emailconfirmed, Administrators
129,644
edits
More actions
Forum:IDW Doctor Who/Star Trek crossover (edit)
Revision as of 02:15, 17 September 2019
, 17 September 2019no edit summary
No edit summary |
Shambala108 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (30 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{archive|Panopticon archives}}[[category:policy changers]] | ||
<!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | <!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | ||
__TOC__ | |||
==Early discussion== | |||
So what do we think of the announcement of the IDW DW/ST:TNG crossover? How do you think this will impact our coverage of the topic of [[Star Trek]], which is already somewhat bifurcated into an in-universe and [[Star Trek (franchise)|out-of-universe]] article? If we have to start creating articles for Worf and Troi and Riker and the lot, where will it end? Do we go with a policy that very narrowly says "only write about Star Trek topics that are actually in the story"? Or do we say, "Worf is ''evidently'' a Klingon, so therefore we need an article about Klingons" or "If it's the Enterprise-D, there ''must'' have been an Enterprise-A, -B, and -C, too?". | So what do we think of the announcement of the IDW DW/ST:TNG crossover? How do you think this will impact our coverage of the topic of [[Star Trek]], which is already somewhat bifurcated into an in-universe and [[Star Trek (franchise)|out-of-universe]] article? If we have to start creating articles for Worf and Troi and Riker and the lot, where will it end? Do we go with a policy that very narrowly says "only write about Star Trek topics that are actually in the story"? Or do we say, "Worf is ''evidently'' a Klingon, so therefore we need an article about Klingons" or "If it's the Enterprise-D, there ''must'' have been an Enterprise-A, -B, and -C, too?". | ||
| Line 10: | Line 11: | ||
Yes, of course I know we need to read this thing, but I thought it might be as well to get us all ''thinking'' about the implications of this crossover ahead of time, since it might well engender a ''lot'' of writing. | Yes, of course I know we need to read this thing, but I thought it might be as well to get us all ''thinking'' about the implications of this crossover ahead of time, since it might well engender a ''lot'' of writing. | ||
I personally think it makes sense to go for a ''super'' narrow tolerance on this one and insist upon a very literal reading of the text. Otherwise, we'll soon be hosting a mini-Star Trek wiki. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} | I personally think it makes sense to go for a ''super'' narrow tolerance on this one and insist upon a very literal reading of the text. Otherwise, we'll soon be hosting a mini-Star Trek wiki. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}01:45: Mon 13 Feb 2012 </span> | ||
:We should probably only put information that is in the crossover story into our articles. For example, if Counselor Troi uses her empathic powers, but it is never mentioned that she is half Betazoid, then we can mention that she comes from a telepathic species, and maybe mention that she is a Betazoid in the Behind the Scenes section. If Worf is directly stated to be a Klingon then we can create a Klingon page, but not add any information about the Klingons that doesn't come from the IDW story. It would be ridiculous to assume that Star Trek and Doctor Who share a universe, since Star Trek takes place in a universe where first contact with aliens was in 2063, and (apart from a few occassions) there was no contact with aliens before that point, and certainly no full scale invasions or organizations designed specifically to fight aliens. Not to mention other obvious problems, like the fact that the alien ship in Area 51 was clearly not ''Quark's Treasure'', or the fact that Star Trek has been stated to be fiction in the Whoniverse.[[User:Icecreamdif|Icecreamdif]] <sup>[[User talk:Icecreamdif|talk to me]]</sup> 04:54, February 13, 2012 (UTC) | :We should probably only put information that is in the crossover story into our articles. For example, if Counselor Troi uses her empathic powers, but it is never mentioned that she is half Betazoid, then we can mention that she comes from a telepathic species, and maybe mention that she is a Betazoid in the Behind the Scenes section. If Worf is directly stated to be a Klingon then we can create a Klingon page, but not add any information about the Klingons that doesn't come from the IDW story. It would be ridiculous to assume that Star Trek and Doctor Who share a universe, since Star Trek takes place in a universe where first contact with aliens was in 2063, and (apart from a few occassions) there was no contact with aliens before that point, and certainly no full scale invasions or organizations designed specifically to fight aliens. Not to mention other obvious problems, like the fact that the alien ship in Area 51 was clearly not ''Quark's Treasure'', or the fact that Star Trek has been stated to be fiction in the Whoniverse.[[User:Icecreamdif|Icecreamdif]] <sup>[[User talk:Icecreamdif|talk to me]]</sup> 04:54, February 13, 2012 (UTC) | ||
