Memory Beta, non-canon Star Trek Wiki

A friendly reminder regarding spoilers! At present the expanded Trek universe is in a period of major upheaval with the finale of Year Five, the Coda miniseries and the continuations of Discovery, Picard and Lower Decks; and the premieres of Prodigy and Strange New Worlds, the advent of new eras in Star Trek Online gaming, as well as other post-55th Anniversary publications. Therefore, please be courteous to other users who may not be aware of current developments by using the {{spoiler}}, {{spoilers}} or {{majorspoiler}} tags when adding new information from sources less than six months old. Also, please do not include details in the summary bar when editing pages and do not anticipate making additions relating to sources not yet in release. 'Thank You

READ MORE

Memory Beta, non-canon Star Trek Wiki
Advertisement
Memory Beta, non-canon Star Trek Wiki
Ten ForwardSeparating Sources (Reply | Watch)

Main discussion[]

I've been thinking lately that it might be a good idea to more clearly separate the sources that we use for the different pages. With the way things are now it can get really confuring trying to figure out what came from where, and which sources are part of the same continuity. A lot of times when I look up a specific character, I'm only interested in what I call the Novelverse, the current interconected continuity mainly used by the current books, but with the way the pages are set up now, the information from those books tends to be combined with the stand alone novels, comics, Starship Commander, ect. and I have trouble telling which stuff just applies to the Novelverse. My idea would be to do seperated sections for each source, so one for the standalone novel/short stories/novellas, one for the comics, one for games, one for the Novelverse, one for alternate universes, ect. Also, when putting together the information, it would be a lot less confusing if we didn't combine information from multiple sources, and instead just listed one source at a time, so instead of saying this happened and then this, this and this, and then listed all of the sources, it would be a lot less confusing if we did this (Source #1), this (Source #2), this and this (Source #1). I mentioned this on The Trek BBS Liturature forum, and some of the posters on there, some of whom contribute here and others who use this as a resource, agreed with me, so this isn't just coming from me alone.--JDB (talk) 18:42, January 6, 2017 (UTC)

My 2 cents: I am absolutely against a bias towards separating things into user created 'universes' - there is no such thing as the 'novelverse' - all novels take place in the Star trek universe, as do the comics and games. If a user identifies a contradiction, the description they are writing should hit a full stop, cite one source, then start a new thought, and cite the second source, and then add a note (with bg formatting) that there's a discontinuity.
We should not be having people treat each contradiction as a reasoning to create an alternate biography for the subject. just because we have a couple of sources that show Ro Laren doing something exceptional to a majority of other sources in her middle years, it does NOT mean there are two ROs -- it means we are writing a biography for Ro with her canon history described/cited; then we have another source, cited, break, and we have a followup timelining with a different source. each thing can have a description, citation to a specific source without editorializing on the validity of the source towards her greater history. There're far too many wikis that allow users to marginalize continuities they personally dislike, thus giving readers a partial and incomplete summation. We're a lot bigger than those and there would be no way to manage Ro-1 and Ro-2 and Ro-616 and so on (to use the Marvel/DC system as an example of what we're not). The new crop of authors are rebooting everything constantly and obviously aren't interested in referencing past works, but we're not deleting Michael Jan Friedman's work to make room for John Jackson Miller's.
Agreeing with JDB -- I would voice (and have voiced) support for a much more specific citation system where an inline "ref" tag citation could be placed after each phrase it cites, thereby minimizing confusion. You would say a ship was a certain class[1] and was commissioned in a certain year[1]. In this way, the reader can reference each fact with a source on a one-to-one basis, and can plainly see if they get to a Gold Key section of the biography it is separated and cited adequately for them to notice that it is topically discontinuitous and the citation or a background note can explain why. -- Captain MKB 01:03, January 7, 2017 (UTC)

What you are talking about would still only be part of the issue. My main problem is putting all of this stuff together, when it all comes from different sources. When I'm looking stuff up on here, I'm mainly interested in the comics and books, and I want to be able to just read stuff from the comics and books without having to wade through all of the stuff from the RPGs, video games, ect. and to be able to know at a quick glance which one it came from. And if I'm just wondering what books that are part of the novelverse established about Ro Laren, then I want to be able to read just stuff from the DS9 Relaunch and Terok Nor for example and not have to go through every other thing she has every appeared in. I'm not talking about setting up whole different pages for each version of the character or anything like that, it could all still on one page, just seperated. I'm talking about putting the information under a seperate headline for each source. So that way if someone wants to just know about the novels, they can just find the Novels section and read that and then move on without having to search through the whole page and just read a sentence or two here and there when they recognize the title of a novel. I don't know the names of every novel, or what are novels and what are comics, so there's always the chance I might overlook something from one of the novels because I didn't know the title or might read something from one of the comics because I got the title confused with a novel's title. And maybe we could do subsections for each different series, so we could know what comics stuff came from the DC stuff, or the Marvel stuff, or the IDW stuff. For the novels we could do a subsection for the standalone books and the Novelverse. Definitely disagree that there is no Novelverse, there's a pretty clear point around the early 2000s and the start of the DS9 Relaunch where the books started the become a lot more interconnected. I know it can be a bit messy with some of the Novelverse books referring back to older books, but it's usually pretty easy to see where the books went from being purely standalone to one big interconnected universe with story and character arcs. As much as it might be nice to pretend it's all one big universe, there are way to many contradictory sources for things to all work together that way. I don't have a ton of time, or know exactly what comes from where, but would be happy to help as much as I can and I might be able to get some of the people from the TrekBBS who are contributors to MB to help too. I would be able to at least help seperate the books and comics out. I don't necessarily have the titles all memorized, but it wouldn't be hard for me to find out if we add clearer citations. None of this has anything to do with marginalizing the sources, and I'm not talking deleting anything, I'm just talking about making it clearer what came from where, and making it easier to find out just what is or isn't related to each other. If I'm on here getting ready to read a one of the DS9 Relaunch books I'm going to want to be able to just read stuff that might be related to it, without having to worry about if other older standalone books or comics or RPGs or video games are mixed in with it.--JDB (talk) 04:09, January 7, 2017 (UTC)

