Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

72 views
Policies & Practices > Series: Star Trek

Comments Showing 1-50 of 59 (59 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (last edited Aug 20, 2010 10:14AM) (new)

rivka | 42445 comments Mod
I would break them up as the publisher does. So:

* Star Trek: The Original Series (has numbered ones up to about 100 or so and a dozen or so unnumbered)
* Star Trek: The Next Generation (also has both numbered and un-); has sub-series (trilogy) Q-Continuum
* Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (ditto)
* Star Trek: Voyager (ditto again)
* Star Trek: New Frontier
* Star Trek: Day of Honor
* Star Trek: The Captain's Table
* Star Trek: The Dominion War
etc.

Not sure if there should also be an all-inclusive "Star Trek" series or just links in the description field (see also: ______, _______, etc.)

Edit: There are semi-official sub-series in each, like the Yesterday Saga and the Rihansu series.


message 2: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 42445 comments Mod
Memory Alpha
and
Memory Beta

are good sources of this data.


This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For | 949 comments Yes, I think there should be an overarching "Star Trek" series as well. Also, Wikipedia is another decent source with info on the novels and series.

Same thing needs to be done with Star Wars.


This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For | 949 comments Actually a more important question is whether "Star Trek" should be left in the title of the subseries? For example, should there be books with series called:

"Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" & "Star Trek"

or

"Deep Space Nine" & "Star Trek"

I lean toward leaving "Star Trek" out of the subseries names (as long as they're in the global series as well), but am guessing most people will feel otherwise.


message 5: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 42445 comments Mod
This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For wrote: "I think there should be an overarching "Star Trek" series as well."

Assuming that there is, would you then suggest calling the NG series simply "The Next Generation", or "Star Trek: The Next Generation"? Having "Star Trek", "Star Trek: The Next Generation #(whatever)" on the series line of each book starts getting rather crowded.


message 6: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 42445 comments Mod
(heh. cross-post)


message 7: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 42445 comments Mod
This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For wrote: "I lean toward leaving "Star Trek" out of the subseries names (as long as they're in the global series as well)"

So do I. But "The Original Series" on the series list IS a bit odd. Maybe "ST: The Original Series" and "ST: The Next Generation"?


message 8: by Cait (new)

Cait (tigercait) | 5005 comments I agree that an overarching "universe" series is a good idea. We should probably take care that the most specific series for a book is listed first (so that it shows up next to the title).

For example:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/60...
The Romulan Way
Star Trek: The Original Series: Rihannsu #2
Star Trek: The Original Series #35
Star Trek

And I lean toward keeping the full series name on every series. There will only be one series showing with the title, most of the time, so it should give as much information as possible.


message 9: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 42445 comments Mod
I disagree with Cait almost entirely! ;)

I'd prefer LEAST specific first (top down, as it were) and would format those like so (same example):
Star Trek
ST: The Original Series #35
ST: TOS: Rihannsu #2


message 10: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 42445 comments Mod
Poll? Pie fight a la How Much for Just the Planet?


message 11: by [ A ] (new)

[ A ] | 51 comments And I disagree with rivka but agree with Cait! ;)

I always see the series "closest" to the top being the "most specific" version. It's the first version I see after I look at the title, so it makes sense for it to be the most detailed and specific to that title. :)


message 12: by [ A ] (new)

[ A ] | 51 comments Also I think pie fight!


message 13: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 42445 comments Mod
*stocks up on blueberry and lemon meringue*

*also dons full-length slicker*


message 14: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 42445 comments Mod
Upon further reflection, I can see the reasoning for bottom-down series order. I still vote for shortened version of repeated bit though. So I propose:

The Romulan Way (ST: TOS: Rihannsu #2) (ST: The Original Series #35) (Star Trek)


message 15: by Catherine (last edited Aug 20, 2010 11:43AM) (new)

Catherine (catherineeilers) | 45 comments Cait wrote: "I agree that an overarching "universe" series is a good idea.

I think I would call it a "franchise." I've been working on some YA series like Sweet Valley Twins and Baby Sitter's Club, which have a similar situation of multiple series within each franchise (or universe). Within each series there are subseries with separate numbering, too--super specials, special editions, etc.