| Line 29: | Line 30: | ||
:::We need to set up a template, like the Wikipedia one to the Memory Alpha wiki, so we can link the pages we create to the Star Trek stuff to more detail pages at Memory Alpha - and hopefully vise-versa. [[User:Mini-mitch|MM]]/<small>[[User talk:Mini-mitch|Want to talk?]]</small> 12:14, February 13, 2012 (UTC) | :::We need to set up a template, like the Wikipedia one to the Memory Alpha wiki, so we can link the pages we create to the Star Trek stuff to more detail pages at Memory Alpha - and hopefully vise-versa. [[User:Mini-mitch|MM]]/<small>[[User talk:Mini-mitch|Want to talk?]]</small> 12:14, February 13, 2012 (UTC) | ||
::::Well, we won't want to link to MemAlpha, but MemBeta, because they'll actually ''cover'' this thing. They have a canon policy which is essentially compatible with ours, in that they accept the events of other media. In fact, I've asked [[w:c:memorybeta:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|this question at their forum]]. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} | ::::Well, we won't want to link to MemAlpha, but MemBeta, because they'll actually ''cover'' this thing. They have a canon policy which is essentially compatible with ours, in that they accept the events of other media. In fact, I've asked [[w:c:memorybeta:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|this question at their forum]]. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}14:09: Mon 13 Feb 2012 </span> | ||
::::: This isn't difficult. Memory Alpha is linking to TARDIS Index Files for Doctor Who articles in their article on the crossover, so why not just link to Memory Alpha articles in the same way? --[[User:Ben Paddon|Ben Paddon]] <sup>[[User talk:Ben Paddon|talk to me]]</sup> 22:09, February 14, 2012 (UTC) | ::::: This isn't difficult. Memory Alpha is linking to TARDIS Index Files for Doctor Who articles in their article on the crossover, so why not just link to Memory Alpha articles in the same way? --[[User:Ben Paddon|Ben Paddon]] <sup>[[User talk:Ben Paddon|talk to me]]</sup> 22:09, February 14, 2012 (UTC) | ||
:Well, Mem''Alpha'' will only have out-of-universe articles on it, because they won't consider the story canon in any way. They consider it just a piece of merchandise, not a source with which to write in-universe articles. That's very different to our approach, because we believe the comic ''is'' canon. That poses questions for how we handle the ''Star Trek'' parts of the story. Principally it forces us to consider where the line is between the STU and DWU. Put another way, we can't ''just'' create a link to MemAlpha and be done with it. Our view of our universe is ''much'' more compatible with Mem''Beta''. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} | :Well, Mem''Alpha'' will only have out-of-universe articles on it, because they won't consider the story canon in any way. They consider it just a piece of merchandise, not a source with which to write in-universe articles. That's very different to our approach, because we believe the comic ''is'' canon. That poses questions for how we handle the ''Star Trek'' parts of the story. Principally it forces us to consider where the line is between the STU and DWU. Put another way, we can't ''just'' create a link to MemAlpha and be done with it. Our view of our universe is ''much'' more compatible with Mem''Beta''. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}05:37: Thu 16 Feb 2012 </span> | ||
::Can't we link to both? {{unsigned-anon|78.9.146.201}} | ::Can't we link to both? {{unsigned-anon|78.9.146.201}} | ||
:::Well, in this instance, a link to MemBeta articles will actually be more helpful than MemAlpha ones, because MemBeta will actually attempt to cover this story as an event that actually happened to Picard and company. The MemAlpha articles won't. If we include external links, they should be ''relevant''. | :::Well, in this instance, a link to MemBeta articles will actually be more helpful than MemAlpha ones, because MemBeta will actually attempt to cover this story as an event that actually happened to Picard and company. The MemAlpha articles won't. If we include external links, they should be ''relevant''. | ||
