Category:Memory Alpha images (11-7-05)Edit

This is a supercategory suggestion -- the top level for a category tree to sort images.

I suggest using a basic "sort by series" approach -- identify each image as the production it came from -- with the naming convention Category:XXX images should it be "TOS images" or "TOS Season 1 images" (as the entire series would probably encompass a few hundred images, and all images should be cited with a season or episode reference)

Additionally, any part of our existing category tree is open to having an "XXX images" category associated with it (and contained within it), once we discuss the details for how to classify the images (how much of a planet need be shown or described in an image to classify it into Category:Planet images, the sort key used, etc... -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 18:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


As discussed on Ten Forward, I think image categories will be very useful in cataloguing what we currently have and also preventing the duplication of images. In addition to Captainmike's suggestions regarding season, series, novels, etc. I also recommend categories for characters, which could be structured something like this:

For ships, maybe something like this:

Or for planets:

Clearly, many other areas can be categorized in such a fashion... perhaps a notice can be added to the upload page asking archivists to search and check image categories before uploading a new file. I think this will go a long way towards helping us make better use of pics. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 19:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think image categories only make sense to catalogue images for possible reuse. Memory Alpha is not an image gallery, so our categorization doesn't need to behave like a photo album. Instead, we can concentrate on optimizing this category structure for editors. I don't know if something like SERIES images or STARSHIP personnel images makes sense in that case. For character images, for example, I would suggest to start with something like:
  • People
    • Single
      • Headshot
    • Groups
Other "top categories" could be:
  • Location (with possible subcategories "Indoor", "Outdoor" or more specific "Ten Forward" etc.)
  • Scene (possible subcategories: "Fight", "Discussion", "Leisure" etc.)
  • Object (with possible subcategories "Starships", "Planets", "Weapons", even "People" could be a subcategory of this)
-- Cid Highwind 18:44, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I suggest to create the suggested Category:Memory Alpha images now and use a bot to add that link to all images we have. We can then continue the discussion about useful subcategories. -- Cid Highwind 17:01, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)
The sub categories we have in MA/de are "book covers", "computer games", "indoor", "starships", "starbases", "stellar objects", "persons" (though that might be subdivided in Meta-Trek) of course I would offer Morn's help, just tell me. -- Kobi - (Talk) 17:22, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)
There's now also "place" I've noticed. These categories can be very useful if your're searching for images for illustration, I was satisfied that I could use it "for the uniform". --Memory 11:18, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)


I think the MA/de categries are a good example of where to go with this -- we might want to address whether or not to name this with a standard (Category:XX images, Category:Images of XX, etc.) -- for example, all categories solely for images could get contained in super category Category:Memory Alpha image categories

I support creation of Category:Memory Alpha image categories, Category:Images of book covers and propose discussion of naming requirements for more (i don't feel Memory Alpha:Images of computer games is logically named, for example, so we'd need to work on a better translation -- or it might make more sense to use Memory Alpha:Book cover images and Memory Alpha:Video game images. Please discuss and suggest.

Barring any other objections, I also think super-super-category Category:Memory Alpha images could be added to all images as Cid suggested. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 03:55, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

As these are maintenance categories I still maintain that all future subcategories for images should be prefixed with "Memory Alpha" (though without a ":" after that, we don't use that in other cases). I also think we don't need another category acting as a supercategory to these - the already created Category:Memory Alpha images should suffice. Finally, let me clarify my earlier suggestion. I don't think we should have all images categorized as Memory Alpha images indefinitely - what I meant was to categorize them there first, then move them to more appropriate categories as we create them. I think a double categorization as an "image" and as an "XYZ image" doesn't make sense, and would oppose that suggestion.

The rest of this discussion dealt with categories for various cover images. It has been moved to Category talk:Memory Alpha images (covers). Continue the discussion about that part of the category tree there. Suggest further image categories below. -- Cid Highwind 21:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: Sort keys should not be used when categorizing images. First, I don't even know if those really work - but second, and more important: We still want to have images with useful name (which is, being named like the article about the main object in the image). Once we have an image category working, it will be much easier to detect and correct wrong image filenames. -- Cid Highwind 21:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


I added a few images to test this category. Is this how they should appear? --Alan del Beccio 11:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's how images appear in categories. The software makes use of the "gallery" feature in this case. We can change the appearance using the CSS files - it might look better without all those borders, for example... -- Cid Highwind 11:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sub-categories for Category:Memory Alpha imagesEdit


Category:Memory Alpha images (insignia) - for all detail images of various insignia, mission patches etc. without further context. Both screenshots and user-created drawings. -- Cid Highwind 11:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Further (covers) subcategoriesEdit

