Ten ForwardNew movie/Countdown in relation to novel universe (Reply | Watch)

Can we discuss this yet? Will it break any rules? I know the movie (and it's novelization) isn't out yet, but Countdown is. Countdown tries to connect the Online game with the new movie while ignoring the novels. So, can we discuss without people screaming "Spoilers!" or somebody suggesting we log onto a chatroom? I'm talking specifically about how the regular novel verse, Countdown, and the novelization will all fit together. Before you say it, I know we can "...point out conflicts where they are found..." but surely we can come up with some kind of overall plan beyond that. – AT2Howell 16:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it really is to early to say what the plan would be with any degree of certainty. If we were to keep discussion of the new movie/Countdown comics to this thread then spoilers would be minimized. As far as a plan goes, it really is to early to formulate one, Memory Alpha is waiting and seeing and I think we have to take the same approach. It looks like there will be radical changes in the canon. However, we have dealt with these before in the shape of information from the Star Trek: Myriad Universes series, in which a small contradictory information can be noted on the main page, while massive contradictory information could be given on a separate page. --The Doctor 17:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm interested in seeing if the film or novelization refers Nero's ship as being of Borg origin. Countdown tied the Online game with the uniforms, but ignored the whole Destiny bit about Borg tech not working anymore. If there is no mention of the Borg in the film, then the Borg reference can become a footnote. If the film goes Borg, then the novelverse is in trouble. Also, Countdown had this ship destory an entire fleet of modern Klingon ships with little effort and taking minimal damage (if any). How this is going to work out against an antiquated Enterprise is beyond me. I'm hoping that this too will turn out to be a foot note situation. So, yes, it's going to be a lot a wait and see. Anyone know when the book hits the shelves? – AT2Howell 17:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I recall ST Online having Borg tech references also -- the simplest explanation to reconcile all three is that something happens post-Destiny, pre-Countdown, that gives the Borg some added vitality over their "completely dead" status in Destiny -- there's about half-a-decade for the unexpected to happen between Destiny and Countdown.
As to fighting Nero's super-future ship with an antiquated starship -- well, I believe that's what's going to make the film interesting ;) -- Captain MKB 01:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I will wait and see, but I think the big problem here is going to be that there are too many camps. The novelverse camp is charging in one direction, Online is off in another, and then this film intends to re-write it all. Poor little Countdown tried to connect two of these camps, but that was one hell of a stretch. Some game developer wants to sell games, J.J. Abrams wants to re-write Trek, and the authors are marching to their own drum. I doubt the possibility of ever again connecting these camps into one narrative, but we shall see. In the mean time, they grow further and further apart. – AT2Howell 20:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I hate to invalidate your viewpoint, but this has happened before and things came together again. In the 80s, the comics went ahead and wrote their own alternate version of the end of Star Trek III, the novels had their own alternate version of the Romulans called "Rihannsu" and a different Klingonaase language to boot, and the TNG franchise was rewriting canon in a completely different direction. Things came together again with some new versions, the Shatnerverse was regarded as being off on its own for a while. Don't even get me started on the three alternate versions of the role-playing game, each with a different history. -- Captain MKB 21:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Current info on the new film establishes it as a new and divergent timeline. All Trek after it will be re-written as there are MAJOR events which change the landscape of the known galaxy. It's going to do for the films what Destiny did for the novels. I removed an edit on the Vulcan page because the film isn't officially out yet. – AT2Howell 20:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Counterpoint: How do you know that all Trek after it will be rewritten? How can you be sure the movie or the next movie won't end with the restoration of the original timeline? These two timelines will probably coexist for a while, but there are always other possibilities which you don't seem to be open to... -- Captain MKB 20:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that you should be ready for some crazy people wandering in off the street and editing. Wild stuff is going down, and random Joes are going to want to post about it (already started). Things go boom, people die, crazyness insues. Be prepared. – AT2Howell 20:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

