Greetings,[edit source]

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[edit source]

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[edit source]

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[edit source]

--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[edit source]

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, TNG novel: A Time for War, A Time for Peace 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[edit source]

When we cite a short story should we include which anthology the story comes from. For example:

({{ss|TOS|sub=Strange New Worlds II|Triptych}} = (TOS - Strange New Worlds II short story: "Triptych")

Or just do it like this?:

({{ss|TOS|Triptych}}) = (TOS short story: "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)

Citations[edit source]

Our current sourcing system does not seem well-suited to highly-sourced articles. Footnoted citations could greatly streamline the bodies of a number of articles, and enhance readability across the board. Are these acceptable?– Cicero 23:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as the user had the knowledge to make the footnotes link properly -- and to test the links to make sure they do work -- I'd be ok with it, but let's see what the other users say. -- Captain MKB 01:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I did suggest the idea a couple of years ago, but several users made a good argument, that you would be constantly moving to the bottom of the page and back up again when checking the source. While I agree it looks neater, that would be an annoyance with longer articles. However, if there were a way in which a tooltip could be displayed then I would support that. --The Doctor 07:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
After you've clicked on a reference and read it, using your back arrow should immediately (and seamlessly) move you back to the point on the page you were reading. Even with long articles, there shouldn't be a problem. There isn't even anything to load when moving between links, so the entire process is delay-free.--Cicero 20:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh I agree with you completely its something I prefer, however some people are harder to convince. --The Doctor 20:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

And I would be one of those... As the doctor mentioned, this has been suggested before, and one of the reasons it was rejected back then was the up and down thing. Yes you can easily use back and forward to zip up and down the page finding the citation info. Or you could use the system already in use throughout the entire site and have the citation next to the information, there, visible, without any need for jumping up and down the page, clicking and backwards and forwarding.

I see you've already jumped the gun and put this on the Miranda Kadohata, which is a fairly typical example of an article here, notice how the vast majority of the article consists of paragraphs with a single citation, the existing citation system performs very well with that. Yes there are the odd paragraphs with a bit of a jumble of citations, but they are a very much a minority.

There are already a few pages where the jumpy reference system is used though; year pages and crew manifests. Things that are lists, where the citation would swamp the actual information. That I agree is a good place to use them. The recent addition to the Galaxy class page's ship listing is a sensible use of the system. --8of5 23:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for using the footnote reference style before asking. I'm used to editing Wikipedia, where that style of reference is preferred, and didn't discover this site's preference until I was trying to figure out why the footnotes weren't working on Kadohata's page. (I still have trouble finding the style guide.)
I would suggest that most paragraphs have only one reference because the most articles are currently poorly cited and structured. Even in the Kadohata article, the limits of the current referencing system are clear. This short article includes several paragraphs which include information from multiple publications, and which would be significantly disrupted if the current sourcing system were used. (At least it doesn't contain any multiple-source sentences.) As we improve the referencing of the site generally, the existing style will increasingly encounter problems.--Cicero 01:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It makes a lot more sense for wikipedia to reference like that, they can cite from a Huge variety of sources that require more detailed explanation in the references section. We on the other hand cite from a relatively small selection of sources, for which we have a pretty comprehensive and established system of citation already in place (SERIES media: Title), it's concise, neat, and easy to read the source immediately. --8of5 01:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The source, certainly, but not the article. To which are we writing a guide, foremost - the licensed Star Trek universe, or the products which describe it? Footnoted, sources can be read only slightly more slowly, and cleared of inline references, articles can be read much more easily. By way of example, two random consecutive paragraphs of Data's entry (otherwise unedited, even for improvement of reference placement):
With inline references:
Data was constructed by Dr. Noonien Soong, and first activated in 2335 at the Omicron Theta colony on planet Kiron III. Unlike his "older brother," Lore, he was not given emotions, and at first was very childlike. In 2336, his early memories were wiped and replaced with the logs and journals of the colonists. Shortly after, the colony was attacked by a Crystalline Entity and Data was left deactivated on a rock shelf. (TNG episode: "Inheritance"; ST video game: Star Trek: Starship Creator; TNG novelization: Encounter at Farpoint). He was discovered on February 2nd, 2338 by the crew of the USS Tripoli and reactivated, becoming familiar with Starfleet Data entered Starfleet Academy in 2341. (TNG episode: "Datalore")
In 2343, Data completed an engineering honorarium at Utopia Planitia. A year later, he piloted the shuttle Curie from Earth to Utopia Planitia ferrying a number of Starfleet officers and one civilian, the nine year old Kathryn Janeway. After arriving, he took Janeway on a tour of the facility. (VOY novel: Mosaic) Almost thirty years later in the Delta quadrant, Janeway's chief engineer tells Pralor Automated Personnel Unit 3947 about Data, in 2372. (VOY episode: "Prototype").
With footnotes:
Data was constructed by Dr. Noonien Soong, and first activated in 2335 at the Omicron Theta colony on planet Kiron III. Unlike his "older brother," Lore, he was not given emotions, and at first was very childlike. In 2336, his early memories were wiped and replaced with the logs and journals of the colonists. Shortly after, the colony was attacked by a Crystalline Entity and Data was left deactivated on a rock shelf.[1] [2] [3] He was discovered on February 2nd, 2338 by the crew of the USS Tripoli and reactivated, becoming familiar with Starfleet Data entered Starfleet Academy in 2341. [4]
In 2343, Data completed an engineering honorarium at Utopia Planitia. A year later, he piloted the shuttle Curie from Earth to Utopia Planitia ferrying a number of Starfleet officers and one civilian, the nine year old Kathryn Janeway. After arriving, he took Janeway on a tour of the facility. [5] Almost thirty years later in the Delta quadrant, Janeway's chief engineer tells Pralor Automated Personnel Unit 3947 about Data, in 2372. [6]

