Memory Beta talk:Style

Greetings, 81.77.24.92
Hi who created this site.


 * I'm Chops, and I created this site. Feel free to add anything that's missing. (which is quite a lot at the moment.) --Chops 02:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) (edit: factual error--Chops 02:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC))

headings for sections
I have a few questions regarding standardizing the novel pages. Many pages currently use "Summary" for the first heading and then under it post the text from the back of the book. Do you recommend using "Introduction" instead? Similary, I believe the majority of pages currently have Memory Alpha and such under "External Links". Should this be "Connections"? And are you actually recommending a heading "Categories" at the end that is similar in look to other headings?

One or two book pages that the community thinks really are up to standards would be very appreciated. For example, even this style page, the template novel page, and the "A Time to Kill" page actually slightly disagree on the look of a few things.

I am happy to go through a edit a bunch of book pages, but it would be nice to only have to do them once. -- Jdvelasc 07:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the best example we have currently is, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, so that would be a good one to go off. As for a heading for Categories at the end of the article, that heading is on the style page simply as a means to seperate that information for the bulk of the text.  In terms of adding categories to the article, we just add the usual, [Category:Category Name]. --The Doctor 09:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I've just gone through and standardised the Time to Kill entries, hope that helps. When bringing a page up to date, yes the blurb should be under Introduction, with a Summary, or space for one under a summary heading below. The Connections section includes external links, now and next boxes, navigation boxes and categories, in other words, all the connections. The Motion Picture is a good example, other example pages could be Unity or A Stitch in Time, they are sort of my main project pages, so I tend to keep them up to date with any style changes. Also, if you have a look on my user page there is a page layout template. -- 8of5 10:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Reviews
This page suggests the standard novel/comic/episode/etc page should have a reviews section. I do not think it appropriate for us as a reference to be swaying readers with reviews. A note in the information section on particularly successful or controversial novels maybe but I think reviewing is too far. Any objections to removing that section from the manual of style? -- 8of5 12:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No objection whatsoever. --Seventy 15:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Greeting, from a new users
--GinnyStar 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Hi. I am unsure if I can following along with the codeing, for one the font style changes I am having a very hard time reading, that is why I add it to the Talk and Discussion Pages, my infromation, right now I don't have a scanner working to add images yet, its had a bad hardware problem and I needed to exchange it. I left more infromaton on my talk page abut my self.

So if some could help me get the coding right I would be very grateful.--GinnyStar 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean -- the only font style changes we make are two apostrophes around words for italics and three apostrophes around words for bold-facing, aside from multiple equal signs around words to make headers, double brackets to make links and double wavy brackets to insert templates.


 * Like I said before, go to a complex page and click "edit", and then look at how the code works there and I'm sure you'll see the tricks you need. -- Captain MKB 21:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Tense
I'm a bit confused about the section about what tense to write articles in. I understand that production articles can be written in present tense, and in-universe articles are written in past tense, but I've noticed that articles about books end up in either. It's a "real world" article, but I'd suspect that summaries should be written in past tense. Although, is a featured article and the book summary is written in present tense (which makes it sound REALLY awkward). --Captain Savar 22:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Summaries on pages for novels/comics/short stories/etc are written in present tense, just like the stories they are summarising. --8of5 02:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The stories they summarize are typically written in past tense, not present.– Cicero 23:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Short Stories
When we cite a short story should we include which anthology the story comes from. For example:
 * (SS TOS (Triptych) = (SS TOS (Triptych))

Or just do it like this?:
 * (SS TOS (Triptych)) = (SS TOS (Triptych))

– CapnCrunch 23:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Either are acceptable. The one with the anthology is probably the preference though. --18:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I was thinking the one with the anthology would be better myself. – CapnCrunch 02:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

English grammar
I know it is basic, but should we have a section explaining that we want writing to be in complete sentences, using acceptable grammar, and to be in American English? This seems to have escaped many new users to wikia that we are indeed "writing" here and not just jotting down unintelligible "notes" -- Captain MKB 01:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, it should be a given. At least, that's what I'd think.  Heh. -- sulfur 01:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Story article layout
Just trying to make sense of what other users are doing, I'd like to propose a change to the suggested novel layout as listed here to accomodate.

The "Introduction/Blurb" section has never really resonated well with me, I've actually found a way to do away with it in many articles, by incorporating the blurb text into the summary section. The blurb is essentially a "lead in" to the summary anyway, I feel it is a good fit.

Also, when I set up the blurb, I feel it is important to italicize the text, at it is directly copied from the source, making is "us quoting the source" and therefore needs a type style to differentiate it, like other quotes would.

Finally, since some books have back covers and some have inside flaps, and a great many more have multiple editions where there is both a back cover, inside flap or some other packaging, I feel the ambiguous "From the book jacket" is the best way to set up the blurb to avoid having to make it conditional to which edition a user is looking, creating possible confusion (my copy of Yesterday's Son, for example, is a rare book club hardcover where the same summary as the paperback's back cover is on the inside flap of the detachable book cover). Since both the hardcover inside flaps, or the audiobook boxtop, or the paperback back cover are all parts of each individual things' "book jacket", I find this the most elementary way to state this.

Note that I've made this as a proposal here before automatically changing what is in this policy article, so that more than one user can have a chance to discuss it with me before we go ahead and alter the policy again. -- Captain MKB 14:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Can't agree with lumping Blurb and Summary together. One is a promotional device and "official" description, the other is our own much more extended summary of the story, they are distinct and don’t sit well together (IMO). I've dropped the "Introduction" element of the heading lately, and went ahead and changed that on this page as it's not a dramatic change, but does mean that section now serves exactly what it is titled, a presentation of the blurb - and is written down how that section has been used for years, moving the actual introduction element (if it's ever present, it's quite rare) to a top of the page text.


