I think the reference section on this article, particularly the locations section is incredibly over complicated. We are already very generous with how we arrange our references (compared to MA who lump them into a single block), so i think we need to use subdivisions sparingly and only when we have a lot of references to deal with.
With all the references from charts in this particular episode I think that is worthy of separation, but I don’t think there are enough planets, stars, shipboard locations, etc, to warrant stretching the page out to separate them. I would suggest simplifying the current arrangement down to three blocks: Locations in the episode proper, locations named on charts, and locations otherwise referenced in the episode. --8of5 19:18, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not 100% clear on what you're suggesting. Since the only locations in the episode are the Enterprise and the surface of Talos, it should be fairly elementary to clarify that everything else is either referenced on their viewscreen or was only an illusion (of those, only Hell, Orion colonies, Earth, Rigel) -- one note could explain this rather than restructuring the sorting (which doesn't seem complicated to me at all). -- Captain MKB 20:04, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, at the moment we have 10 different blocks of references (and I say block generously as a couple only have one or three references in!) for only 90 references, so that is on average 9 references per block. I don't think we even need to subdivided unless we have many many references, because that's when the sub-divisions make it much easier to find things. In this case we do indeed have quite a few location references, but most of those are neatly coming in one group, from charts and diagrams. Making subdivisions for stars, planets, area of space etc, when there are so few references to populate those sections just seems overly fussy, and spaces out the page more than necessary.
I agree 90 is quite a lot of location references, but not enough to justify 10 different subsections, so instead of:
- Referenced general locations
- Shipboard areas
- Planetary locales (Earth)
- Planetary locales (Rigel VII)
- Planets and planetoids
- Referenced planets and planetoids
- Stars and systems
- Referenced stars and systems
- Astronomical regions
- Referenced astronomical regions
We can boil all that down to
- Locations (under the general heading) - those which were in the episode, be they astronomical regions, star systems, planets or locations on planets and in the ship (which are currently spread over several sections for less than 20 references)
- Map and chart locations - All those that the only references we have from this episode are form maps and charts, which is the bulk of Earth section (minus Mojave which goes in the general locations) and a few of the star chart bits
- Other referenced locations - Hell, Vega, whatever else there is.
Which effectively means we've taken the two standard blocks, general and referenced, and added a third to reflect the unique content from this episode, the abundant content from maps. That seems like a well justified and well populated block. Having nearly a dozen blocks just for the sake of over classification does not, and is perhaps even a little cluttered. --8of5 22:12, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced it's too cluttered. We could just as well go with my suggestion and segregate the episodic locales (two real, four illusory) and leave the rest sorted as is. -- Captain MKB 22:46, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
Making the illusionary locations a section makes some sense, it's a small selection, but a distinct one. But there are more than two real locations, all the ship ones, all the space ones. We really do not need separate sections for stars, planets, and areas of space, when there are hardly any locations to put in them. They’re just all real places, illusionary place, places on charts, or referenced places. --8of5 22:55, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you're going to have to explain what you mean. Who is Loman Stocker, and what source mentions his name? -- Captain MKB 06:05, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- Cool, if I'm remembering right he's the only one named illusionary character? So I think just keep him an appeared character, as he did appear, just in an illusion (preferable to making a whole section only for one illusionary character). --8of5 11:13, October 13, 2010 (UTC)