I'm perfectly aware of how both systems work. And much prefer the one we already use, which is basically a variation on the Harvard system which academics have been happy to use in all sorts of work for a long time...

On a more practical note we already have a system in place, it would be disruptive to go around replacing it and/or having two systems. It’s hard enough to get some editors to cite correctly, having two systems would be a nightmare. --8of5 15:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Also consider a new user coming in; it's much easier to do inline citations than having to do the reference thing. Most people are competent writers, but asking them to be coders on top of that is a bit much in my opinion from managing several wikis... --Captain Savar 15:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I think Savar's hit the nail on the head there. The majority of us are experienced wikia users who know a fair bit of coding, but it would make the casual's head spin. I know how tough it was for me when I started. --The Doctor 16:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I actually find the most difficult part of the referencing code to be our existing link templates. The rest was straightforward enough that I learned it in a day here; our templates I'm still trying to figure out.)--Cicero 03:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

References[edit source]

English grammar[edit source]

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[edit source]

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)
A "solicitation" is more something that gets written up before the book gets to the point where the book is being viewed by the consumer. It's more like a blurb that is written by the publisher for the purpose of getting the book chosen for shelving by the bookseller. So, no, what's written directly on the book is not really a "solicitation" because the book has already been solicited, ordered, shipped and shelved by the time this is read. -- Captain MKB 00:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I'll agree with that. How about "teaser" (the term used on Wikipedia)? I think that would work in all three cases, and it is clearly an opposite of "synopsis"? (Yes, I know you're still generally opposed to two sections.) 8of5, you? --Morbus Iff 00:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with that analysis of "solicitation", I'd say the blurb on the book (be it on the back or an inside cover) is just as much a solicitation, simply to the consumer rather than the vendor...

Anywho if solicitation is out then the "description" one sounds like the best to me (I don't like "teaser" it seems a bit ambiguous, and I think it needs to be changed away from "introduction" as the blurbs are actually quite poor introductions; we should be writing our own introduction at the top of page to introduce the subject within the context of the wiki, and presenting the publisher's sales spiel purely as a block of text provided by the publisher) but I think it needs another word to clarify who's describing, either "official description" or "publisher's description". But then both of those are a bit of a mouthful... --8of5 09:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed re: "description" - it still doesn't scream out its actual meaning. I'm fine for "Publisher's description", mouthful be damned (no one is gonna be reading this crap out loud). --Morbus Iff 12:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"Chronology"[edit source]

Rather than start an edit war with Mike on Devil World I thought I'd open this up to the community at large. The issue at hand: Should their be a separate sub-section on media pages to detail purely in-universe chronological information, and if so how and where should it be placed. I know Mike isn't the only editor to use this sort of section, User:The doctor has also included it before (The Children of Kings, Doomsday World), but as part of the existing "Timeline" section, which by default normally includes the {{timeline}} template, which covers both in-universe and real world timeline information (ie. this section is already duel focused, and per recent discussions so is the entire appendices section, so if the rationale is appendices are real world info only that is flawed).