 * The format you and I have been using lately of indenting the blurb the text is already differentiating more than it ever was before, where it was ordinarily just typed like any other text. But I've no object to standardising it to italisised as well if you think that would help in some way.


 * And for the describer, I'd say that has to be case by case. If we know, as you describe, the same blurb is being used on different parts of the book in different printings, then "book jacket" seems appropriate. But they aren't always the same, see The Sorrows of Empire for example, or differences between reprints years apart. I think it is best to be as precise as possible, if the user knows the information comes from the back of the book then they should describe it as such, if another user can cite it being used elsewhere then the general term would be more appropriate. --8of5 15:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad to see you agree with me on some of these points -- to clarify, I feel italicization is important because we are copying somewhere else's text. On Memory Alpha, I even created a copyright notice to let users know that the blurb isn't our text.


 * Since we are deadlocked here in discussing the combination of the "intro/blurb" section, I'd say we see what others have to say about it based on what we've explained here, this page is open for their comments. -- Captain MKB 15:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree regarding Intro/Blurb/Summary - there are too many introductions to a page. The "Summary" is a perfect place for both the blurb and the back cover summary. As for blockquoted and italicized for the back cover summary, I think that's already in the style guide (but I'm a one-day old newb) - if it's not, I also agree. I'm not a huge fan of "from the book jacket" - if we're trying to get away from the notion that different printings of books have different features, well, jacket itself is a feature of a particular book's edition, IMO - I believe it's another inference for "dust cover", which are never seen on paperbacks. I'd just shorten it down to "From the book". With that said, as a completist, I would prefer that differences in summaries be indicated: if the first edition of a book has a different summary than the revised or second edition of a book, I'd want to see both indicated. --Morbus Iff 15:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright: the way The Sorrows of Empire looks and flows is good for me, so I agree that Blurb and Summary should remain separated. However, I would want them italicised and blockquoted (the ":" in wiki syntax) as, semantically, we're quoting the book itself. The usage on TSoE looks nice, but I would argue that blockquote would better serve, semantically, then a definition list (which we're slightly abusing here, as we're not providing a definition so much as a value.). I think part of the way we can clear up some confusion is to rename "Blurb" to "Solicitation" - then it becomes obvious what that heading is for, and causes Captain MKB's argument to be nearly invalid (as it becomes less implied about two separate introductions and more explicit in what the headings actually mean). --Morbus Iff 15:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I'm also desiring for a way to have multiple images for a book. As you state, different books and editions can have different covers and packaging approaches. Encounter at Farpoint had two different covers, and I'd love to see both of 'em on the wiki. How would that be handled (this is probably more case-scenario than a set style guideline though...) --Morbus Iff 15:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have two concerns with combining the Blurb and Summary sections:
 * 1. For pages that don't have a summary yet it fills out that section, giving the impression the page is more complete, while at close inspection it would be obvious it is not, I think it could give the impression to a potential editor that the page doesn't need work, so we're less likely to get a proper summary.
 * 2. For pages that do have a summary I think it looks plain weird, you get the subtitle (whatever it might be, but basically describing that the text that follows is from the book itself) followed by the indented text, followed by the summary, which while it isn't indented so is obviously a bit different also isn't separated enough so it looks like that subheading could refer to that as well, I think that's confusing/misleading/messy, and the only way to overcome that would be to have another subheading, which is essentially the system already in place!


 * Morbus raises a good point, one that I'd been having a problem with too, the term is wrong, like Morbus jacket to me reads as a dust jacket, not the physically attached cover. And again as Morbus was saying I want that detail.


 * As for multiple covers, we do have a system yes, if there are two covers we put one in the primary cover slot, the second in the "altcover" slot, if there are more than two, then additional covers are listed in the appendices section, either a thumb for a third cover, or using the gallery code (which you can find in the insert bar at the bottom of an edit page). --8of5 15:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we get this decided on please? I back Morbus' suggestion of renaming Blurb/Introduction to "Solicitation" and keeping it separate from the "Summary" section. --8of5 01:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I prefer "introduction" over "blurb" or "solicitation" -- I don't like "solicitation" at all, it's just not completely and accurately descriptive of what these texts are.


 * As to it being a separate section, I already stated I feel they could remain as one, but since other users disagree I am ready to see them separated. -- Captain MKB 19:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you describe what you do feel "the back of the book", "the part of the inner sleeve", or "the solicitation for the forthcoming comic book" should be called, then? I don't think "Introduction" is it, nor "Blurb". All of the above things are designed to get you to buy the item in question - that's their traditional purpose, not to serve as an "introduction", or a "summary" of the book (as summaries tend to give away plot points that would be counterproductive to selling a book). I remain on the side of "official" vs. "unofficial" for why they should be separate sections - the "official" thingy of the book, vs. our "unofficial" summary of it. I'm pretty flexible on what to name the "official" section (and am happy with keeping the "unofficial" section called "Summary"). --Morbus Iff 20:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, "solicitation" certainly doesn't fit for all of these, since the introductory paragraph on the book jacket is in no way a "solicitation". Maybe "description"? -- Captain MKB 21:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have always considered the paragraph on a book jacket to be equivalent to the back of paperback book, yes. Nearly every hardcover book (which is predominantly the domain of book jackets) I've ever seen has always had something "else" on the back of the book - either a continuance of the wraparound cover or, say, a picture of the author. If it did, in fact, have a "traditional" paperback solicitation on the back cover, then the inside of the book jacket is even "odder" - it certainly deserves mention. Alternatively, I've seen book jackets replicate the traditional "teaser" first page of a paperback... Could you explain further the case you're seeing? --Morbus Iff 22:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)