If you'd like to learn more about working with the nuts and bolts of Memory Beta, here are a few links that you might want to check out:
- Manual of Style: Please be sure to read this before contributing, so you know how to accurately cite your sources, and search the site to make sure the article you want to make doesn't already exist.
- Policies and Guidelines: For a list of the policies and guidelines that we adhere to on Memory Beta.
- Wanted pages: For a list of pages we want most, although any contributions you make are greatly appreciated!
One other suggestion: If you're going to make comments on talk pages or make other sorts of comments, please be sure to sign them with four tildes (~~~~) to paste in your user name and the date/time of the comment.
If you have any questions, please feel free to post them in a member's talk page or the community portal. Thanks, and once again, welcome to Memory Beta!
Hi. I'm not sure that it's a good idea, fragmenting the Jean-Luc Picard article they way you're doing. You're taking things out of chronological order, which doesn't make any sense to me. Why is one continuity important enough to remain in his 'history' but another one is less important and gets moved to the bottom? -- Captain MKB 11:54, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
My main reason is that the continuities which formed one mass in the Jean-Luc Picard entry did not cohese well together - that though they were set out in a chronology, the entries confusingly represented separate chronologies (and separate attempts at characterisation and plotting) that stem from the same single set of sources - that is the films and television programs of Star Trek. I have been wanting to edit the page a long time(and indeed many others) due to my personal wish for clarity of information. Obviously the Path to 2404 (and its associated Mangels novel) is different from the novel continuity, just as Countdown seems unlikely to twine with Pocket too. I thought that the fragmentation of information would be beneficial for someone coming from a single licensed source.
When I first read the page, in part as I progressed through the Relaunch over the last year, I spent a lot of time reading conflicting strands of information that did met fit together well. That is the legacy of twenty-two years of licensed products that come from different groups, be it Pocket under different editorial regimes, Marvel or other comic book companies, various computer game development teams and the like. As a reader of Memory Beta, I wanted to understand the novel continuity first, then I appreciated or disagreed with the other continuities. However, thematically the present/old structure of the Picard entry was schizophrenic and could not appease any particular audience, due to this conflict of books and games and comics under different editorial mandates. As an example, in reading Destiny or any other of the relaunch, I wanted to understand what those authors were working from as their base. Therefore, conflicting stories involving the Borg in Armada or Legacy for example - or their absense in the Path to 2404 or the Countdown backstory - do not present an accurate biography of the Picard in Mack's books, therefore making it harder to understand the characterisation, plotting or even point of the novels.
I must admit I had a preference - that the books are the most coherent representation of a continued Star Trek universe. You are right to identify the fault in my editing, that the 'alternate' title disenfranchised the interpretations of the various games to an extent. However, I did so because of the size and weight of the novel line's relative internal coherence and literary validity. Due to the less sustained nature of each game story and even Countdown and 2404, I feel they deserve illustration in separate sections within an article (as is occasionally done with the Shatnerverse), or even in separate articles wholly. This is again, because I believe each vague continuity exists in bubbles, apart from other source types not simply canonically, but also thematically.
I therefore feel that the biographies and other entries of Memory Beta should serve to illustrate the plethora of information about Star Trek's licensed products - but not in one incongruous, anachronistic and often absurd narrative. Entries should make clear where possible the individual chronologies that illustrate separate products' developments of characters, societies and objects of the ST universe.
You are right, chronology is important - but like any good history, it has to be clear, acknowledging that separate sources or strands can not mesh well together without a loss of some (or even all) intellectual coherence. In ST, for example, the Return cannot precede First Contact without draining the latter of thematic - as well as plot and story - points, such as the treatment of Picard's nihilistic Moby Dick hatred of the Borg and the uniqueness of the Borg threat that had died away since Best of Both Worlds.
Anyway, thanks for plying your thoughts at me. :) Igorlex 14:28, June 8, 2010
Please ensure that you add the appropriate categories to articles you create. Also, do not create articles with special characters in the name, such as ’. Please use the standard ' instead. Thanks. -- sulfur (talk) 19:08, January 25, 2014 (UTC)
Hey - sure thing! --Igorlex (talk) 19:16, January 25, 2014 (UTC)
"Hey sure thing" - stop creating articles without categories! that wasnt a temporary request, you're expected to do it all the time if you intend to edit here - Captain MKB 14:38, August 3, 2014 (UTC)
Hey, sorry! I had forgotten, will do from now on. Igorlex (talk) 14:51, August 3, 2014 (UTC)
Please note, it is not appropriate to upload images without information linking to the source and copyrighted publisher - i'm afraid cramming the info into the file name is not appropriate - you have to create links in the image description page - captainmike 13:35, June 4, 2017 (UTC)