We certainly should. I'm going to see the film right now, so I will be able to spoiler-monitor until noon tomorrow. All film material is allowed, of course, since the novelization is out already and we are focused on the non-canon, licensed parts of the film (such as the novelization) -- Captain MKB 23:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Was it good? Will I be angry? I'm taking the kids to see it in Imax next weekend. If it's crappy the way "Sum of All Fears" was the crappy movie in the Jack Ryan series, blink twice. – AT2Howell 12:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can offer a critical analysis since I'm not sure what you would "like" or "dislike", but I really enjoyed myself. -- Captain MKB 13:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Saw the film this weekend, and it was rather good. I feel that Countdown definately detracted from the film. – AT2Howell 12:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Handling article titlesEdit

So, here's to discussion about how to handle articles for the dozen or so characters who now have new histories in the new movie and its novelization. Memory Alpha is suggesting splitting them off into different articles with the qualifier "NT", standing for "Nero's timeline", which would also be informative since we could say "New Trek" or "New Timeline" and also have it abbreviated "NT".

Thoughts as we approach making this a community decision? -- Captain MKB 13:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've not seen it yet, but I've been following the discussion at MA and have to agree with the conclusions that they have reached, based off some of the spoilers which I have read also. --The Doctor 13:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, could some sort of small graphic be used to offset information from this new timeline, easily identifing it as separate? – AT2Howell 14:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking that also -- good call, AT2... my idea was to have a small explanation at the top of all pages with have any (NT) or whatever in the title, since it isn't obvious what "NT" (or whatever we use) would mean. Expanding that to all movie-related articles might not work great, but we can make some lists and see what other users think. -- Captain MKB 14:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
We could start with the big changes. Like Vulcan (planet). After about a dozen of these pages are adapted, we can see what people think. Did countdown reflect the movie, or was it a bad attempt to sell Online to the people who watch the film? – AT2Howell 14:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, Vulcan wouldn't actually need a separate page.. we could fit the alternate events into the regular Vulcan page in only a few sentences, sadly enough.. ;-P
Countdown had some problems -- a bit of strangeness about Spock having met Nero before, where in the film he doesn't seem to have, and some strangeness about who Geordi worked with to build the jellyfish. The only Countdown/Online tie-in I can see is the uniforms worn by Starfleet -- so I'd have to say it wasn't an attempt to "sell" anything, that is your ongoing misconception of the issue... -- Captain MKB 14:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Was Nero's ship referenced as being Borg tech? Any references to a re-unified Romulan Empire? – AT2Howell 14:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
In the film? No and no. -- Captain MKB 15:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Then Countdown can go down in Trek lore as an italicised footnote. Therefore, the film does not negate the novelverse! Online is the only one off on it's own now. Victory at last! – AT2Howell 15:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
No, that's not true at all AT2Howell. Countdown, excepting a couple of ambiguous points, is very much the non-canon reflection of the new film. Countdown and the Online materials have been designed to complement each other and are pretty definitive as non-canon continuations of the Next Generation-era story. They also tie into the novels in many ways, although there are a handful of contradictions, but not severe ones -- usually only slightly different tech notes or minor timeline differences. If you still can't see that, you need to start looking at the big picture more because you haven't really been making much sense when you talk about this.
Also, you are off the topic of this forum discussion, where we are currently discussing the new film and article titles. Please try not to disrupt things anymore, OK? -- Captain MKB 15:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
So Countdown makes many connections that are not reflected in the film. Those connections in Countdown went against establish novelverse. And you don't think this is important? The film starts it's own timeline, but does not attack any other novelverse or film timelines. Sorry if I feel this is a little important. Let's get back on topic then. Is there anything at all in the film which contradicts established novelverse (other than being a new timeline)? Is there anything which specificaly supports the Online timeline? These are important questions for this wiki. – AT2Howell 15:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Once again, you seem to misunderstand the entire "big picture" -- listen carefully: at no point, ever, will any licensed non-canon source negate another.
Despite you thinking that one thing "goes against" another, that is entirely your misconception, because in reality, almost all sources "go against" each other in some way. We are here to chronicle that, not to try and judge it, like you have.
There was one point in the Destiny trilogy where a lieutenant commander was referred to as a lieutenant... does that mean one part of Destiny negates another part of Destiny? No. Does that mean that one part of Destiny is "going against" another part of Destiny? No. It means there are two different sources that have contradictory information, even though they take place in the same timeline and are on the same wiki.
To answer your question: Every source we have supports the Online story. Every source we have supports the Countdown sotry. Every source we have supports the post-Destiny novels. Because they all coexist as licensed Star Trek literature. Period. -- Captain MKB 15:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Is that a "No"? What I'm looking for is a movie reference that says "after the klingons joined the ferengi alliance" when the novelverse specificaly said they didn't. I'm not suggesting that we not document both references, I'm just looking for things that don't jive together. I get annoyed when there are two or three obviously different story lines that someone tries to mesh into one cohesive article. I like the way the Borg history article identifies different borg origin stories rather than attempting to hash out a singular story line. – AT2Howell 15:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