| Line 53: | Line 54: | ||
:::If we see a Ferengi, but it's not called a Ferengi, we still have an article about Ferengi, rather than [[Unnamed alien (Insert story name here)]]. If they never name Worf's species, he's still a Klingon, because we can see he's a Klingon. See what I mean? | :::If we see a Ferengi, but it's not called a Ferengi, we still have an article about Ferengi, rather than [[Unnamed alien (Insert story name here)]]. If they never name Worf's species, he's still a Klingon, because we can see he's a Klingon. See what I mean? | ||
:::Just as there's a danger of going too far with the connections and ending up with articles about Khan and Gary 7 and the Mirror Universe and Dax, there's equally the danger of being so narrow in our interpretation that we don't accept what is given to us visually. Our article names have to be ''useful'' and searchable. I worry that we'll end up with [[Unnamed weapon (story name)]] rather than [[phaser]]. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} | :::Just as there's a danger of going too far with the connections and ending up with articles about Khan and Gary 7 and the Mirror Universe and Dax, there's equally the danger of being so narrow in our interpretation that we don't accept what is given to us visually. Our article names have to be ''useful'' and searchable. I worry that we'll end up with [[Unnamed weapon (story name)]] rather than [[phaser]]. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}21:56: Thu 16 Feb 2012 </span> | ||
::::Sounds like a sensible approach to me, although I'm not sure whether we need articles on e.g. Klingons or Ferengi or e.g. technology seen in the background. We can call Worf a Klingon in his own article without actually having an article on Klingons. [[Special:Contributions/78.9.146.201|78.9.146.201]]<sup>[[User talk:78.9.146.201#top|talk to me]]</sup> 01:13, February 17, 2012 (UTC) | ::::Sounds like a sensible approach to me, although I'm not sure whether we need articles on e.g. Klingons or Ferengi or e.g. technology seen in the background. We can call Worf a Klingon in his own article without actually having an article on Klingons. [[Special:Contributions/78.9.146.201|78.9.146.201]]<sup>[[User talk:78.9.146.201#top|talk to me]]</sup> 01:13, February 17, 2012 (UTC) | ||
| Line 59: | Line 60: | ||
:I'd just go with "android" without going into this much detail. [[Special:Contributions/78.9.146.201|78.9.146.201]]<sup>[[User talk:78.9.146.201#top|talk to me]]</sup> 09:39, February 17, 2012 (UTC) | :I'd just go with "android" without going into this much detail. [[Special:Contributions/78.9.146.201|78.9.146.201]]<sup>[[User talk:78.9.146.201#top|talk to me]]</sup> 09:39, February 17, 2012 (UTC) | ||
::But this underlines the difficulty I'm trying to highlight. We may very well not get a scene of Data saying, "Hello, I'm an android." That's likely to be knowledge which it's assumed the reader will know. Thus the mere presence of a figure that looks like Brett Spiner brings with it a myriad questions for us. It is sensible for us ''not'' to include the fact he's an android, even if he doesn't say he's an android? {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} | ::But this underlines the difficulty I'm trying to highlight. We may very well not get a scene of Data saying, "Hello, I'm an android." That's likely to be knowledge which it's assumed the reader will know. Thus the mere presence of a figure that looks like Brett Spiner brings with it a myriad questions for us. It is sensible for us ''not'' to include the fact he's an android, even if he doesn't say he's an android? {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}00:07: Sun 26 Feb 2012 </span> | ||
as someone who has never watched star trek before, i think it would start to get confusing if things that were not mentioned by name in the episode were given their own articles. although i think it would be ok to mention the name of an object like a phaser in the main article for the story, the word "phaser" should link to the article on the star trek wiki unless we are given considerable amounts of information on what it is, its name etc which probably wont be given. so, long story short, if something is mentioned in the episode, we should make an article about it, but if it is seen but given no extra information, it can be mentioned on associated pages like the episode page but should be linked to the article on the star trek wiki. [[User:Imamadmad|Imamadmad]] <sup>[[User talk:Imamadmad|talk to me]]</sup> 06:14, February 17, 2012 (UTC) | as someone who has never watched star trek before, i think it