I suggest the "timeline" section can, should, and does, cover all chronology information, in-universe and real world. In those aforementioned previous discussions I have already proposed a sub-section of "publication history" (as used on Devil World apparently uncontested), and as a compromise to straight merging, suggest the "chronology" section likewise become a subsection of timeline; logically keeping all timeline information in one place. I would further suggest either sub-section should only be activated when there is more than one data point for each, ie, the book has been released more than once, and takes place in more than one time period.

For example: UK comic strips, first story arc or Avatar just require a brief note on the chronology above the template and it's covered. Having separate sections for them would be overkill (although Avatar has enough historical references to warrant a possible expansion). Where as The Children of Kings could actually use a chronology section, as just having that chronology listing above the template flows a bit funny. Finally I would like to suggest that chronology section is written with more of a real-world perspective. Taking A Singular Destiny for example; the current timeline section details all the chronological information in relation to both how it is presented within the book and when events occur in-universe. I think it would be useful to the reader to contextualise the in-universe chronology with info on the media being described, for instance, does Devil World have scenes set in 7700 BCE, flashbacks, events described? I cannot tell form the current presentation and would find the proposed chronology section far more useful if I could. --8of5 14:06, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

I see the 'timeline' to be a part of the appendices/connections area at the bottom, these sections are dominated by browser templates. the chronology section is an entry list and doesn't deserve to be mired in all that other data - the boxes really confused how it looked as evidenced by 8of5's edit to Devil World
the chronology will have descriptive texts, statements and paragraphs, all from the novel that the page is the ubject of. while the timeline is 'connections' (because it connects to other pages), the chronology is 'internal' -- that is, it lists all the time periods covered by or referenced in the novel, so it shouldn't be 'moved down' to the part connecting to other pages. and yes, Devil World references events "10,000 years ago" (i.e. circa 7700 BCE) .. obviously now, this chronology and the timeline are two different things, and the way the data is presented fits better with the references and the summary (in-universe, in the novel) than the appandices (linking to connections pages)- -- Captain MKB 16:09, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

That is utter non-sense. I realise you're endeavouring to turn my own arguments on other cases on their head, but it's no working as you're evidently blind to the vast array of items listed in the appendices section. Just look at the proposed appendices sub-section listing below! The appendices section lists all sorts of information, integral to the article, both in-universe and real world, most of it textual. Indeed that was my entire argument for making sure we keep background information above the "connections" section on in-universe pages. Media pages do not have a "connections" section, it is effectively split between timeline and related stories so it’s not as easy as lumping the navigation boxes below text, as both those sections include text information. Timeline, which by it's very name clearly covers aspects related to time (you know, like a chronology...) has one box on every page, and related stories only occasionally have any navigational boxes at all, but are normally full to the brim with descriptive text on related stories, just as is the case with the one related story noted on Devil World.

I am willing to concede there might be a place for this "chronology" section, but it is clearly a timeline related matter and should be treated as such. As I already noted, the Timeline section already deals with both in-universe and real world chronological information. Making this chronology section a sub-section of it is a logical expansion of that, just as the production history sub-section is a logical expansion. Having two sections on different parts of the same page dealing with timeline stuff is an organisational mess! --8of5 17:29, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide me a bulleted list with problems with my suggestion? I don't have time right now to read two paragraphs that start with my argument being 'utter nonsense' -- that's as far as I got. Until then, I'll continue formatting what I have been, the way I have been, and we can add my improvements to the official style guide later after everyone involved gets some better perspective about what I'm trying to do.. -- Captain MKB 22:18, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Or not if you're too lazy to argue the case for your so called "improvements". The reasons what you are doing is nonsensical are two-fold:

  1. We have a chronology section as standard on every media page already, it's called timeline. Look up the words Mike, they are the same thing! The existing timeline section as a minimum default contains the timeline navigation box which covers both in-universe and real world information. So the existing timeline section already covers the in-universe material you are adding; if you want to add it, put it there, where it belongs. Do not jumble up a logical page layout by adding what is effectively "Timeline section no. 2".
  2. More important than that: The way you are including your "Timeline section no. 2" information could be a lot more useful if it was written from a real world perspective including the context of how this information is include in the book. If it is not then why include it on the media page at all? The current text you are adding is basically what one would expect to find on a time page (a page for one of the years/centuries/periods of past history pages), and if that's the case then why duplicate? If anything, based on your current content additions, it would make more sense to add a "Chronology" sub-section to the references section and list all the relevant years as you would any other reference point. We don’t have detailed listings and descriptions of starship or character references on media pages, why should time be singled out for special treatment like this?? --8of5 22:11, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, this is way too much text for me to read still! I can't read this entire body of text. You are correct, I am far too lazy! I haven't read any of this! -- Captain MKB