For crying out load AT2 will you get over it, how many times does it need to be explained - if it is detailed in-universe as being an alternate timeline (as the new film timeline is) then it is an alternate timeline. If, as is the case with Online/Countdown against the novelverse they are not explained as such then they are alternate continuities. In either case our purpose is not to try and make sense of these but to record them. If an alternate timeline is established that makes things a little easier for us as we can go straight ahead and describe it as an altenate timeline. If not we describe both and note the discontinuity, as we have always done with the myriad of conflicting sources in licenses Star Trek fiction.

On the issue you are trying to continually drag this discussion away from: A while ago someone suggested we create pages for "Subject name (alternates)" to deal with the many alternate universes presented in the Trekverse, most likely inspired specifically by the recent Myriad Universes series. I would suggest we treat this new alternate timeline as one of those alternates and integrate it into that sort of structure. In the case of major subjects we might want to split some of the more major alternate universes off into separate pages, in which case we could use this NT suggestion, the same as we have widespread use of the mirror disambiguate (indeed I would suggest we start to role the more minor mirror pages into the general alternates pages or sections).

So the system would be, we have a page for the "Prime" universe, for relatively minor subjects we would have on that page a section for alternate universes/timelines explaining events relevant to that subject. For more major subjects we would move that alternates section to its own page. And for really big subjects the most significant alternate variations would also get their own page, so for Spock we would likely end up with:

  • Spock - detailing Spock Prime.
  • Spock (alternates) - detailing Spock in various minor alternate timelines.
  • Spock (mirror) - detailing Spock in the mirror universe(s).
  • Spock (NT) - detailing new movie timeline Spock (though with the amount of info the film actually gives I'd question if we need to separate this from the general alternates page yet).

While for a page with less info, say Delta Vega, all those would most likely remain on a single page, and for an intermediate sort of subject like... ok, cant think of a good example, but there could also be a situation where the amount of info from the new timeline is quite minor, but if their are enough other alternates it could be lumped into a general alternates page so we'd get something like:

  • Subject name
  • Subject name (alternates) - detailing the subject in the MU, NT and other alternate timelines.

