No edit summary |
(the "major ship" pages) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
The three divided histories of the original Enterprise make sense, it has a huge history. But is it maybe unrequited for the other series ships. The [[USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E)]] page has a comprehensive history on one page, and it works, maybe just having the adventures at a glance box at the bottom of the other Enterprise's, Voyager, Defiant and DS9 would be enough and the histories could just be kept on the existing ship pages just as comprehensively as they might be on the voyages of pages. -- [[User:8of5|8of5]] 20:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
The three divided histories of the original Enterprise make sense, it has a huge history. But is it maybe unrequited for the other series ships. The [[USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E)]] page has a comprehensive history on one page, and it works, maybe just having the adventures at a glance box at the bottom of the other Enterprise's, Voyager, Defiant and DS9 would be enough and the histories could just be kept on the existing ship pages just as comprehensively as they might be on the voyages of pages. -- [[User:8of5|8of5]] 20:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
| + | |||
| + | I agree that pages such as [[USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)]], [[USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D)]], and [[USS Voyager (NCC-74656)]] should be fairly standardized but that right now they aren't. I have just begun working on the Voyager page but I don't know what the ultimate goal is. For example, should the history portion seek to be comprehensive including canon and non-canon like the Voyager page is trying to be? Comprehensive with respect to just non-canon like [[Voyages of the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) (2264 to 2270)]]? Only include a few important incidents? As for the "adventures at a glance" box, I assume that should include everything. But in what format? The pages now are each different. Some include stardates if available (which I like) and [[Deep Space 9]] doesn't even include "episode", "novel", etc. I think that references should be included and I think it looks better unlinked (like the [[Voyages of the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) (2264 to 2270)|2264-2270]] page) but linking looks fine too. Also, are specific section headings like "Chapter 12" needed for works in multiple timeframes? If they are in multiple timeframes, do we cite it multiple times like in the Chronology? I think these pages are important enough to the wiki that they are worth improving and worth discussing how we want them to look in the end. [[User:Jdvelasc|Jdvelasc]] 01:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 01:44, 13 February 2007
| Ten Forward → Voyages of... pages (Reply | Watch) |
The three divided histories of the original Enterprise make sense, it has a huge history. But is it maybe unrequited for the other series ships. The USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) page has a comprehensive history on one page, and it works, maybe just having the adventures at a glance box at the bottom of the other Enterprise's, Voyager, Defiant and DS9 would be enough and the histories could just be kept on the existing ship pages just as comprehensively as they might be on the voyages of pages. -- 8of5 20:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that pages such as USS Enterprise (NCC-1701), USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D), and USS Voyager (NCC-74656) should be fairly standardized but that right now they aren't. I have just begun working on the Voyager page but I don't know what the ultimate goal is. For example, should the history portion seek to be comprehensive including canon and non-canon like the Voyager page is trying to be? Comprehensive with respect to just non-canon like Voyages of the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) (2264 to 2270)? Only include a few important incidents? As for the "adventures at a glance" box, I assume that should include everything. But in what format? The pages now are each different. Some include stardates if available (which I like) and Deep Space 9 doesn't even include "episode", "novel", etc. I think that references should be included and I think it looks better unlinked (like the 2264-2270 page) but linking looks fine too. Also, are specific section headings like "Chapter 12" needed for works in multiple timeframes? If they are in multiple timeframes, do we cite it multiple times like in the Chronology? I think these pages are important enough to the wiki that they are worth improving and worth discussing how we want them to look in the end. Jdvelasc 01:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)