Well that is most unfortunate as it was a very reasonable argument, which had you read you would hopefully have seen the error of your ways or at least offered a constructive reasoning in defence of them. Not everything can be boiled down two a miniature reply. I guess I'll just have to assume with your attitude and inability to defend your edits that you're acting as a vandal and a troll and take appropriate actions to rectify your edits when they occur until you're grown up enough to talk about them. --8of5 11:18, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to sift through the idea but thought I might weigh in a bit since this has been left on my talk page to participate. Anyway, I do think 8of5 sounded quite a bit aggressive following Captainmike's intial comment namely by calling his words ridiculous etc. Will try and read the above again in order to check the ideas proposed but I do hope we can get this matter resolved without any animosity being generated since the two of you are quite valued contributors to the wiki. Please lets be civil with one another as I hate to see the wiki suffer as a result. Also, could someone post either here an example of one proposal and the other? I think I get it but would like to compare the two. Thanks. – Darth Batrus 19:01, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Mike's work on Devil World is the most up to date version of his concept, I'll whip up how I suggest we do it momentarily. --8of5 19:38, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Version 1, chronology references are treated like any other reference and not given undue attention on the page by listing them just as links to the relevant date pages. These links could also be listed under the "Other references" section, negating the addition of an entire subsection for three links! Or, Version 2, which incorporates Mike's proposed section in full, it simply makes it a logical subsection of the existing Timeline section, negating any confusing and messy page structure by the addition. --8of5 19:50, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
This debate appears to happening both here and below, but I'll try to adress it mostly here. I believe that the chronology section can be a useful addition and can be used to flesh out additional details that may not be clear to someone reading the timeline box itself, but it has to fleshed out and I believe it should be a subsection of the Timeline section as demonstrated in 8of5's second example. Additionally, try to keep it civil guys, I realize you're in a heated argument, but I'd hate for one debate to cause a split that harms MB.--Long Live the United Earth 21:03, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
I like version 2, but I think that the timeline box should be below the chronology to be honest. It should fit into the publication history section perhaps, but the in-universe details should come before the real world box and info. -- sulfur 23:41, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
I think I like version 2 as well. Seems more detailed and "flows" (if thats the correct word) better for the article. – Darth Batrus 10:08, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

In response to Sulfur's feedback in particular, as well as Mike's original desire to move the chronology section up the page. I propose Version 3, stepping the entire timeline section up the page, and splitting the timeline template in two (which can be done without any new templates handily) so each section goes with the appropriate sub-section of timeline. This could of course remain within the appendices section, but the total timeline section was getting a bit bulky in this formatting, so I thought I'd just experiment in splitting it out. --8of5 01:06, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

I actually like most of that layout. The only "issue" I have with it is that I prefer having the timeline section in the appendices, but otherwise I like it.--Long Live the United Earth 01:24, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
I could be swayed either way on the placement, I'm much more concerned about keeping all the timeline stuff in one place, be that in or above appendices. For this particular example I don’t find taking it out of the appendices uncomfortable because the timeline section as a whole has become quite large. My only concern about that is that a lot of pages wont have nearly such a large timeline section, so wouldn’t overwhelm the appendices to the same extent, and might feel a bit lonely and pathetic floating above the appendices with nearly nothing in it.
Another danger in this approach is that for books set in a lot of time periods the very large timeline boxes that go with that would shunt the appendices section a long way down the page. Which I believe was part of the reason Mike was is so adamant the separate chronology should float above the rest, so it's not bumped down under a box. I guess it's a matter of finding the right balance; most pages don’t have huge timeline boxes, or a lot of chronology information, or even extensive appendices sections. So how would each of the possibly arrangements work on an especially average page?--8of5 02:12, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
PS, I do quite like the split timeline box idea, it means we can keep the timeline box as a simple now and next box, but by splitting it in two it becomes a less dominant feature, and the two parts can be placed right next to the appropriate text expansions of either part of the timeline section. --8of5 02:14, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
I'd say leave it in the appendices as they usually don't end up being all that long besides the timeline section anyway. And I agree, splitting the boxes works quite well.--Long Live the United Earth 02:31, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
I think that version 3 is the most sensible one of the three templates presented here. -- Captain MKB 13:56, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Four, don't forget your original proposal as shown on the Devil World page :)