would start to get confusing if things that were not mentioned by name in the episode were given their own articles. although i think it would be ok to mention the name of an object like a phaser in the main article for the story, the word "phaser" should link to the article on the star trek wiki unless we are given considerable amounts of information on what it is, its name etc which probably wont be given. so, long story short, if something is mentioned in the episode, we should make an article about it, but if it is seen but given no extra information, it can be mentioned on associated pages like the episode page but should be linked to the article on the star trek wiki. [[User:Imamadmad|Imamadmad]] <sup>[[User talk:Imamadmad|talk to me]]</sup> 06:14, February 17, 2012 (UTC) | ||
| Line 67: | Line 68: | ||
:We can't set as a precondition to creating articles that "it might confuse people who have never watched it before". This franchise is fifty years old, with significant parts, in several media, either actually missing or practically missing. If we start worrying about whether other people have seen it, we'd never get articles like [[Andric]], [[Vogan (The Vogan Slaves)]], [[Sarah Jane (Who's Who?)]], [[Trojan War]], [[Abbot of Amboise]], and many, many others. | :We can't set as a precondition to creating articles that "it might confuse people who have never watched it before". This franchise is fifty years old, with significant parts, in several media, either actually missing or practically missing. If we start worrying about whether other people have seen it, we'd never get articles like [[Andric]], [[Vogan (The Vogan Slaves)]], [[Sarah Jane (Who's Who?)]], [[Trojan War]], [[Abbot of Amboise]], and many, many others. | ||
:Your own lack of knowledge about the STU doesn't mean that we shouldn't be able to create articles on things which are clearly depicted, but unnamed by dialogue. After all, we have many articles that are based solely on visual inspection — like [[Volkswagen Beetle]], [[HMS Teazer]], [[London Borough of Barnet]], [[:Category:real world people who appeared in archive footage|real world people who appeared in archive footage]], [[:Category:Doctor Who actors who played themselves|Doctor Who actors who played themselves]] — or aural examination, like practically the entire contents of [[:category:Songs from the real world]]. It seems to me that the better approach is to give things their proper name in the STU and then provide a "behind the scenes" note that it wasn't specifically named by the story, but that it is unmistakably that object/person/species. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} | :Your own lack of knowledge about the STU doesn't mean that we shouldn't be able to create articles on things which are clearly depicted, but unnamed by dialogue. After all, we have many articles that are based solely on visual inspection — like [[Volkswagen Beetle]], [[HMS Teazer]], [[London Borough of Barnet]], [[:Category:real world people who appeared in archive footage|real world people who appeared in archive footage]], [[:Category:Doctor Who actors who played themselves|Doctor Who actors who played themselves]] — or aural examination, like practically the entire contents of [[:category:Songs from the real world]]. It seems to me that the better approach is to give things their proper name in the STU and then provide a "behind the scenes" note that it wasn't specifically named by the story, but that it is unmistakably that object/person/species. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}16:19: Fri 17 Feb 2012 </span> | ||
::I agree with Icecreamdif (at the start or this discussion) and MM, cover what is in the comic's panels '''and only''' what is in the comic's panels. For us the rest of the ''Star Trek'' universe doesn't exist. | ::I agree with Icecreamdif (at the start or this discussion) and MM, cover what is in the comic's panels '''and only''' what is in the comic's panels. For us the rest of the ''Star Trek'' universe doesn't exist. | ||
| Line 77: | Line 78: | ||
::For major character artucles like Troi's in Icecreamdif's example, I don't think we should mention she's a Betazoid unless it's mentioned in story and we definitely shouldn't create a Betazoid article if it isn't mentioned. A link away to MemoryBeta can provide extra information like that. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 15:45, February 18, 2012 (UTC) | ::For major character artucles like Troi's in Icecreamdif's example, I don't think we should mention she's a Betazoid unless it's mentioned in story and we definitely shouldn't create a Betazoid article if it isn't mentioned. A link away to MemoryBeta can provide extra information like that. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 15:45, February 18, 2012 (UTC) | ||