-- Cid Highwind 16:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    • SUpport --Alan del Beccio 15:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
      • We definitely need at least the comic books as they're adding up quickly. Since this has been 3+ months, can we get these created? -- Sulfur 13:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- Alan del Beccio 15:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


New sub-categories Edit

Series Categories Edit

For simplicities sake, I'm ignoring the very old discussions above this. In my current urge to see all the new TAS images, I'm in dire need of a few very simple new categories:

I suspect these aren't very controversial. Now, I'm going out on a limb here, but would it be remotely possible to automate the inclusion into these categories!? Images contain very few links usually, and one of them is bound to be a three-letter acronym. I don't know what bots can do, but if someone could persuade CidBot to do something like this... -- Harry talk 14:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone want to react to this? -- Harry talk 20:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

REACT: I think it makes sense. Good idea to me.--Tim Thomason 20:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Since we have an own page for actual suggestion, I didn't check this at first. The above are archived suggestions from that page, I think. If we do this, I suggest to not do it with one or several category links directly, but instead do it via a new "disclaimer" template for screenshot images. A template call like {{imagescreenshot|Series=___|Episode=___}} could then be used to provide the "fair use rationale" (like {{image paramount}} does, at the moment) and generate image categories from the series (and perhaps even the episode) variable. In any case, it should be very clear to everyone that this suggestion means that image description pages might need a separate edit after an image upload. Actually, they also did need that before, if done right, but I'm not sure if this has always been the case. With that in mind, I'm not sure if an automated replacing would be the way to go... -- Cid Highwind 20:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I like the approach! Better than what is created on MA/de. However what is when the screenshot was used multiple times? -- Kobi 09:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
This question has come up on IRC as well. I can think of some alternative solutions, none of which are completely without minor problems...
  1. Add them either to the first episode, or to the episode the image was technically taken from. Problem: Image won't appear in other episode categories.
  2. Create a separate category for "multi-use" images. Problem: Image won't appear in any episode category.
  3. Add several of these messages, one for every episode the image appeared in. Problem: Might become very chaotic for highly reused images, such as standard starship flybys.
  4. Combination of #2 and #3 from above - use the individual episode message several times if an image was used up to, for example, 5 times - use the "multi-use" category if used more than that. Less chaotic, most of the time, all episodes are linked... Probably the best alternative?
  5. Combine any of the above with "manual" category tags on the image description page. Problem: Would partially defeat the purpose of having this template in the first place.
  6. Combine any of the above with image links on the category pages, so that the image appears there without actually being categorized in any or all of that categories. Problem: As above, needs manual administrative work on top of what should be a semi-automatic process.
  7. Combine #2 from above with a text link to the "multi-use" category from any episode that makes use of a reused image.
-- Cid Highwind 12:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW, another suggestion from IRC was to not combine this with a copyright disclaimer (as it is now), but keep those two separate. In case of multiple calls of {{imagescreenshot}}, this would avoid having several copyright disclaimers as well. -- Cid Highwind 12:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

subcategory oddity Edit

I don't understand why it's necessary to transclude Special:Prefixindex/Category:Memory Alpha images here. Why don't the subcategories behave the way they do elsewhere, the way the MediaWiki software is designed? Only 5 subcategories are showing up here on their own. — Scott (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

They do behave the way they were designed: They appear in their place in the alphabetic index. The main category should be empty but it is not and so they come pages behind. -- Kobi 09:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

See, that's what I thought at first, too. But then I kept clicking through the next 200 and the subcategories never showed up again. For example, on this page, Category:Memory_Alpha_images_(Ferengi) should show up, but it doesn't. — Scott (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Breaking down images some moreEdit

I've created a list of about 70 of these. I'm sure that there are likely more, but this is a good starting place. -- sulfur 17:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Also lots of Vehicles, Art, Music, Literature... --Alan 17:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Working on lists of those right now: Art, Books (could also include magazines). Either way, would clean up the base images directory a lot. Vehicles would be an oddball, and "starships", etc would likely be a subcategory of it. -- sulfur 18:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Already have them all sorted out at home. --Alan 18:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, there are lists for instruments, books, and art at the links above. Use them in combination, whatever. Either way, point being, there are lots of things to sort into each of these categories. -- sulfur 18:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Or how about Category:Memory Alpha images (sports and recreation) (rather than games and puzzles) that way it matches the article categories that these images mirror: Category:Sports and Category:Recreation. --Alan 14:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That could work too. I wasn't thinking so much of the sports, but moreso the puzzles (ie jigsaws/etc) at the time. Either or. -- sulfur 14:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)