I think it make sense to have the franchise name represented within the series name (e.g. Baby Sitter's Club Little Sister, not Little Sister), but an overarching series for everything Baby Sitter's Club doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Keeping the numbering conventions straight seems like a nightmare, and I don't think that readers of one series necessarily think of themselves as readers of the entire franchise. Also, if a character name index comes along, that might be a better way to keep track of characters who appear across multiple series.

As far as the subseries go, in these cases what has made the most sense to me thus far is simply to reflect the subseries in the numbering field (so it appears as "book Special Edition 7." I don't think that this would make sense for every subseries, though. Some probably should be their own separate series. I've been trying to think of it in terms of who the readers would be. If it's intended as an extra for readers of the original series, I've thought it should be included with that series. If it's intended to garner its own readership, I've thought it should be separate.

ETA: Another thing I've been doing is to use the series note field to alert users to related series.


This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For | 949 comments Catherine, don't use the series note field for that...it doesn't show up when a series is being viewed, only edited, so it's not useful for readers only librarians. Put it in the description instead.


This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For | 949 comments With respect to the order of series, I lean toward the bottom-up, simplified name crowd.


message 18: by Catherine (new)

Catherine (catherineeilers) | 45 comments This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For wrote: "Catherine, don't use the series note field for that...it doesn't show up when a series is being viewed, only edited, so it's not useful for readers only librarians. Put it in the description instead."

Thanks for the tip!


Cheryl is busier irl atm. (cherylllr) | 362 comments (Ooh, such a can of worms I opened; I'm glad I'm not a librarian - I sure admire you-all!)


message 20: by Cait (new)

Cait (tigercait) | 5005 comments rivka wrote: "Poll? Pie fight a la How Much for Just the Planet?"

*stocks up on rhubarb*

I was worried about the length in the title, but I checked some longer book titles in the new (beta) book page and it looks fine to me even wrapped to three lines, so I don't think that length is a huge concern. Also, this does contradict what we've been doing so far, which is to tell people to write out the series name in full (although that's made a little better by the description field on series now, it's still an extra click or two to find out what an abbreviation means).

Catherine wrote: "If it's intended as an extra for readers of the original series, I've thought it should be included with that series. If it's intended to garner its own readership, I've thought it should be separate."

Oh, that's a good way to divide it.


message 21: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 42445 comments Mod
Cait wrote: "Also, this does contradict what we've been doing so far, which is to tell people to write out the series name in full"

Yes, but only in those cases where the book is in multiple series, each of which includes the name of another, larger series. Each series gets spelled out exactly once per book.


message 22: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 42445 comments Mod
But Star Trek: The Original Series most assuredly does not include Star Trek: The Next Generation or Star Trek: Voyager.

And Cait was in favor of bottom (most specific) up, no?


message 23: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 42445 comments Mod
But both would be included by an overarching "universe"/series called "Star Trek". Which was the proposal, I believe.


message 24: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 42445 comments Mod
But there would not be a single series page on which you could find all of the above, unless there were an overarching "series".


message 25: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 42445 comments Mod
They can be linked. Using links in the description field. Example


My initial question was whether it would be better to use links like that, or to create an overarching series. I think people have weighed in on both sides of that one.


message 26: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 42445 comments Mod
I think I'm leaning that way myself. The (theoretical) "Star Trek" series page would have about 200 items on it. Which I think makes it bulky enough to want to avoid, give that there ARE other options.


message 27: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 42445 comments Mod
And having thought it over, my current suggestion for (the same example book as above) would be as follows:
The Romulan Way (Star Trek: Rihannsu #2) (Star Trek: The Original Series #35)


Most detailed first, keep the full franchise name, but avoid listing any additional subseries info more than once.


message 28: by Cheryl is busier irl atm. (last edited Aug 22, 2010 05:07PM) (new)

Cheryl is busier irl atm. (cherylllr) | 362 comments Hope you don't mind one more tidbit from a curious reader non-librarian re' this overarching series - and maybe you have it under control anyway - but remember that short series like The Captain's Table, which includes War Dragons, include books belonging to several fuller series (ie TNG, DS9). And then to add yet another complexity, consider: The Captain's Table Omnibus.