:::You make a lot of good points, but I'm a bit too busy to respond to them point-by-point. I'd only throw out that [[T:WIKIFY]] disallows "significance" as a criterion for creating an article. What matters is simply ''appearance'' in a story. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} | :::You make a lot of good points, but I'm a bit too busy to respond to them point-by-point. I'd only throw out that [[T:WIKIFY]] disallows "significance" as a criterion for creating an article. What matters is simply ''appearance'' in a story. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}17:37: Sat 18 Feb 2012 </span> | ||
::::I'm standing by what I said earlier. We should only make articles based on what ever is seen or mention - and only name articles by the name they are given the the comic. | ::::I'm standing by what I said earlier. We should only make articles based on what ever is seen or mention - and only name articles by the name they are given the the comic. | ||
| Line 97: | Line 98: | ||
:This crossover story is similarly a "snapshot" of the ''Star Trek'' universe. No, we shouldn't be puttin the whole history of the Klingon Empire on to our wiki, just because we'll likely see Worf. But we shouldn't fail to call him Worf just because that word never appears in word balloon. | :This crossover story is similarly a "snapshot" of the ''Star Trek'' universe. No, we shouldn't be puttin the whole history of the Klingon Empire on to our wiki, just because we'll likely see Worf. But we shouldn't fail to call him Worf just because that word never appears in word balloon. | ||
:Moreover, this situation is ''very'' different to your typical DWU story, because it's written for ''both'' fandoms. It's a ''Doctor Who'' story that happens to have ''Star Trek'' characters in it. And it's a ''Star Trek'' story that happens to have Rory and Amy and the Eleventh Doctor in it. IDW are not going to insult ''either'' fan base by walking you through the ''basics'' of either universe. We're not going to get, ''in dialogue'', what's necessary for naming the things we see ''in a way that's useful for an encyclopedia''. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} | :Moreover, this situation is ''very'' different to your typical DWU story, because it's written for ''both'' fandoms. It's a ''Doctor Who'' story that happens to have ''Star Trek'' characters in it. And it's a ''Star Trek'' story that happens to have Rory and Amy and the Eleventh Doctor in it. IDW are not going to insult ''either'' fan base by walking you through the ''basics'' of either universe. We're not going to get, ''in dialogue'', what's necessary for naming the things we see ''in a way that's useful for an encyclopedia''. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}16:06: Tue 28 Feb 2012 </span> | ||
::It strikes me as odd: we haven't even seen the thing and we already have a movement to consider whether we should dump it as utterly disgusting. People are saying what is going to be in it. Does anyone but me think this odd? I see that some people call for dumping the whole thing on the ST wiki. Suppose their bigwigs decide to dump it here? | ::It strikes me as odd: we haven't even seen the thing and we already have a movement to consider whether we should dump it as utterly disgusting. People are saying what is going to be in it. Does anyone but me think this odd? I see that some people call for dumping the whole thing on the ST wiki. Suppose their bigwigs decide to dump it here? | ||
| Line 104: | Line 105: | ||
:: So, what do we think of the Fiftieth Anniversary show? Disappointing? [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] <sup>[[User talk:Boblipton|talk to me]]</sup> 11:26, May 31, 2012 (UTC) | :: So, what do we think of the Fiftieth Anniversary show? Disappointing? [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] <sup>[[User talk:Boblipton|talk to me]]</sup> 11:26, May 31, 2012 (UTC) | ||
:::Bob, ya realise that the first issue actually came out the day ''before'' your comment, right? And I don't think we can realistically lock the article up after the first issue has been released. The best we can do is to advise people to not go beyond what has actually been released. It's harder to do with comics than televised episodes, since the gap between instalments is a month instead of a week. | |||