Tiny bit confusing for some articles maybe, but saves us having a load of (NT) pages for very minor subjects and also helps clean up the general issue of all the alternate timelines around these days. --8of5 02:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I somehow understand AT2, in a way... it doesn't mean necessarily that some judgement takes place, but the difficult thing is that we now have at least 3 different timelines running: The "original one", including the new movie, which establishes a second one (I btw liked NT... reminds me of.... some other stuff.... ;) - then, the novelverse, which is more or less consistent in itself, at least the novels I know are (DS9 post-finales, TNG post-finales, Destiny, etc.); to further complicate things, we have ST online, which seems to partially interconnect with the movie and the comics, we have myriad universes and we have the mirror universe (which however, is connected with the novelverse and the "original timeline", I assume).
For people like myself, existing in linear time, this is difficult - I for my part often like to read about events I don't understand or didn't know about in a "linear" way (like - x lead to y, y lead to z and then z lead to the event I am interested in). This gets very difficult with different timelines. When I started reading novels, I was completely confused by Shatner's novels - until I understood that they are somewhat to be treated separately - that's like a good example of what I mean.
This is why 8of5's suggestion seems really good - you could restrict yourself to the different timelines, if you are, say, not interested in the novels, and just follow the other ones. Tkhobbes 20:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I like this scheme, though a designation of Subject name (Prime Timeline), or something to that effect, on existing (main universe) pages might be preferable, given that many eventual readers are likely to view the new timeline as paramount, rather than the old/novel continuity. A spelled-out Subject name (New Timeline) or Subject name (Alternate Timeline) (which has the benefit of matching the phrasing in-film, but is less on-the-nose) might also be preferable, for the sake of casual readers.--Cicero 20:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure about changing the "prime reality" articles to include the prefix as the would bring it out of line with the thousands of others, and besides this wiki contains information primarily from the "prime reality" which is why we use the (mirror) or (alternate reality) prefix for the others. --The Doctor 21:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I suppose I'm suggesting something of a full division. While the wiki currently favors the "prime reality" timeline, and will continue to for many years to come, the balance of new material will likely switch to favoring the new timeline in the not-too-distant future. At the least, the focus of Star Trek is no longer on the "prime reality," despite the vast quantity of material which has detailed and will detail it.
One problem with the existing system is that persons who search for, say, James T. Kirk, looking for the alternate timeline character depicted in the new movie, will land on the page depicting the "prime reality" James T. Kirk, which bears only a somewhat buried link (that you really need to know to look for, unless you're very sharp-eyed) to the alternate timeline James T. Kirk who is now the primary version of the character.
More, the intended purpose of the new timeline is the offered clarity of a clean slate (to a point). Separating the new and old timelines nearly fully (aside from real-world concepts, among other subjects) would provide three important benefits:
  • The alternate timeline would be entirely clean and consistent within itself - and only within itself (except where elements cross over in-plot).
  • The "prime reality" pages would also be cleaner and clearer, within their universe.
  • Disambiguation would favor neither timeline.
Altogether, I favor separating timelines along the following lines, borrowing the example of Spock from above:
  • Spock (Prime) - detailing Spock Prime.
  • Spock (Alternate) - detailing the new film's Spock.
  • Spock (Mirror) - detailing Spock in the mirror universe(s).
  • Spock (alternate versions) - detailing various alternate Spocks from other timelines.
I'd suggest separating even somewhat minor articles in this fashion, given the probability of eventual expansion on the so-far revealed elements within the new timeline. It's better to separate a little oddly now than to save what may be a great deal of work for later.--Cicero 21:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I see where your coming from, but that would make things even more cluttered and confusing in the wikia where we could have two (possibly three) articles for everything, lets take Earth as an example. We'd have the "prime reality" article, an "alternate reality" article which contains the same basic information and really the only relevant data from the new movie would be the attack by Nero's drilling platform.

If we do follow your division plan, then this best plan would be to go for a subwiki such as Memory Alpha did with their mirror universe version. However, at the moment, the addition of one film (and novelization) and a handful of spin-off products wouldn't merit it yet. --The Doctor (alternate reality) 21:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but I don't think clutter is the problem you suggest it would be. As you note, the references to the alternate timeline are currently few. Even between the Mirror, Prime, Alternate, and versions designations, there wouldn't be many subjects rating more than one article.
Earth, specifically, would need four articles (as would James T. Kirk, Spock, and some others), but the Mirror and Alternate iterations of the articles would be significantly clarified by removing the Prime-only and other-universe-only content from them. The article Earth (Alternate) would include all information currently established about pre-2233 Earth, and all information from the new film. The Prime article might not be terribly improved by the division, but the Mirror and Alternate articles would be. (The Prime article, too, would be a little less cluttered.)
A good example of potential benefits (at least on a small scale) is the pair of Richard Robau articles I'd separated before the existing consensus was brought to my attention. Both the Prime and Alternate versions of the article were notably streamlined by the absence of the other universe's content.
I don't think I sub-wiki is necessarily within our future. Separate portals, however, could be very useful.
The template system is very nice, by the way. It neatly avoids most of the difficulty of including links to differently-timelined articles. --Cicero 21:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the Doctor and what the community already decided on. This situation is basically what we've always had with the way we split up mirror universe articles - major subjects get their own page differentiated by the (mirror) suffix, while minor subjects get a subsection within the "prime" article. It's worked for a long time with the mirror and other alternate universes why should this new one be any different?

