Two pages or one?Edit

What is the rational for split this into two pages? Two-part stories without distinguishing titles (eg, part 1 & 2, issue 1 & 2, etc, rather than a separate title) are generally kept on a single page. --8of5 20:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The issues do have notations in each of their titles about being separate issues -- "Part One" and "Part II" (funny how that ended up).
I'm concerned that the references will be a mishmash if we keep them together -- I already have trouble figuring out which issue the background notes refer to -- it says "this issue's letter column" but doesn't say which issue's letter column it is referring to (and I'm reading a reprint now, without letters columns, so damned if I know which is right). I'd like to alleviate this confusion by keeping them separate articles. -- Captain MKB 20:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed (I specified that in my opening remarks...), but so do Avatar, Cloak and Dagger, Interphase, etc etc. By having them on one page it reduces what can otherwise be very repetitive pages, the references, dates, misc info is more or less the same between two parts, it's just the summary that is really clearly split in two. As you can see on Avatar defining details that are specific to one issue is quite easy, you just include that in the details of the info eg: "The first book begins with a listing of events..." - While you might not have the original issue right now that problem is easily solved by any of the members who have got or are soon to get the DVD collection of comics (I believe User:Turtletrekker has it, and mine's on the way) --8of5 21:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a somewhat defunct point now as I can confirm both notes on the letters columns do indeed refer to part 1. But if you don’t have access to the individual issues how was assuming that was the case in any way helpful? --8of5 22:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what that question means in reference to this discussion.. Thanks for looking up the refs, that -was- helpful if that's what you're asking..

I still think that two issues worth of references deserve two articles -- I've said before, I'm often confused about references in Part Is of things that are not references in Part II.. for example, there are many more starships visible in "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II" than there are in "Part I", and its important to note that those ships were lost in 2367 (when Part II took place), not 2366 (when Part I took place). These differences emphasize that two different parts of a story can have very different references to them and might need separation. -- Captain MKB 02:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree with Mike on this one, as this has always been my standpoint, although I've always been shouted down. What's wrong with the "keep it plain and simple" approach, make it easier for casual visitors to visit a single part page and have references which are used only in that issue, why should they have to disseminate. --The Doctor 05:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

My point Mike was that you moved the letters page info to part 1, when you apparently had no way to know which issue it came from. Rather than leaving it where it was at least accurate, if not specific, you risked having it in the wrong place for the sake of splitting the page. It was 50/50 and fortunately you got it in the right place, but you had no way to verify that.

And "What's wrong with the "keep it plain and simple" approach, make it easier for casual visitors to visit a single part page" indeed, why make them juggle between two articles for information on a single story. The definition of "part" is that it is a division of the whole - it is entirely reasonable and practical (one page instead of two to maintain) for us to keep that whole united - what they share (creators, background, development, a title) is generally greater than what divides them (the suffix "part" in the title, and (sometimes) a portion of the references). --8of5 10:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I thank you, sir, for looking that letter column up and I apologize if you think that there was a danger of the information being incorrect when I did a sloppy "move and copy" to separate - Sorry, sorry, sorry. Most of the info from the article was about part 1, so I did assume -- in fact, when I started, the problem I saw is that nothing from Part II was listed, and that issue had different details despite being a similar story that was part of the same storyline..
Your argument is a bit transparent in that, we could not have this type of 'simplicity' of combining articles if they had made the title different -- we would automatically split the two apart because of the different names. So you are arguing a detailed point that you basically wouldn't care about if it was under a different name. Indeed, why not combine "Homefront" and "Paradise Lost" -- they are the same story -- if you really felt as strongly as you seem about combining two parters to keep it simple, would you argue that point?
On another point, not all two parters with similar titles have all these things in common -- some two parters have different artists (look at "The Chosen" from the end of DC's second TOS run -- different artists for each issue) -- some have different page counts, too, and this has recording two issues' worth of info into a sidebar template designed to chronicle a single issue -- again, problematic. -- Captain MKB 12:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I wouldn't propose we join two differently titled pages together, because the creators have obviously made an effort to separate them, not just plonking part 1 or 2 after a single unified title. As I said, parts are a fraction of a whole, stories given more distinct titles more clearly differentiate themselves than parts; which represent a whole divided mainly for practical reasons of production and publication, reasons we don’t need to take into account to represent them. In the case of two-part episodes even Paramount joins them together sometimes, I have a DVD set with every TNG two-parter presented as a single unified story, the separation is removed entirely.