So, there seems to be a majority in favour of having a chronology section. There also appears to be a majority in favour of it being a part of the timeline section. So the only point of contention remainingg is where that timeline section goes. I don't mind either option, I take it from Mike's support that he would prefer it above the appendices, while UESPA would prefer it within. Would any of the other commenters care to specify their preferred arrangement? --8of5 14:40, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Well, second most preferred, then. I would have suggested the actual arrangement of the Devil World article as being the most preferred, but I was afraid that would get me another warning for vandalism by using an arrangement that wasn't part of the official approval process of the site. I wouldn't want to upset the admin in charge of how these things are decided. -- Captain MKB 20:09, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

<rolls eyes> Not in charge, not my style guide. Simply note trying to sneak in significant formatting changes under that radar without seeing what everyone thinks about it. Hmm. --8of5 20:26, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the nature of your warning to me and your note to other admins about my continuing 'vandalism'. -- Captain MKB 20:30, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Appendices updates[edit source]

Further to this previous discussion I would like to confirm the following as the new recommended appendices arrangement before updating the style guide. All sections to be activated when appropriate for any given page. Chronology section subject to the discussion in the above section. --8of5 14:15, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Media pages
  • Background
    • Novelization
    • Comic adaptation
    • Covers
    • Non-english editions
  • Quotes
  • Related stories
  • Timeline
    • Chronology
    • Publication history
  • Images
  • External links
In-universe pages
  • Background
  • Connections
  • Appearances and references (separated into two sections where appropriate)
  • Citations
  • Apocrypha
  • External links
I disagree with your model of how to arrange this. -- Captain MKB 03:20, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Got anything more constructive to say? Like what's wrong with it exactly, how you would improve it?? --8of5 11:20, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't have time to write anything else last night, I only had stopped in briefly. I think the "chronology" section should not be a part of the appendices of story pages. The appendices are added on and provide out-of-POV background, connections to other articles, and various browser templates (also linking to other articles), and offsite links. The chronology section is a list of time periods in the story and makes much more sense being nearer to the references or summary. It's not a link point that leads away from the article, it's not a template and it's not background info - it is 'in-POV' treatment just as the summary and references are. -- Captain MKB 14:04, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Well as you will note, I already was careful to point out that the placement of the chronology section was entirely subject to the separate discussion in the section above where I have already made my case for why the chronology section should be placed in the appendices, if it exists at all.

I am however concerned by your apparent misconception as to the purposes of the appendices section. It is simply inaccurate to claim that its sole purpose is for navigation. The appendices section includes all sorts of background and other information dealing exclusively with the subject of the page, as well as how it relates to other subjects, from both real-world and in-universe perspectives. If you refer back to the original discussion (which it seems I neglected to link, I'll correct that now) you will see I listed several examples of pages with particular well developed appendices sections, and as you will see on them the sections are used to detail a lot of information from both POVs. --8of5 14:53, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

The appendices are important, but I still very much see the 'chronology' i propose as part of the main body of the article. If not where i've been locating it, then perhaps as a summary sub section. it's very much about summarizing the order of events in the story that would not be covered in the summary proper, so perhaps we could go with this direction. but i still say it would be odd to put it with the appendices timeline, as that is the 'end' of the article where we are finishing up with links to other articles, not getting deep into analysis of the story (as the summary, references and chronology do) -- Captain MKB 15:11, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

I think you are still being overly dismissive of the appendices. Yes they contain links to other articles, but they are also an integral part of any article for both in-universe and real world information. You argue for example that the references section is a more core component and more relevant, not end matter, yet you could just as easily argue that the references are in fact just a list of links to other pages? Just look at MA, they put their references section right at the bottom, below all the detailed analysis given in their background sections. I'm not suggesting we follow their arrangement, but you should realise that the appendices isn't just fluff at the end of the article, it is in fact where most of the actual analysis, rather than just listing, occurs.

