Memory Alpha
Memory Alpha
m (moved txt to talkpages new cats)
(28 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 15: Line 15:
   
 
I have completed the pages for this plaque.[[User:Throwback|Throwback]] ([[User talk:Throwback|talk]]) 05:14, August 16, 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)
   
 
== Production POV categories ==
 
== Production POV categories ==
Line 29: Line 33:
 
::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)
 
::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)
   
=== Production Assistant sub cat ===
+
=== Studio executives sub cat ===
  +
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)
I'd like to propose the category [[:Category:PA]] as a sub under [[::Category:Production staff]]. The reason for the (commonly used) abbreviation is that these people are referred to as "Production Assistant", "Personal Assistant" as well as "Production Associate". The reason for the proposal is that this was a bonafide paid official position within the franchise (unlike interns for example) as the lowest entry level. They were, as some called them self, "goofers", "whipping boy/girl" or "errand boy/girl", tasked with menial jobs. Some of them went on to more senior positions, having started as such, like [[Jim Martin]], [[David Takemura]], [[Dana White]] and [[Bill George]], but many did not, like [[Rod Roddenberry]]. {{STTM|1|3}} mentions another few of the latter who have worked in anonymity. Furthermore, they often performed their duties across departments and are therefore not really department specific.--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] ([[User talk:Sennim|talk]]) 10:10, April 12, 2014 (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)
:I would support two categories, one for production assistants/associates and another for personal assistants. [http://www.anonymousproductionassistant.com/2011/09/01/pa_vs_pa/ They apparently are very different jobs]. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 17:25, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
 
::'''Support''' to the idea of Archduk3. [[User:ThomasHL|Tom]] ([[User talk:ThomasHL|talk]]) 20:04, April 13, 2014 (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)
'''Agreed''', but I don't think we need the "personal assistant" cat, every PA (even if staffers got the use of the title sometimes wrong) I read about were working for the production (even if it entailed getting coffee), not as a personal "goofer" for any particular individual.--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] ([[User talk:Sennim|talk]]) 13:10, April 14, 2014 (UTC)<br/>
 
edit: Still '''Agreed''', but I'm reversing my stance above. There were indeed "personal assistants" working for actors, directors and producers, predominantly in the movies, [[Susan Sackett]] being the best known--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] ([[User talk:Sennim|talk]]) 08:51, October 13, 2014 (UTC)
 
   
 
== Maintenance categories ==
 
== Maintenance categories ==
=== Breaking down the remastered categories ===
 
With over 4,000 remastered files in only three categories, it might be time to think about making those categories a little more helpful before that number gets to much bigger.
 
 
While there are more conservative options we can explore, I would like to know if there is any interest in creating categories for "remastered files by production" inside of the current files by production categories, so all remastered images from an episode would be in a subcategory of that episode's current file page. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 00:43, August 6, 2014 (UTC)
 
 
:'''Support''' as per suggestion, kinda makes sense...--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] ([[User talk:Sennim|talk]]) 07:54, August 11, 2014 (UTC)
 
 
Regarding the implementation of this, would it be preferable to remove remastered files from the standard file category and only have them in the remastered one, since those categories would now be subcategories of the standard cat, or keep them in both as we do now? - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 00:09, August 18, 2014 (UTC)
 
 
:Personally, I see no pressing need to maintain two cats for these. For me, being a subcat would suffice; In my mind it somehow nicely fits in with the idea that the remastered products are offshoots from the original deal...--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] ([[User talk:Sennim|talk]]) 09:51, August 18, 2014 (UTC)
 
 
=== Maintenance files ===
 
Subcategories for language flags and article types. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 22:20, October 12, 2014 (UTC)
 
 
:I think I'll be in favor of this, but could you give an example? I'm not clear what these entail..--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] ([[User talk:Sennim|talk]]) 08:51, October 13, 2014 (UTC)
 
 
All the flags in [[:Category:Memory Alpha maintenance files]] would go in the former category, while the images used in the {{tl|articletype}} template would go in the latter. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 23:56, October 13, 2014 (UTC)
 
 
:Ah, now I see, the suggestion makes sense, so '''Support'''. If I may make a suggestion for the latter. Is it possible to make a subcat which read something like this <nowiki>[[category: articletype (x)|TOS: such and so/film x]]</nowiki>? The last part ensures the pic is then immediately subcatted at its right production. I don't even know if this is possible, so it is a thought.[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] ([[User talk:Sennim|talk]]) 10:24, October 14, 2014 (UTC)
 
 
=== MA audio files (quotes) ===
 
An effort to get the remaining 33 files out of the "top" audio category. Any better ideas are welcome, but this is the best I can come up with while retaining a workable POV. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 00:06, October 14, 2014 (UTC)
 
:Dialogue? Conversations?
 
:Just throwing out some possible options. -- [[User:Sulfur|sulfur]] ([[User talk:Sulfur|talk]]) 01:35, October 14, 2014 (UTC)
 
 
I went with quotes simply because that's what we use them for, just like how I got to [[:Category:Memory Alpha audio files (languages)|languages]]. IMO it doesn't really break the POV, because the quotes are, and used, in-universe, and that makes these snippets of dialog quotable by MA archivists at the end of the universe in the backward logic I'm using for this argument construct. :p
 
 
That said, I'm OK with any of these really, though I suppose if we use dialog (American English!) the logs category would have to be subbed under it. Then again, I think dialog breaks the 4th wall by definition, so that would make this a RW cat if we go with that. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 04:47, October 14, 2014 (UTC)
 
 
::Quotes or maybe Speech. Dialogue doesn't seem to fit POV. --[[User:Bp|bp]] 05:03, October 14, 2014 (UTC)
 

Revision as of 02:05, 11 January 2015

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 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

Missions and expeditions parent

I created Category:Missions and expeditions based on my rereading 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. - Archduk3 14:57, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

I like Events as well; I'm not sure what else you could use instead.--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.Throwback (talk) 01:21, August 11, 2014 (UTC)

Support, we have others like these, makes sense to have this one as well..--Sennim (talk) 08:10, August 11, 2014 (UTC)

I have completed the pages for this plaque.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. -- Capricorn (talk) 03:19, November 11, 2014 (UTC)

Support. - Archduk3 20:37, November 11, 2014 (UTC)

Production POV categories

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. StalwartUK 23:25, April 19, 2013 (UTC)

Support, makes sense in my opinion, --Sennim (talk) 23:37, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
Support. - Archduk3 19:53, May 5, 2013 (UTC)
Support. Tom (talk) 18:53, March 10, 2014 (UTC)

Reference books into individual series

I suggest we create relevant categories underneath Category:Reference books for each of the relevant series. For example, a Category:Star Trek: The Next Generation reference books for things like the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion, and Category:Star Trek: Deep Space Nine reference books for the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion etc. Thoughts? --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:52, February 5, 2014 (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? -- sulfur (talk) 19:29, February 5, 2014 (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.--Sennim (talk) 10:28, April 12, 2014 (UTC)

Studio executives sub cat

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 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.--Sennim (talk) 11:08, December 19, 2014 (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. -- sulfur (talk) 11:14, December 19, 2014 (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...:)--Sennim (talk) 11:42, December 19, 2014 (UTC)

Maintenance categories