And actually (admittedly not for the comics template at this time) the sidebars do have some built in allowances for differences between parts, template:novel can specify if it's a duology at the top, and has a secondary page count field for listing of the separate number of pages. The Chosen seems an odd example as it's a three part story with three different titles - but that aside the template, even without built in secondary fields do easily allow the notation of information when it needs to be split between the two issues, see The Fallen (comic) for example - without the need to replicate the same shared information on two separated pages, not problematic, just tidy. --8of5 15:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well nobody's gonna back down on this issue so I guess we'll have to sweep it under the carpet (again!) for the time being, and work on filling out the articles. I am now the proud owner of the Complete Comics DVD and plan to do just that. --The Doctor 20:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that I thought it was odd when I first got on this wiki, but now that I'm used to it I like having the two (or more) pages combined because s many of the references are the same.--Long Live the United Earth 21:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as a matter of historical accuracy: Last time it was discussed it was actually voted on, it was a close call as there were only five votes, but it was not swept under the rug, a community decision was made... --8of5 21:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes and a vote of 3-to-2 is a massive deciding vote isn't it. This is why nothing ever gets decided around here, nobody bothers voting so nothing gets done. While UESPArules states that he supports having everything on one page, he stated that he initially found it odd when he first came to the wiki. By that very point you could concede that it is very confusing for casual visitors to the wiki. We fly in the face of what countless other wikis do (obviously our greatest counterpart is Memory Alpha). Now you could say that it makes us unique and stand-out which is good, but picture it from the stand point of a casual visitor: Maybe they've followed a link to an article from MA and find themselves lost in the very different way that we do things. Maybe if we attempted to standardize things and "harmonize" things with MA, things would go easier. Everyone will probably poo-poo this idea, but I believe this is the way forward. Its always an idea I can plow into my own Star Trek wiki anyway. --The Doctor 11:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I did describe it as "a close call"! And I don’t disagree that we have a problem when only a minority bother make their point of view known. But what can we do about that, pester every active member when a decision seems to be required? Might help, might be a bit annoying, might get us an answer though. Though it’s just a much a problem if and when we do make a decision if some members refuse to follow it!
We could concede anything or nothing from the opinion of a single person. I know that when I'm a casual viewer of MA it's repetitive and oft poorly interconnected system is plain confusing. And I know when I casually refer to "The Best of Both Worlds" I'm generally going to be talking about the whole story.
And I can't see how you could possibly find it confusing coming from MA to MB on such a link, if MA have got their links working right then both parts of a two part story will simply link out to the same page here. While that page will have external links to both Memory Alpha's pages (assuming they have one, MA don't even have separate pages for SCE ebooks, great model to follow!) --8of5 16:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't find it confusing, I'm just saying that *a* casual user may find it confusing, as UESPArules did when he first came on to the wiki. But you know what, I'm fed up of arguing with you, we're never going to agree and frankly its a waste of time and effort. --The Doctor 22:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that my confusion did come from being on MA a couple months before coming over here. I do much prefer the combined way we have it on here because there is too much redundant info on two pages.--Long Live the United Earth 23:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I always thought that the format of having the two parters on a single page being an ok forumula personally. The only problem I think is a long summary on both parts. – Darth Batrus 16:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd vote two pages. Snippets of above conversations have convinced me; the parts may not be consecutive chronologically, someone may be interested in separating the references between the two parts. Someone suggested that "part" indicates all of the parts should be gathered into a whole; I'd disagree completely. See any of the multi-novel crossovers - Invasion!, The Dominion War, Day of Honor. All of these are multipart sets, and for at least the Invasion! books, they're called "Part X"... but they all have their separate pages, and that's the way I propose. The counter might be to say that those are more than two parts, but saying "Oh, it's only Part 1 and Part 2" sets an arbitrary limit. --Captain Savar 21:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

For me, I'm not particular either way. On Memory Alpha, we've taken the tact that each part of the story is a separate issue/novel/etc, and since we're presenting comics, novels, etc as entities, not the stories, it makes sense to present them separately. Here, the emphasis strikes me toward stories than publications. Having said that, if they're going to be found on one page, there should be redirects for the separate issues or novels or what-have-you, and the sidebars should incorporate the fact that there are separate individual releases telling the story in various parts. It may also require some other things being merged such as a few of the new IDW comic book series (Intelligence Gathering, Turnaround, and Year Four: Enterprise Experiment come to mind strongly on this count...). -- Sulfur 23:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
As someone who voted for combined pages on the previous occasion, I must admit I was thinking primarily in terms of novel duologies, not comic story arcs. And since many comics contain such arcs, it's too awkward a way of keeping track of them. Especially when there are also multi-part arcs that don't use the "part 1, part 2, etc." terminology. In that light I'm more inclined to agree with separating pages while prominently linking to the related books/issues/media.--Emperorkalan 16:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Sulfur raised a good point there, and to extend it somewhat - because for us comics and novels are source stories, not such a listing of spin-off merchandise, how we treat them is very different to MA, the story is more important that the product as it were - hence other combined pages like keeping novelizations and episodes/movies on a single page.

In regards to combined pages for larger than two-part stories. There is at least one existing page like that, N-Vector. And as Sulfur suggested series like Turnaround and The Enterprise Experiment are very much parts of a single whole story - It might actually serve those sort part stories better to be on one page. Though I would be wary of going to far with that sort of thing, Intelligence Gathering for instance does not use the parts terminology, and does have separate titles, and less of on-going issue to issue story.

And to thrown in some more examples, have a look at Malibu Comics issues 26, 27, 29 and 30, they decided to split two stories between two issues, surely you can see the logic in simplifying things by having each of the stories as one page? And see the EV comic: "Cloak and Dagger", if we are to follow the titles exactly as presented then the two pages names would be "Cloak & Dagger" and "Cloak and Dagger Part 2 of 2", which one just looks/sounds odd, and two the way they give that title screams that it's one entity split in two. --8of5 04:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.