As the Doctor said what your suggesting is more or less equivalent to starting up a separate wiki - and if you want to go found a wiki exclusively for information from the new universe maybe that would make sense, but for Memory Beta is doesn't, our sources are hundreds, probably thousands of stories in the prime universe which will be hugely disrupted by creating separate pages for every single minor topic every reference in the new universe.

At present the new universe is represented by one film and a handful of small games and website that tie-in directly with it. The next film is two or three years off, any prose that cares to be set in the new universe is at least a year away (as none has been announced yet), there is possibly something in the Spock: Reflections comic series, though at most that seems likely to be a framing story as that series deals with Spock Prime's life prior to the film. So for what boils down to one film's worth of information for at least the next couple of years really isn't worth the disruption you are proposing. (Especially when we've already developed a system that is working just fine)

And by the way, your example of Robau doesn’t make sense, we have only ever seen him in the new alternate timeline, not one moment of his appearance was in the original timeline; we first meet him when Nero’s black hole was forming and thus the new timeline had begun. --8of5 23:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding two of your points, quickly:
What separates this new alternate timeline from previous alternate timelines (including the Mirror universe) is that it is the new central timeline of Star Trek. Essentially, the "prime reality" which Star Trek fans have followed for more than 40 years is now a secondary timeline, itself somewhat akin to the mirror universe, if much larger in scope and more revealed in detail.
Captain Robau has only appeared in the recent film, yes, but some material shown in the film bears on the "prime reality" as much or more than it does on the new timeline. (Other elements of the "prime universe" were similarly revealed, from Nero to Tiberius Kirk.) That's what I was discussing.
Would anyone be interested in producing a new wiki for the new universe? I'd prefer to see its material integrated entirely separately within the existing major wikis (Memory Alpha and Memory Beta), but by-and-large its being introduced in-line in both places - and it seems the prevailing opinion is that it should stay that way. Wikia frowns on competing wikis, and on wiki suggestions without notable manpower or contributor interest behind them, so I don't know that such a wiki (or a competing idea of a separated-by-category Star Trek wiki of either canon or tie-in-comprehensive type) would even be feasible.--Cicero 23:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Some additional (and some reiterated) arguments:
  • The use of designators on "Alternate reality" articles to disambiguate, but not on "Prime reality" pages, elevates one timeline over another, where our policy shouldn't. (Particularly improperly, it is the largely inactive timeline which is elevated.)
  • Some articles left undesignated are native to only one universe - some, even, are native to the new universe.
  • Some articles bearing content from both universes are confused in their construction. Even if separated, which universe - if divergent - is given precedence in-article?
  • Lack of a differentiating policy causes some articles to be mis-targeted to the wrong universe when contributors don't pay close attention. These may go missed for some time if low-profile elements, or elements which enjoy poor popularity among the contributor base.--Cicero 23:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry "largely inactive timeline", are you nuts? Just last month that timeline had two novels, four comics and a book of manga set within it! The new universe might be the shiny new one getting all the promotion right now but the old one is far from dead.

I conceded up page that the new timeline is more notable than the other alternate timelines - I initially suggested we lump them all together but discussion above has moved me towards giving the new timeline some special treatment over the myriad of other alternate universes. However that does not get past that fact that right now it is ONE film's worth of information.

Sure the Robau's appearance implies previous history in the shared pre-2233 timeline, which is exactly why the single page approach for his character works so well, there is no conflicting alternate future in the prime timeline established for him (yet) his character history flows linearly from shared history to new timeline, there's nothing to separate.

The point of the (alternate reality) and (mirror) suffixes is not a designation but a disambiguate, they do not exist to label every article from said universe, but to provide an alternate name if and when it is necessary to split the information from the "prime" article, so that is why some new universe articles don’t have or need the ar suffix.