JDB, would the Jean-Luc Picard (mirror) article be a good example of the kind of organization you want to implement?
Captainmike, can you give an example of what you mean by "a new crop of authors are rebooting everything constantly"? And when have John Jackson Miller's novels ever contradicted Michael Jan Friedman's novels? --NetSpiker (talk) 04:44, January 7, 2017 (UTC)
I think i see where you are going on the mirror Picard, its similar to what I just suggested, with some flaws in POV. Above i agreed with most of what is suggested, just with the proviso that we not be creating universes. Theres no book source that says 'these soources are one universe separate from those book sources'
As to things being separate universes, you cant just state soething like that without a source. the editorial intent of the novels is that they take place in the 'standard' Star Trek universe. You cant just state its different based on a personal feeling.
I'm not sayng JJM has retconned any Star Trek of MJF, i was calling them as an example (with the clever knowledge that they are both Star Wars authors and thats whhere a definite such situation occurred. But we have the truth - this years books have a new history for Number One, for example, than many other authors who have been disregarded.
We won't be disregarding those sources, we will add them to her biography with the notation that there are different editorial perspectives, but the intention they are part of the standard universe. That will provide clear and explicit reference to readers and even novelists using this site as a resource alike, giving them a clear readout of things they can use -- we should not be 'choosing' what to show them -- Captain MKB 11:08, January 7, 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Mirror Picard example is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about, with each source fully seperated like that so we don't have something saying a person went and did something in a book, then did something in a comic, and then did something in a video game. I'm not talking putting stuff in different universes, this has nothing at all to do with anything to do with any kind of inusniverse stuff like that, I'm just talking about this from a purely real world perspective. I'm just talking about making it easier for people who are only interested in one medium to just find stuff from that medium. To go back to Picard article, I never really followed the Shatnerverse, so if I look him up chances are I'm going to looking for the stuff from the Mirror Universe novel series with The Worst of Both Worlds and Rise Like Lions, and if I get on here to read about that Picard I can just go to that section and not have to skip through the whole article and just read a random bit here and there that comes from those books. Or if I'm just curious about Dark Mirror or Mirror Images, I can just skip right to those section. I'm not talking about giving one medium more attention or emphasis than another, we would continue to treat them all equally, we would just make it clearer which one things came from. I know that the intention is that all of this stuff (unless noted otherwise) takes place in the same universe as the shows and movies, but they clearly aren't all taking each other into account and it would be a lot less confusing if we took that into consideration when the articles were put together. To be competely honest with you this has bothered me pretty much since I first started coming on here years ago, and it's kept me from coming on here to look stuff up a few times because I just wanted to be able to read about the books, or comics, or games and didn't want to have read through all of the other stuff on here.--JDB (talk) 14:23, January 7, 2017 (UTC)

Memory Beta is not a reference for people who are only interested in looking up information from only one medium, though, so I don't understand how this would be accomplished. The mirror Picard is a bad example for what you propose, because each reference is from an verifiably different continuity
If you look up Ro Laren, you're going to see her canon history, her early novel appearances, her comic appearances, and her newer novel appearances in chronological order in her biography. I can understand keeping that early novel and comic in a separate line and separate citation, with linebreaks/paragraph breaks and section breaks between, and the user is free to go from one to another, but if you want a wiki where her biography includes her relaunch novel biography and excludes her comic appearances and other novels and games, this is not the wiki for you. -- Captain MKB 14:40, January 7, 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'm not talking about excluding anything, I'm just talking about putting the different things under different sections. Everything would still be there and given equal attention, it just wouldn't all be mashed together.--JDB (talk) 16:14, January 7, 2017 (UTC)

We've gotten a bit verbose here, but my main points are that, for example, in a biography, we're keeping chronological, and that the section heading remain in our in-universe POV. So you'll see Ro's youth (seems to be from relaunch novels) in one subsection, a subsection for her canon career, her comic book exploits after in another subsection, and then another subsection for her later career in relaunch novels. A discerning user could easily see the subsectioning that has paragraphs that reference comics and those that reference novels, by their citation -- Captain MKB 17:29, January 7, 2017 (UTC)