...sorry, just wanted to make sure you took that kind of stuff into account, I'll go back now to lurk...


message 29: by Cait (new)

Cait (tigercait) | 5005 comments I do like the Star Trek: Rihannsu over the Star Trek: The Original Series: Rihannsu name in this case.

I do like the idea of having a franchise series linking everything together still, though.


This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For | 949 comments I still really really think there should be an overarching series simply called Star Trek. I don't care how many items end up on it (and I think it'll be well above 200 when done), it just makes sense to me to have a single cohesive catchall that includes everything in a single list, for those who are interested. The same with Star Wars, Dr. Who, Battlestar Galactica, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Hardy Boys & Nancy Drew (each of which has many subseries and related series in addition to the primary/original series), etc.

If I want to get a single list of all of the Star Trek books, I don't have to want to click on a dozen or more different Star Trek subseries: Bantam Episode Adaptations, Bantam TOS Original Novels, Animated Series Adaptations, TOS Pocket Books Novels, Shatnerverse, Vanguard, Next Generation, Titan, Deep Space 9, Voyager, Enterprise, Movie Novelizations, New Frontier, Stargazer, Klingon Empire, Lost Era, Destiny, Starfleet Corps of Enginners, half-a-dozen special mini-series, etc, etc, etc. Many of the longer of these have their own subseries (such as the Rihannsu mentioned above).

Rivka, you were arguing for a Harlequin series which will have something like 1500-2000 books on it in another thread...if that's an acceptable length, why not Star Trek? I just don't think length of the series is an acceptable reason not to create one. It's just a very simple basic piece of information: "I want all books from Star Trek, any version" that should be easily accessible through a list...if we have the capacity why not use it?


message 31: by [ A ] (new)

[ A ] | 51 comments Agreed with everything NT Michael said above. I'm definitely still 100% behind the idea of an overarching series for every single series that would require one.


message 32: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 42445 comments Mod
The three of y'all feel pretty strongly about this, and I don't. Either way, really. Call it a consensus in favor of a general "franchise" series, then. :)

(Harlequin's a bit different in that they officially number their books that way.)

And I think we have consensus on series order, too? Most specific to most general, correct?


This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For | 949 comments rivka said "And I think we have consensus on series order, too? Most specific to most general, correct?"

Yes, I believe that is correct. Until we can reorder series it may not always be very easy/convenient to get them in correct order, but specific to general does seem to be the consensus.


message 34: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 42445 comments Mod
Then I think the only remaining issue on which there is debate is whether it's:
(ST: The Original Series) (Star Trek)
(The Original Series) (Star Trek)
(Star Trek: The Original Series) (Star Trek)

I vote for the first. And I think strongly enough on this one to take it to the pies, if necessary. ;)


message 35: by Dori (new)

Dori (adorible) | 198 comments rivka wrote: "Then I think the only remaining issue on which there is debate is whether it's:
(ST: The Original Series) (Star Trek)
(The Original Series) (Star Trek)
(Star Trek: The Original Series) (Star Trek)
..."


I think I'd vote for the third, but only because if a user were looking through the series', and not at the book, they might not know what ST stood for...otherwise, I'd vote for the first option. The second option would be useless if you were looking at only the series and not the book.


message 36: by Lisa (new)

Lisa Vegan (lisavegan) | 2409 comments Three, but one is okay with me. I agree with Dori's reasoning though.


message 37: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 42445 comments Mod
I hear the reasoning, but if the idea is that every single book on that list is also going to be on the Star Trek super-list, the confusion wouldn't last long.


message 38: by Sandra (new)

Sandra | 23809 comments Rivka, glad you picked ST as your example. Been loving this discussion! Go Star Trek.

Like TINTM's idea of the overarching series, and Cait's idea of most detailed first.

Rivka's idea of (ST: The Original Series) (Star Trek) is also my pick.

Most trekkers wouldn't even need that much info just ST:TOS would do it, but of course I do realise there are people who would need more, so Rivka's idea works.


message 39: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 42445 comments Mod
Sandra wrote: "Rivka, glad you picked ST as your example."

Was not I. ;) I just started a new thread on it.


message 40: by [ A ] (new)

[ A ] | 51 comments I'm cool with rivka's take on the naming convention (ST: The Original Series). We still have the series description to work with, so it would be easy to just put the full name in there as well ("Part of the Star Trek series of novels. (etc)").