While MB's policies have always been one of equality and inclusiveness, we have also always accepted that sometimes a majority of sources, for the sake of sensible organisation, dictates that some information does come across as dominant. This is the situation you describe where the "prime" articles are staying at their basic names while new universe articles are disambiguated. Can you conceive of the chaos is would cause to the thousands of existing links in the database if we had to move all the "prime" universe characters to "Character name (prime)" namespaces? It makes sense in terms of information resources for the subjects and site maintenance and structure to continue with the system we have. --8of5 00:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I copied my post from my arguments on Memory Alpha, and missed the "largely inactive timeline" comment when I adapted it to this wiki. It was accurate there, but, you're right, is ridiculously far off here. Oops. Please disregard that. (As it happens, I actually prefer the old universe, aside from the uniforms and apparent dynamism of Starfleet in the new universe.)
I maintain my disagreement with the suggestion that the "prime reality" articles should dominate. This isn't a case similar to those we've encountered with existing sources in which one source conflicts with another, nor is it like any multi-universe situation we've encountered before. This is an (at least) coequal universe to that toward which the wiki has thus far directed its focus.
As you point out, disambiguation is key. Why not disambiguate the universes themselves? If I come across say, Keenser's article - or a link to it before visiting, for instance in a list of Starfleet Engineers - should I have to read the article to discover whether he hails from the "prime reality" or "alternate reality?" What about the Battle of Vulcan, as Memory Alpha has taken to calling it? Mirasta Yale? The argument for disambiguation favors denoting universes; it doesn't oppose.
The database issues you suggest would entail quite a lot of work, yes - but nothing beyond us. And any problems we would face now will only be magnified if we wait until a more compelling volume of "alternate reality" material forces the issue. By then we'll have added probably thousands of more articles, with more thousands of links between and beyond them.
While the (alternate reality) post-nominal does, indeed provide disambiguation, they should designate between rather than from. Our "prime" arctiles should be placed coequally with those covering subjects of the "alternate" variety, not above them. --Cicero 00:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Compromise proposalEdit

I can see that I'm not likely to win this. (And perhaps I shouldn't.) May I suggest a slightly modified earlier compromise:

Let us separate topics which appear in both universes, and differentiate between them, according to the following system (using Spock as our example):

  • Spock (Prime) - detailing Spock Prime.
  • Spock (Alternate) - detailing the new film's Spock.
  • Spock (Mirror) - detailing Spock in the mirror universe(s).
  • Spock (alternate versions) - detailing various alternate Spocks from other timelines.

If no Alternate version of the article exists, but Mirror or (alternate versions) iterations do, the Prime article would not bear a suffix. Thus:

  • Spock - detailing Spock Prime.
  • Spock (Mirror) - detailing Spock in the mirror universe(s).
  • Spock (alternate versions) - detailing various alternate Spocks from other timelines.

If an Alternate article exists, but no Prime article, then the article would carry no suffix. Thus:

  • Spock - detailing the new film's Spock.

Each universe (including some minor ones, such as Yesterday's Enterprise, Anti-Time, etc.) would carry its own category, allowing ease of access without database update headaches.

This system avoids primacy between timelines, sidesteps database and link issues aside from those which will organically develop, and allows clear and easy access to all timelines. (We might even consider some sort of marking "button" farther up the page. I think Memory Alpha is implementing something along those lines.)

Would the above be acceptable?--Cicero 01:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As I've noted, again this doesn't jibe with what I think is necessary or functional, so no backing from me; I am perfectly happy with the system we already have in place - It is balanced to the content and I don't believe there is any issue of bias, all alternate pages should be linked to from the prime pages anyway, so the top of any prime page is essentially the disambiguation for page to find the alternate universe variations of that character. --8of5 03:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Again, why should all pages be linked to from the "prime reality" page? If the universes are treated equally, they should be disambiguated as though equal - not by treating one of either the "prime" or "alternate" version of the page the as predominant.--Cicero 04:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.