But the articles still put it all together, sometimes even with comics, Starship Creator, standalone novels, and Novelverse novels in the same paragraph, and that is what I'm talking not doing anymore.I would still want to keep things chronological, but only within each section instead of doing the whole thing purely chronological. For instance in the Starfleet section of the Ro article, we've to two episodes, a comic, a relaunch novel, two more episodes, and then an old standalone novel in the first half or so, and that is the kind of thing I'm talking about not doing anymore. If I'm trying to just look real quick and see what the Novelverse books, or just the comics have done with her it's a pain in the ass to find them.--JDB (talk) 22:49, January 7, 2017 (UTC)

I used the Ro Laren example specifically because i knew it was a problem - it needs a lot of citation refinement, and its a mess.
I'm saying, under our current modus operandi, the cleaned-up article should be ordered as such (i know her chronology off the top of my head, so this is a loose map for how i would clean up the article):
  • Sidebar & introductory statement (could use more references than it has, inline works best in this statement and sidebar)
  • Biography subsection:
    • Early life subsection:
      • Episodic (canon) content about young life (citation at end of paragraph(s, full break into new paragraph)
      • Newer novel content about young life (citation at end of paragraph(s), full break into new paragraph)
    • Starfleet career subsection:
      • Episodic (canon) content about Starfleet career and downfall (citations at end of paragraphs, full break into new paragraph)
        • Ro was probably a secondary character in a number of non-canon comics and novels during this time period, they'd be interspersed chronologically with the episodic stuff
    • Maquis subsection:
      • Older (unrelated to current) novel content about Maquis (citation at end of paragraph(s), full break into new paragraph)
      • Older (non-connected) novel content about Maquis (citation at end of paragraph(s), full break into new paragraph)
    • Later career:
      • Newer novel content about her return to service (citation at end of paragraph(s), full break into new paragraph)
      • Star Trek Online (possible/alternate future content) content about her return to service (citation at end of paragraph(s), full break into new paragraph)
        • Background Note that STO isn't the definitive version of future Star Trek history, timey-wimey,etc
  • Appendices (in POV first, out of POV next, then external links)
Now, if you could briefly describe exactly what you'd like to see us do to this? I just really don't know at this point. I've described every change of source point as full stop with citation at end of paragraphs. Should these be Sub(sub)sections where the source media changes?
Are you proposing that we perform some sort of interactivity where you can hide things? Something technical? Thats the only way I can see changing the offering to the reader without reordering/removing the undesired sources (and thus breaking chronological order, which i am against). The whole point of this wiki is to list all the things - Starship Creator, FASA games, standalone - so when you suggest 'not doing that anymore' I really dont know what you mean. Putting all those source in is EXACTLY WHAT THIS WIKI IS ABOUT. we ARE NOT going to NOT DO THAT ANYMORE just so you can have a tidy little 'relaunch novels only' or 'IDW only' wiki -- Captain MKB 23:42, January 7, 2017 (UTC)

I'm not talking about taking anything out. What you mentioned up there is pretty close to what I'm talking about. My example would be:

Introduction ==

Overview of Ro Laren

Episodes ==

Information from every episode she was in or mentioned in

Comics ==

Information from every comic she was in or mentioned in

Stand Alone Novels ==

Information form every standalone novel she was in or mentioned in

Novelverse ==

Information from all of the novelverse books and comics she was in or mentioned in

Video Games ==

Information from all of the video games she was in or mentioned in

RPGs ==

Information from all of the RPGs she was mentioned in --JDB (talk) 01:33, January 8, 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not - that breaks chronological order of the biography. Her biography runs through all sorts of sources and it would make it absolutely confusing to read about her life. And again you call the novels as having their own universe. They take place in the regular Star Trek universe, not their own.
I've tried my best to slog through this, and make suggestions that could help towards the goal of sparating sources, but what you've suggested would make the articles unreadable. -- Captain MKB 05:19, January 8, 2017 (UTC)

I think the difference here is I'm not interested in when things happened overall, just when they happened within the comics, novels, ect. We seem to see things in a completely different manner. I feel things are to many inconsistencies between the different things for it to plausibly all be one universe, and that trying to force it all together is a mistake. Yeah, they all supposed to take place in the same universe as the episodes, but that doesn't mean that all of the books, comics, and games take place in the same universe as each other. In the set up I'm talking about only things would be categorized by how they where they came from, rather than when they take place. Of course I understand that the site can't be run just the way I want, but there are also a lot of people who are don't read the comics, or don't read the novels, or only play the video games and I was thinking that the set up I was talking about might appeal to those people more to them.--JDB (talk) 15:58, January 8, 2017 (UTC)