If the idea is that every Star Trek universe novel will be in the overarching Star Trek series, it should be fairly easy to figure out what the ST means. :)


This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For | 949 comments I'm wondering if this example is more of a special case. For example, while I completely agree that it needs to be either 1 or 3 (I go back and forth) for this case, I don't necessarily feel the same way about, say:

(ST: The Next Generation)(Star Trek)
(The Next Generation)(Star Trek)
(Star Trek: The Next Generation)(Star Trek)

where I could easily see going with the middle option. I don't feel strongly about it, but "The Original Series" is maybe not the general case.


message 42: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 42445 comments Mod
I disagree. I don't see option #2 being any better in that case.


message 43: by Brian (new)

Brian (furicle) | 23 comments Interesting discussion.

Please note that what you guys seem to call 'The Original Series' only applies to video, not the books. the Log series of novelizations of the original show are 'the originals' and the later novels in the same universe are about the original series, but they aren't the original series per se.


Thus I actually quite dislike most of these suggestions and would prefer something like

The IDIC Epidemic (Star Trek #38)(Star Trek) for The IDIC Epidemic

Star Trek Log 9 (Star Trek Log #9)(Star Trek) for Star Trek: Log Nine

A Time To Be Born (Next Generation)(Star Trek) for A Time to Be Born

Sub series would be added after - so we'd have

Title (Main Series)(Sub Series)(franchise)


message 44: by Cait (new)

Cait (tigercait) | 5005 comments Brian wrote: "Please note that what you guys seem to call 'The Original Series' only applies to video, not the books."

The TOS novels began before there was a TNG, so of course they weren't labeled "The Original Series" at the time! That's the standard label which is given to them now, though.

This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For wrote: "I'm wondering if this example is more of a special case. For example, while I completely agree that it needs to be either 1 or 3 (I go back and forth) for this case, I don't necessarily feel the same way about, say:

(ST: The Next Generation)(Star Trek)
(The Next Generation)(Star Trek)
(Star Trek: The Next Generation)(Star Trek)

where I could easily see going with the middle option."


I still prefer a "Star Trek:" prefix over a "ST:" prefix, but I definitely don't like having no prefix at all for any series which could be a book's most specific series -- after all, what shows up front won't be (The Next Generation)(Star Trek), but just (The Next Generation). At least (ST: The Next Generation) implies that there's a larger connection available.


message 45: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (last edited Aug 24, 2010 07:37AM) (new)

rivka | 42445 comments Mod
Cait wrote: "That's the standard label which is given to them now, though."

Including by Pocket Books, who publishes them. And IMO, while not numbered the same way (not having been released by Pocket and having been released long before there was an NG), the Log books AND James Blish's early adaptations are all TOS. Actually, probably not the Log books -- those are from TAS. ;)


message 46: by Brian (new)

Brian (furicle) | 23 comments rivka wrote: probably not the Log books -- those are from TAS ;)"

Only some of them IIRC.

To me adding 'The Original Series' is revisionism - even if the publisher does it too. Most of them (all?) weren't called that when they were originally published.

K - I said my piece, I'll go hide in the corner again :-)


message 47: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 42445 comments Mod
Are we talking about the same books? The Alan Dean Foster "Star Trek Log [One through Ten:]" books? These?

All based on The Animated Series scripts.


message 48: by Dori (new)

Dori (adorible) | 198 comments rivka wrote: "Are we talking about the same books? The Alan Dean Foster "Star Trek Log [One through Ten:]" books? These?

All based on The Animated Series scripts."


OK, now I know what TAS stands for...darn TLAs.


message 49: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 42445 comments Mod
Yeah, sorry about that. It was too close to TOS to not use the first time. ;)


message 50: by Brian (new)

Brian (furicle) | 23 comments Dori wrote: "Star Trek Log [One through Ten:]" These?

All based on The Animated Series scripts."
"


I stand corrected :-)

------------------------------------

I'd like to point out how nice it is to see decisions like these made openly and thoughtfully. It's why I feel comfortable volunteering some time now and again to keep Goodreads rolling.


« previous 1
back to top