Louisiana French. - -sche (discuss) 04:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * at least someone should put usage notes on each category page explaining the scope of each page and how it differs from the other. I have a feeling that at the moment entries relating to Star Trek (and similar categories like the Star Wars ones) are just put in both categories. — SGconlaw (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I’d say keep and specify the differences on the categories like others mentioned. Ffffrr (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Kept separate —Svārtava [t•c•u•r] 15:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm still unsure what entries are supposed to be in which category. The description of "Category:English terms derived from Star Trek" is "English terms that originate from Star Trek"; that of "Category:en:Star Trek" is "English terms related to the Star Trek franchise". So is a term like mind meld a term that originates from Star Trek or is related to the franchise? — SGconlaw (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be considered a term originating/deriving from Star Trek, see MK's above comment —Svārtava [t•c•u•r] 15:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, so only terms that are actually used in Star Trek should be in "Category:English terms derived from Star Trek". Am I right in saying that terms that are derived from such terms (e.g., mind melder (which I just made up), which does not itself appear in Star Trek) should also be in that category? As for "Category:en:Star Trek", is it only for terms that relate in some way to Star Trek but do not actually appear in the franchise's universe (e.g., Trekkie)? — SGconlaw (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, “ is a term derived from Star Trek” … “but used in other contexts”. So even if that term doesn't itself appear in Star Trek but in any way its original source is Star Trek, it should be in Category:English terms derived from Star Trek. For Category:en:Star Trek, yes, it would contain related terms, even if they don't originate from Star Trek. Neither category has anything to do with the "appearance" of any term in Star Trek itself. —Svārtava [t•c•u•r] 16:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * hmmm, I'm still finding it difficult to understand which terms should be in which category. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the "derived from" category does have something to do with "the 'appearance' of any term in Star Trek itself", doesn't it?: the term has to have appeared in some Star Trek episode, book, etc in order to "derive" from Star Trek. We definitely need to expand the boilerplates on all these categories to cross-link then and explicitly spell out the distinction, because looking over Category:English terms derived from the Bible and Category:en:Bible (mentioned upthread) to pick some examples for comparison, I see users are not maintaining the distinction there, either. But for example, CKJV is in Category:en:Bible because it has to do with the topic of the Bible (but it's obviously not part of the original Hebrew or Greek text of the Bible), whereas eye for an eye is in Category:English terms derived from the Bible because it's a phrase derived from the Bible, but plenty of uses today are outside of the context of talking about the Bible. (Some terms might belong in both categories, like Dalek is a term derived from Doctor Who which also refers to something in the Doctor Who universe, although FICTION sets a high bar for including terms like that.) So, the Abramsverse is a word for something that has to do with the topic of Star Trek, but it's not derived from the text of any Star Trek episode, movie, etc AFAIK (compare a Firefly flan), whereas cloaking device is apparently derived from Star Trek (apparently Star Trek coined the term), but these days plenty of unrelated fictional universes have them, real-world armies are trying to build them IRL, etc. (I'm not sure bottle episode belongs in either category, since the term is said to have originated with the actors of Star Trek outside of the show itself, a la flan, but also its use is in no way specific to Star Trek, so the fact that it's in Category:en:Star Trek also seems wrong...?) - -sche (discuss) 20:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)