I think that by tagging/coding each paragraph as a 'block' and marking as being from 'serial novels', 'standalone novels', 'comics', 'games' etc was a great idea that was hit on during this discussion, with perhaps some further technical coding to push the idea of flipping through a user-defined source set -- making it clear exactly which things are from the novels you like or the comics you like. It's really the only middle ground i can see that would allow you to hit on the info that 'appeals' to you and pass over things marked as not being from that set -- but still allow this site to be inclusive. The site will remain inclusive to all those sources, and that's not changing. -- Captain MKB 16:13, January 8, 2017 (UTC)
Sorry peeps. Memory Beta is for all licensed Star Trek productions. Information is presented chronologically. If you want to have a novel- or comic-only wiki - well, there are a lot of letters left in the Greek alphabet. We have an extant example: STOWiki is for STO contend only. It and Memory Beta complement each other. Kind regards, -- Markonian 19:05, January 8, 2017 (UTC)
Stating that JDB is calling for "a novel- or comic-only wiki" or even talking about selectively hiding sources comes across as a deliberate misreading of this thread. The big tent of licenced Star Trek products includes some clearly delineated continuities (FASA, the current literary continuity, STO) which nevertheless contradict each other as well as standalone works which may or may not be made to fit in elsewhere on a case-by-case basis. Other wikis devoted to much more convoluted franchises have found a way to section this out, and the Jean-Luc Picard (mirror) entry shows that it can be done here, so it seems strange that someone like Captain MKB--who posted in a recent thread on this forum that "there has never been any desire to retcon anything" and has the words "Same Timeline, Different Continuity" at the top of his own user profile page--is now claiming not to understand these concepts as they apply to Star Trek tie-ins. TheAlmanac (talk) 01:20, January 9, 2017 (UTC)

OK, now I'm actually getting annoyed. I never once talked about only including novels or comics, I was just talking about making it easier to find just the information from one source if that is all you are interested. I think all of the information should still be there, I just think it might be nice to make it easier to find information from just one source if that's all you are interested. Somebody pointed out the Earth-Romulan War page on TrekBBS, and that is the kind of article I'm frustrated by. I plan on skipping over the Enterprise: The Romulan War books and going right into the Rise of the Federation books. When I do that it would be a lot easier if there was a way to just find the information from the Enterprise books without wading through the stuff from Federation: The First 150 Years, and the RPGs. I'm not saying that stuff shouldn't be in the article, I'm just saying it would be nice if there was a way to get to just the stuff I'm interested in. I know that F: TF150Y is not going to relate to the RoTF novels, so I'm not really going to be interested in reading about it then. But there might be times where I am interested in everything, so it should all be there, it would just be nice if I had the option to do it either way, instead of always having to go through everything.--JDB (talk) 00:32, January 9, 2017 (UTC)

I've suggested taking each source and assigning it some sort of divider or tag to allow you to browse our inclusive database more selectively, so you could peruse the Pocket Romulan War section of the history, and see plainly marked the 150 Years book stuff. It would allow you to go through the article with the sources more notably separated. I made this suggestion in response to your initiation of the discussion, and allow us to maintain the status quo of the wiki, which is to be inclusive.
We're not going to pull out all the 150 Years info and move it to some other location on the wiki. The wiki is inclusive and will portray a narration that is inclusive of multiple sources.
My suggestion was made not to annoy you but to respond to your suggestion that the sources be separated in a more able manner. -- Captain MKB 01:06, January 9, 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'm kind of starting to feel like you're not actually reading what I'm writing. I'm not talking about putting it in a separate section of the wiki, just in a different part of the same article. I don't know where you guys every got the idea I don't want everything in the same article, because I do, I'm just talking about setting up that article differently. It would still be all of the exact same information, even the exact same words, just in a organized differently. I guess what's confusing me about this whole situation is that I'm honestly baffled by why the site has to be set up this way, and why it my idea won't even be considered. --JDB (talk) 01:53, January 9, 2017 (UTC)

Federation: The First 150 Years is definitely a separate continuity in the same way that Dark Mirror, Spectre, Star Trek: Mirror Universe and Mirror Images are separate continuities in the Mirror Picard example. The Earth-Romulan War article is currently an incoherent mess due to the fact that it includes info from the Enterprise Relaunch novels, 150 Years, FASA and the Spaceflight Chronology in the same section. In the Bryce Shumar article, the info from 150 Years and Starfleet Year One is in separate sections, so the same should be done for the Earth-Romulan War article. --NetSpiker (talk) 07:53, January 9, 2017 (UTC)
CaptainMKB has already suggested a compromise solution: "You would say a ship was a certain class[1] and was commissioned in a certain year[1]. In this way, the reader can reference each fact with a source on a one-to-one basis." When absolutely necessary, we pull different continuities apart (ref. Mirror!Picard, Atlantis NX-05). Otherwise, we stick to chronological order. That's the solution I concurs with. (Side note: author CLB as stated on TrekBBS and his page that he includes F:150Y in the ROTF novels where they don't contradict Pocket). Kind regards, -- Markonian 09:13, January 9, 2017 (UTC)
What Christopher actually said was: Although that book’s version of the Earth-Romulan War is completely incompatible with the novels’ version, I thought it would be nice to include a nod to this aspect, at least. The current version of the article makes it look like all these incompatible events happened one after the other. --NetSpiker (talk) 10:46, January 9, 2017 (UTC)
Aye, he said the wars are incompatible, esp. WWIII and Earth-Romulan War. CLB references other content from the book anyway, e.g. in Live by the Code. Regardless, Memory Beta is chronological. Kind regards, -- Markonian 15:02, January 9, 2017 (UTC)