In regard to the chronology section in particular, I again refer you tot he discussion in the above section where I have given two detailed arguments against the current chronology proposal. If you could read and reply to those two points you might get a better idea of where I’m coming from and be able address my concerns. --8of5 15:26, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

I have to start by dismissing your above assertion that the chronology list is a clone of the timeline box. The timeline box is very much a box. It browses between previous entries and subsequent entries, and leaves no opportunity for description of the time periods involved. I want to create a chronology list that fulfills the shortcoming of the timeline box, as well as the shortcomings of the references section and summary in dealing with these. A chronology can have ordered paragraphs describing the details.
On your more recent comment, I'm not dismissing the appendices as fluff at all, I'm saying that the chronology list I envision needs to stay nearer to like elements 'summary' and 'references' because it is an aspect for both summarization and listing links to time period references. to clump it with the other timeline would be a disservice to information that really should be covered as part of the summary and references.
the story summary will not be so descriptive that it will list every offhand comment by Data about a like occurrence '87 years ago' that is not a setting of the story nor integral to the plot, but summarizing such references is necessary for our untended year pages to grow. i feel that moving this list further away from the summary will create a disconnect. also, these events might not be summarized if they were jumps in time from the main story -- a three week gap in the middle might not be explicitly mentioned in our summary or our timeline box, but it does exist.
the references usually do not list years and time periods, but often a story will reference things relevant to thousands of years ago or 1937. Until now, this was sometimes accomplished in 'other references' ... but the timeline box wouldn't link these things if they were not a setting of the story -- i'd like to generate more links to these, but they are often an afterthought in 'other references' which wouldn't explain why millions of years ago was there. -- Captain MKB 15:50, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, what you seem to be missing is, the timeline section is not just a box, it just as default contains, at the very least. a box. There is nothing to stop it including more detailed information, indeed it really should contain said information to contextualise the easy-to-reference data given in the box.

Whether you think it a disservice or not you surely cannot deny that two sections dealing with matter of time is a bit jumbled?? You can seek to lay them out in stylistically different ways, but both the existing Timeline and the proposed Chronology section are both purely for the purposes of describing events in relation to time, so why split them? Some of your issues and arguments for this split I may have just found a solution for on your talk page about the timeline box, so I'll wait to see what you say about that there.

However I am still concerned that what you propose gives undue attention to time references over others. As I said, we don’t give detailed descriptions of all ships that appear in a novel, we just list them by name in the references section and leave that detail to the separate ship article. What is it about time that makes it so special it should get that detail on the media page when other references do not? Especially when the system you propose does not contextualise that extra information at all in regard to how it appears in the story, just gives it as straight in-universe information as you would expect to find on an in-universe page, which media pages are not. --8of5 16:15, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

I haven't missed that we could add different types info to the timeline box, I'm just saying that it doesn't strike me as a good aesthetic style choice to do so. this
On having two sections for similar topics, there are other like things that are separated, without being a bit jumbled. We have references, connections and external links all containing lists of links, but in separate sections. It is a matter of sorting the different types of information by the way it is presented, not by its topic.
As to the amount of information, you are correct, we don't define starships in detail because they each have their own article. But I'm talking about information that wouldn't be covered in another article because it is part of the summary of the story. The 2379 page won't have room for defining how many days were covered each chapter of a novel set in that year. I'm becoming more convinced that the summary is the proper place for a subsection for the chronology list. -- Captain MKB 16:31, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Every part of every page on this site contains links-a-plenty, it's how the whole thing works, so you kind of picked the lowest common denominator there – of course different bits of the page contain lots of links!

Try and step back and think of yourself as an everyday user of this site. Not an editor, just someone who come here to find information. This person doesn't want to spend a lot of time here, just find exactly what they are looking for and get on with their lives. They come to a media page, scan down the contents and this new chronology section is first time-related title they spot as it's higher up the list, so they click down to that, and oh, it tells them nothing abut when the events describe occur in the book, nothing about where the book occurs in relation to other stories and events, nothing about when the book was published in relation to other books. Oh well, I guess Memory Beta isn't as useful as I'd heard, I'll close this tab and get on with my life.