Cap, you keep talking about a compromise, but you're not actually addressing the issue I'm trying to bring up. I still want it to be chronological, just chronological within the source based sections. I just don't understand why you guys won't even consider the changes I'm talking about. Why does it have to be the way it's set up now. My way still has all of the exact same information down to every single paragraph, phrase, sentence, word, letter, and atom, it just would be in a different order.--JDB (talk) 17:49, January 9, 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone know Tower of the Hand? It's a A Song of Ice and Fire wiki with I think the ideal compromise solution. Articles have the ability to 'sift' content - 'I have read up to ...'. Could there be a way to add 'I only want to look at [media X]', for example, to articles? See this Tywin Lannister article - http://towerofthehand.com/reference/k/00330/index.html - as an example. --Igorlex (talk) 20:05, January 10, 2017 (UTC)

I'm not familiar, but I think a technical adaptation towards 'sifting' the data is the bes solution - data marked from a certain source set can be toggled to be hidden to reveal a version of the article which has the desired result in a readable fashion. The only problem is that this requires a technical structuring to be tested and enacted. I did suggest this above, but the discussion has become a bit convoluted, so if it seems i am becoming repetitive in my responses, it IS because i'm trying to refocus and keep focus on the subject - a way to separate sources, the title of this discussion. Ive suggested a subsectioning rubric as well. I am on board with the goals from the original forum statement, with the proviso that we remain inclusive and chronological.
Towards the point of refocusing the discussion, we cannot have commentary inserted above in between earlier comments in a non-concurrent manner as TheAlmanac has done - in fact, the confusing nature of adding discussion to this forum in a non-chronological manner speaks to the point of keeping chronological cohesiveness for both this discussion, as well as explaining why the site has to be structured with chronological narratives. Furthermore, since the above commentary did include bringing my personal user page into question as a means of inciting debate not about the issue of sources, but about my personal approach to the discussion, I have to take exception to that addition. I will entertain users making a consensus about suggested changes to the site,, but my part of the discussion where i speak to the point of keeping the wiki's structure in accordance with our established mission and modus operandi does not open the discussion towards an investigation of me or a discussion of my other forum discussions. Please discuss wiki operations and not me personally going forward - Captain MKB 07:03, January 14, 2017 (UTC)

Why do you guys keep talking about being inclusive, like I have talked about excluding certain things? I'm looking for a specific example of where I said I want certain items to be completely removed from the wiki, because I honestly have no memory of saying, or even implying that, and I'm starting to wonder if maybe you guys are reading stuff I haven't actually written. Is somebody going back and editing my posts without me noticing? Being able to just hide stuff from specific sources is close enough to what I've been talking about for me.--JDB (talk) 19:30, January 15, 2017 (UTC)

I mean inclusive as opposed to your separate-but-equal approach. Given all the solutions put forward by everyone, what's the practical consensus? Kind regards, -- Markonian 19:43, January 15, 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, I do like buttons that lets you hide stuff you aren't interested in. It's still not what I'm talking about exactly, but it's actually a real compromise that at least takes into consideration the issues I've been talking about, so that's close enough for me.


Just out of curiosity why did you guys decide on the approach you've taken, rather than something more along the lines of what I'm talking about? I guess to me the approach you guys have taken feels like trying to force the pieces from about 5 or 6 different puzzles all into one picture. Just because all of the puzzles are Star Trek related, doesn't mean they actually all make one big picture. --JDB (talk) 21:34, January 15, 2017 (UTC)

The problem is not with removing information from the wiki, but removing things from their proper place in the timeline. Ro Laren's chronological biography includes her time as a Maquis in between her Starfleet career and her postwar DS9 career - i've had it suggested that, since her Marvel, Malibu Comics and standalone novel appearances are not embraced by the 'relaunch' fans, then they are a different timeline and should be removed from her life history, marginalized, placed in a different place in the wiki.
Basically, people have suggested that separate and unequal treatment be applied to sources that do not fit the current editorial perspective of the relaunch novelists and the IDW editors.
Piecing this together like a jigsaw puzzle is a poor analogy because it implies, again, that we must make things 'fit' - it's not our job. We're here to chronicle. If that means listing that someone had two different versions of their life, we're chronicling both. We're not trying to reconcile them, make them fit, or rewriting them to satisfy your desire to see one and not the other. It's not what this is. -- 23:30, January 15, 2017 (UTC)

But by putting them in the same section you are saying that they go together. Whether you personally recognize that they aren't necessarily in line with each other or not, by putting them together it makes it look like they go together to people who might not know better, when that was not the intention when they were created. Separating things does not make them unequal, it just recognizes that they came from different media, and that they weren't actually created with the intention that they were part of the same continuity.--JDB (talk) 16:11, January 16, 2017 (UTC)

But they do go together. They're all licensed Star Trek content, they all are intended to take place in the same timeline. They were all created with the intention that they take place in the same continuity.
I think by making the more distinctive marking that they are from different media will help the reader know better, by letting them read and comprehend themselves. By separating things further, instead of presenting the reader with that choice of making full comprehension themselves, it will increase the chance that entire parts of topics will be obscured, and thus marginalized, and thus will not remain as part of an 'inclusive' atmosphere -- Captain MKB 23:30, January 16, 2017 (UTC)

Only certain things actually take place in the same timeline and continuity with each other. There is just no way to actually try and fit it all in the same timeline and continuity and to put on all together on a site like this is a bad idea, and misleading to people who don't understand how the this stuff works.--JDB (talk) 21:13, January 17, 2017 (UTC)

No, every single licensed publication is intended to take place in the Star Trek timeline, with the exception of those that take place in the altered reality of the new Star Treks and those that take place in the mirror universe. The fact that the editors of each individual media program arent on board with each other does not mean its a new timeline. The intent is always to make something that is part of the Star Trek universe
I'm a little confused because all my previous commentary indicated a willingness to change the narrative here to help the wiki be less confusing -- to be more explanatory to people who don't understand how this stuff works -- within the parameters of our mission of inclusiveness. but your every response is further criticism of the mission of this wiki. If you think its a bad idea, why are you still here arguing and antagonizing? I'd like to refer you to my earlier comment where i pointed out this isnt the wiki for you -- Captain MKB 02:45, January 18, 2017 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I just don't understand why it has to be done the way you do it, and why the way I'm the way I'm talking about is so completely out of the question. What I'm talking about does not in any go against the mission of the wiki, because the same information will still be here. --JDB (talk) 14:17, January 18, 2017 (UTC) You guys keep talking about this not being the site for me, but I don't know of any other sites that all of the same information as MB. --JDB (talk) 20:53, January 18, 2017 (UTC)

Well you're being a bit obtuse about the facts of what you're asking, because it's been explained.
In each case, it has to do with the narrative of Star Trek - it proceeds as a narrative, chronologically - the Enterprise goes from a five year mission, to a refit, to a training vessel service, to a successor vessel. Ro Laren goes from a childhood, to a Starfleet career, to a Maquis membership, to a later career. Each is a chain of events.
You've suggested we start to cut these apart, and play the different media against each other. We'd take Ro's canon career and make a narrative about it, then we'd take another media, perhaps the one of the relaunch novels that flashes back to her childhood, and depicts her later career. Now we have more pieces, her Maquis time from a standalone novel, her Maquis time from a Marvel comic, her Maquis time from a Malibu comic, her 25th century STO career, etc.
So now we've taken a chronological narrative and cut it into pieces. And in order to satisfy a reading preference, which would we put first? Canon is the backbone all licensed spinoff media are based on... but then we'd have to create a hierarchy, which would put one type of media at the forefront, and take the other media, and put them below.
Now we have a jumble. We go from Ro's episodic appearances first, then back to her childhood and her DS9 service in a same section, then another few sections that bounce back to her Maquis time? That sounds horrible.
That's what's wrong. You're talking about taking pieces out of the narrative and assigning them different places. Rather than using a logical ordering of chronology within the same universe all those stories take place in, we're putting some sources further down on the page in order to show preference to other sources.
The information will still be here, but now we have changes to the way people can access it. Standalone sources, perfectly valid, will be marginalized, exiled from full/equal inclusion to further reaches of the wiki where they won't be as accessible, just because they are from different media. That's what's wrong. That's what's out of the question. That's why I've suggested the approach I did. I like the benefits of a stricter sectioning off of media that were discussed here -- but anything more drastic than that certainly does go against the cause of inclusion for the reasons i've stated in this latest commentary -- Captain MKB 05:28, January 20, 2017 (UTC)


Captainmike, you said earlier that the mirror Picard article is arranged the way it is because each reference is from a "verifiably different continuity". Can you make a list of which continuities you consider verifiably different? --NetSpiker (talk) 11:40, January 20, 2017 (UTC)
Since we respect canon as the 'backbone', any version of the mirror universe that diverges from the 'canon' mirror universe is a special case. that is all.
Please put your comments in appropriate places - I started the 'technical' subsection to discuss format issues, not for continued discussion of continuity. Please -- Captain MKB 14:05, January 20, 2017 (UTC)

I understand that you guys are trying to put things in chronological order, but I still don't understand why it has to be that way.The episodes, books, comics, ect. are not all one narrative. They are a whole bunch of smaller narratives that have versions, often incompatible versions, of the same characters. I don't see why narrative would even matter on a site like this, all it's doing is sharing information, not telling a story. What you are talking about doing is exactly what I'm wanting to do, and it sounds great to me. And like I said before, I will gladly take some time every now and then to help put the articles together that way, and I could possibly even recruit some people from the TrekBBS to help too. And moving something down a page will not marginalize it any way, as long as it's still on the same page it's still equal IMO. Obviously we totally disagree on pretty much everything about Trek tie-ins and neither of us are going to even consider changing our minds, so this is pointless. This will probably be my last post on this subject unless something drastically changes.--JDB (talk) 20:39, January 20, 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad we have reached the last post. -- Captain MKB 04:04, January 21, 2017 (UTC)

Technical considerations[]

Right now, we have the general requirement of starting a new paragraph everytime there is a separate source at play. (if you place source citations in between sentences and don't start a new paragraph, then you are doing it wrong)

A separation regimen to further distinguish between changes in media would have to take a distinct form. I have been considering a horizontal rule, formatted perhaps as a table cell with a small text snippet that shows the media form of the following paragraph

So for sample (using a simple rule for the later insertion of the text template)


Paragraph with canon episodic narrative. (Citation to episode)

Background note about seeming contradiction with later episode.

Paragraph with canon episodic narrative. (Citation to episode)


Paragraph with standalone comic narrative. (Citation to comic)


Paragraph with canon episodic narrative. (Citation to episode)


Paragraph with relaunch novel narrative. (Citation to novel)

Paragraph with relaunch novel narrative. (Citation to novel)


Paragraph with standalone novel narrative. (Citation to novel)

Background note about possible contradiction between this source and others before and after.