Ok that was a massive exaggeration, at least some users would take the time to hunt around the page and find the other time related section to find the information they wanted. But the point is, why should they have to? We can make it easy for our users by keeping all this timey stuff together. Or we can split it in two, and intentionally move one of those sections way up the page to disassociate it from the other time section for some reason…

Aaanyway: "The 2379 page won't have room for defining how many days were covered each chapter of a novel set in that year.", neither does what you've so far done with this chronology section. If you had included that sort of detail I could understand how this might be a useful addition to the page (wherever on the page it might land), at present the examples you have created make no reference to how each date is included in that book (what chapters, whether events occur in the narrative or are just referenced), it just lists events, which is exactly what the separate year pages are for. --8of5 17:30, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time seeing it as you do still, so I feel like we are talking in circles here. The level of detail I propose would go a little further than the individual year pages, which I feel are quite complicated. You could scroll through 2379 all day but still not reconstruct all the births, deaths, promotions, arrivals, departures and battles from a single novel taking place in that year, so it makes sense to have the more detailed and more sequenced version on the novels' page.
Since no one else seems to care enough to comment, could we just go forward without a final decision on where on the page to place this? There will be plenty of time to finalize the style guide later, and I still don't agree with the way you want to place this section I suggest, but at least the discussion has gotten you to admit it "might be a useful addition". If we move forward we can see how it works in a few articles and use them as models before we make the final decision and then craft the guide and articles to match. Unless you still want to maintain this morning's assertion that my actions of using a section that isn't in your style guide is vandalism. -- Captain MKB 19:01, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Circles indeed. However the edit you just made to Devil World already goes a long way to knocking us out of the loop as that is exactly the sort of addition I've been talking about that can possibly justify this proposed section. I suggest you continue to work on that page, finessing it as proof of your concept, then just as I described on your talk page a short time ago, seek feedback, and then once the idea is properly developed, start applying to other pages.

I cant say I'm particularly taken by your argument as to year pages though. The article on James T. Kirk is also incredibly long and complex and it would likewise take a bit of effort to find the details of Devil World should they be included on his page. Yet you are not proposing to give characters this odd special treatment it seems?? Also bare in mind aside from the few core periods of history (2260s, 2360s-70s) most year pages are in fact very short! --8of5 19:38, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, I believe the Chronology section could be useful, but should serve as a subsection of Timeline. As for the rest of your points 8of5, I'm a little shaky on the quotes section on media articles, but if you're going to have one there wouldn't it also be good to have one on the in-universe pages (only character pages of course)? Additionally, would the citations section replace the current in-article citations? or just be used as a back-up for the instances that we've had to use numbered citations before?--Long Live the United Earth 21:03, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this part of the page back on subject! The idea in general is these recommended layout provide an order for common appendices sections, so for any particular page it is unlikely we have every section listed.

Quotes: I'm not keen on having them anywhere to be honest, but a few pages have them so I felt it best to have a recommended place to put them when they do exist. I suppose the same section could be added to in-universe page if anywhere cared to populate it...

Citations is a way to have a clearly labelled section when we use the reference tag citation system on lists (as we have on a few starship pages for example). Calling it before previously it's been called "references", which conflicts with the more commonly used "appearances and references" sections. --8of5 01:06, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

On the quotes I agree, but I'd stick it into the in-universe articles as well because (I believe) I've seen quotes sections on thos articles and even if I haven't (which is possible :p) there's still a possibility to have them. As for the citations, that's what I thought you meant but I just wanted to make sure. In short: I agree with the proposal. :)--Long Live the United Earth 01:24, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
Coolies, any thoughts on where in the list the in-universe quotes section should go? --8of5 01:30, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
I'd say between the connections and appearances or between the citations and the apocrypha.--Long Live the United Earth 02:23, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

I think the former of those two, I've no objections to dumping it deep down below connections, but think it should be above really end mattery sort of stuff like appearances. --8of5 11:21, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Update[edit source]

So, best part of a week later and none of us are any the wiser as to where we're meant to put timeline information now... so I'm gunna swing the vote and say make it a separate section above appendices; it might look a bit silly on some pages but timeline is a major element so on a lot of others it can justify being split off. Plus it might even appease Mike as he was so adamant chronology information deserved special treatment.

I've made a proposal for the updated style guide incorporating the updated timeline section and the new appendices guidelines. I made one further change for the proposal, the suggested references list on media page now includes "science and technology" and "ranks and titles", as lots of users are already using these headings, or something similar, routinely on pages now, seemed like a good idea to add them in properly.

Any feedback and suggestions for additional updates before updating the style guide proper? --8of5 11:21, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

This has been sitting for a month, if there are no objections I'll update the guide proper and we can start making sure articles are formatted to the standard specified. So any objections/tweaking suggestions. --8of5 18:36, July 24, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.