Paragraph with relaunch novel narrative. (Citation to novel)

So we will see our normal system, of each piece of info followed by a citation, possible background note, and a full stop leading to new paragraph.

However each horizontal rule used here could be built up with detail, and can show, using a simple template insertion, that the media were about to delve in has a certain vintage to it. If you are trying to look for the canon and relaunch narrative, you can skip the comic and standalones. -- Captain MKB 06:17, January 20, 2017 (UTC)

More and more I find myself agreeing with a different approach than the above, more along the lines of this recent (but since undone) revision of the mirror Picard article: Jean-Luc Picard (mirror). I don't neccessarily agree that such an approach would promote the appearance that information from any source is more or less valid than any other. It just makes it easier (or easiest even, in my opinion) for anyone to find the information they seek, from the source they want. What I envision is the above, plus a tab with canon information (where applicable), plus the default (first / top-most in editor, left-most in normal page view) tab containing ALL the information as before. And while I would think that canon sources might get the second spot by default because they kinda DO trump all licensed material, they would not have to in this case. I would be fine with all tabs after the first one being in alphabetical order by the name of the source. When I've got the time, I will draw up a subpage under my username to illustrate my point better. - Bell'Orso (talk) 16:26, July 29, 2017 (UTC)

Well maybe that user should have talked to the admins first before changing the Jean-Luc Picard (mirror) page and see if they wanted to do it that way.--Typhuss999 (talk) 16:42, July 29, 2017 (UTC)

As the user who made the change, I wish to first of all apologize about making the change without consulting anyone, I was being overzealous and will try to avoid doing that in the future. Second, I think that a better way of going about seperating the sourcees would be to do what was done on Archiesonic and Wookiepedia, like how Wookiepedia seperated the "Canon/Legends" articles. The use of tabber, ideally, would be best done to seperate certain incompatible information on an otherwise mostly consistant article (such using tabber to seperate the various depictions of Mirror Pike's death). The Wikia Editor (talk) 20:19, July 29, 2017 (UTC)
The way Wookieepedia does it, it only separates canon from licensed information, kind of like combining MA and MB into one site and then separating the info into those two categories on every page again. The licensed side of it, however, is still pretty much the same as MB is now. That, imo, is not the way to do it. The tabber alternative I saw you employ on the mirror Picard page holds much more appeal to me. I have yet to draw up an example page of how exactly I envision it, though. I hope to be able to get around to that in the coming days. - Bell'Orso (talk) 21:35, July 29, 2017 (UTC)

Off topic subsection[]

I forgot to respond to this stuff down here before, so I will post in response to this.

That still doesn't address the ease of use issue I've been talking about. Having the stuff more clearly marked in the article is nice, but I would still be stuck searching though all of the article for just the few bits I'm interested in. That is what I'm trying to avoid.--JDB (talk) 01:03, January 21, 2017 (UTC)

Like i said, super sorry, but we're not going to reformat a wiki of tens of thousands of articles dues to a failure of your personal reading comprehension. I started this section for technical discussion about how to better separate the sources, which i feel is more than generous considering the tone of this discussion. -- Captain MKB 04:04, January 21, 2017 (UTC)
(sorry my Englich is not the best) To add a opinion from the outside: The German MB seperates the different Timelines / Universes / Continuitys via Tab´s in one Article, like here or here and Articles with no Tabs, because the belong to only one Continuity,have a header to show where it belongs like here. So nobody is confused by contradictory Sources and everything has its place in the Wiki. The MA-Canon is common Ground for all the "Universes" but after that every part is of its own. Versusdelyxe (talk) 09:04, January 21, 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I've noticed - that's definitely not how we're going to handle it. For the reasons I've repeatedly explained above - Captain MKB 14:10, January 21, 2017 (UTC)
Well, if your going to get this insulting then this conversation is definitely over, good bye.--JDB (talk) 14:47, January 21, 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused why you think you've been insulted, but again, considering the tone of your approach, you should be glad we've entertained the discussion this far. I've repeatedly explained the mission of this wiki, the mode of data management we encompass, and suggested a sweeping change that would address your concern.

I've started a technical subsection to start a discussion about what kind of template insertion code we can use to enact the source separation that you suggested. I'm insulted that, when i start a separate subsection to discuss a technical adaptation to wiki template code, that you and other users are placing off topic commentary in that subsection. I hope that you can learn from this mistake you've made -- Captain MKB 15:03, January 21, 2017 (UTC)

First, I have a question about the mirror universe special case thing you mentioned? Why is it considered a special case? The same reasoning you use for stuff in the prime timeline (that a source was intended to take place in a timeline with the episodes, as well as contradictory source was intended to) should apply here. Both the authors of Dark Mirror and the MU novel series intended them to take place in the mirror universe. And on the issue of you insulting JD, I'd guess that the part were you said that "super sorry" could easily be interpreted in a mocking and/or ironic tone. Heck, the whole sentence sounds like you are mocking JD's skills in reading comprehension, just because they suggested a reasonable and different approach to the topic than the one you prefer. In any case, though, I think we all agree that a lot of citations have to get clearer than they currently are (for example the first sentance from the Occupation of Bajor article, in which it is pretty much impossible to differentiate which information is from Emissary and which is from Captain's Peril.) I'd suggest using a reference system like Wookieepedia or Wikipedia use. I am not entirely sure where you'd like me to post this as you both disliked TheAlmanac's "inserting commentary between earlier comments" (and understandably so) and JD opening a new subsection , so feel free to move my comment to where ever you think it belongs :) Jinn (talk) 16:48, January 21, 2017 (UTC)


At this point, my discussion has not been taken seriously -- i've already explained the mirror universe case above and it's been ignored. I've explained to format and mission of this wiki above and it's been ignored. I've explained our policy of inclusiveness and how it precludes reformatting the wiki to resemble any other Star Wars, DC or Marvel wiki because of the flaws of 'separate but unequal' continuity conflicts that do not apply to an inclusive view of the Star Trek universe, but it has been ignored. That is why i question whether my comments have been read and comprehended - because reading comprehension would give you the answers to the question that are being re-asked, and at this point, the continued ignorance of my part of the discussion is obviously a ploy to start the type of trouble you describe. If you find my tone problematic, it is because it is reflecting the tone of how my side of this discussion has been treated. There is no better answer to this ignorance and rudeness than for me to relieve myself of the discussion, and since no one has actually discussed the desired changes to the wiki, then we are also ending that effort as we end the discussion. Good night. -- Captain MKB 17:01, January 21, 2017 (UTC)
When I was mentioning Wikipedia's and Wookieepedia's citations I only ment their use of


[1]

  1. Episode XY

this, something that you yourself supported in your first post and not for example the "Canon/Legends" seperation from Wookieepedia or the Universe system from the Marvel and DC databases. I'm sorry, I probably wasn't precise enough and that lead to a misunderstanding. On the MU, yes, of course I read your posts, but I don't get your reasoning. You said "Since we respect canon as the 'backbone', any version of the mirror universe that diverges from the 'canon' mirror universe is a special case. that is all." Maybe I'm just too incompetente to understand that statement but from my point of view that meant, "canon is the basis for the choice of what we see as in and out of continuity, but because the mirror universe is an alternate universe every source that contradicts each other can be treated as a seperate continuity because the MU is a different universe, so the contradicting novels could easily be also different universes" Was that about right? I am sorry if I simply fail to understand what you are saying and would appreciate it if you or someone else would correct me then. Jinn (talk) 17:35, January 21, 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry I did not notice this until after hitting send on my previous reply above, but let me just add here that the approach of the German MB lacks one detail that might make it worthwhile for this wiki as well. Please see my reply in the technical considerations section. - Bell'Orso (talk) 16:25, July 29, 2017 (UTC)

Addition of draft policy[]

Hi, I went ahead and wrote an editing guide about many continuity concerns addressed here. It's not a rule book or an article template, as I've said a lot of the modus operandi of editors hasnt been documented, nor do i desire writing an authoritarian policy rulebook and legislating here.

All due effort is to be taken to separate sources from different media in the body of articles... - Memory Beta:Contradictions and continuity

I'm still interested in adding a code piece that will provide an easy, templatized method of showing where we 'switch tracks' between sources that might not have compatible continuity. I'd like something technically smart, easy to use, and visually notable -- and as stated here possibly even ambitious - interactive where we can allow a reader to toggle up an abridged version of a biography that, in its longer form, would be inclusive as i've laid out. I want this to advance the wiki, but i hope also we can address the parts of the concerns that found their way here. Its been a cloud over MB for some time. That said, i havent made much progress and this apparently wasnt the place to discuss it.

I do hope the project page can explain the talking points here in regards to continuity, which is very much a separate discussion off the topic of actually separating the sources (remember the name of this forum page?). Kind regards, Captain MKB 23:16, January 26, 2017 (UTC)

Addressing issues with continuity without separating sources[]

I've tried to further the discussion at Forum:Unreliable narrator syndrome to address why the suggestions on 'source separation' here are overly simplistic and would be detrimental to the wiki.

Those who wish to make the wiki better can help to address these complex concerns and craft our approach to continuity to be beneficial to readers without resorting to dumbing Memory Beta down unacceptably -- Captain MKB 12:45, February 18, 2017 (UTC)

Picard, Picard, Data and B4[]

Mostly just doing this so this thread can get a bump. --WTRiker (talk) 08:33, February 5, 2020 (UTC)

A boilerplate template for use on subsections of articles affected by the continuities that dont seem compatible with canon is being prepared. In the interests of wiki simplicity it will probably just be one template link under the subsection heading and before the first paragraph of any subsection describing characters/events/narratives from the post-Nemesis comics/novels/games, as well as other extraneous continuities like Gold Key, Bantam, Phase II, numbered Pocket novels (certain ones), and defunct comic series. Possibly a boilerplate template before the subsection that describes canon to show the break from "the norm" into these other continuities.
The takeaway from all the previous discussions is that these continuities don't mesh with canon, so the boilerplate would book-end sections of articles that describe the contradictory stuff. Thanks for the bump. -- captainmike Site-logo.png 14:13, February 7, 2020 (UTC)
Advertisement