:::The point of this thread was not to condemn the ST portion of this story to another wiki, but rather to try to figure out, beforehand, a general approach to how we would best include the material, based on a set of likelihoods. Nothin' wrong with advance planning. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}17:36: Fri 01 Jun 2012 </span> | |||
==Interwiki template suggestion== | ==Interwiki template suggestion== | ||
| Line 112: | Line 115: | ||
I think this could really help us keep everything lean and crossover-specific around here. As an added bonus, it'd automate the necessary interwiki back to Memory Beta. — [[User:Rob T Firefly|Rob T Firefly]] - '''[[User talk:Rob T Firefly|Δ]][[Special:Contributions/Rob T Firefly|∇]]''' - 03:18, April 2, 2012 (UTC) | I think this could really help us keep everything lean and crossover-specific around here. As an added bonus, it'd automate the necessary interwiki back to Memory Beta. — [[User:Rob T Firefly|Rob T Firefly]] - '''[[User talk:Rob T Firefly|Δ]][[Special:Contributions/Rob T Firefly|∇]]''' - 03:18, April 2, 2012 (UTC) | ||
::Well, the first issue is out, so we should probably decide what we cover. The comic featured aliens who were clearly Vulcans and Andorians, but didn't name them, so should we create pages for those species? There was also plenty of Trek technology, like phasers, so should we have pages for those? Part of it also took place on a planet called Delta, and featured aliens who were clearly Deltans, so do we make a [[Deltan]] page even if we don't have pages for Andorians and Vulcans? The TARDIS also landed in what is clearly Picard's Dixon Hill holonovel, but that will probably be addressed in the next issue.[[User:Gowron8472|Gowron8472]] <sup>[[User talk:Gowron8472|talk to me]]</sup> 04:53, May 31, 2012 (UTC) | :::We don't need a boilerplate type of template. We have {{tlx|mb}} and {{tlx|ma}} for easy in-line linkage, and {{tlx|max}} and {{tlx|mbx}} for easy bottom of page, "external links" section linkage. | ||
:::This is sufficient. Even though these templates have a default of using our pagename as the MA or MB pagename, I'm finding that our pagenames are often slightly different than theirs. So the interwiki linkage is ''semi''-automated at best. We have to call the article "[[Borg (species)|the Borg]]", whereas MA and MB can get away with "[[Borg]]". We can use [[USS Potemkin]], cause there's no other such vessel in the DWU, but the STU is littered with Potemkins, so we have to link to the [[dab]] page, "Potemkin". And so on. The best solution here is just a standard external link template where we can deviate from defaults. | |||
:::Also, we don't really need to say at the top of an article that the article is written from a DWU perspective, since that's the default condition of ''every'' in-universe article on this wiki. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}17:36: Fri 01 Jun 2012 </span> | |||
== So what do we cover after all? == | |||
Well, the first issue is out, so we should probably decide what we cover. The comic featured aliens who were clearly Vulcans and Andorians, but didn't name them, so should we create pages for those species? There was also plenty of Trek technology, like phasers, so should we have pages for those? Part of it also took place on a planet called Delta, and featured aliens who were clearly Deltans, so do we make a [[Deltan]] page even if we don't have pages for Andorians and Vulcans? The TARDIS also landed in what is clearly Picard's Dixon Hill holonovel, but that will probably be addressed in the next issue.[[User:Gowron8472|Gowron8472]] <sup>[[User talk:Gowron8472|talk to me]]</sup> 04:53, May 31, 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Are they ''clearly'' Vulcan and Andorian, though? Who's to say the dude isn't half-Vulcan? Or one-quarter Romulan? How do we know the Andorian doesn't have a pinch of Aenar in him? These are really minor characters in the background, and just an image of a species isn't enough to give us cause to start an article about them. Deltans, though, are the subject of the attack and therefore important enough to warrant an article, albeit a brief one, which has indeed been started. | |||
:I think for the moment there's absolutely no problem starting articles for things that are definitively named. And I generally don't have a problem with starting an article for something that is seen but not explicitly stated. I think we can assume, for instance, that we've seen the Starfleet insignia, even though no one's told us that it is the "Starfleet insignia". Or that we've seen a phaser in action. And that we've seen the act of assimilation. (There's a very clear shot of the assimilation tubules going into some dude's neck.) | |||
:But on ''species'' — just because the STU delights in all manner of interbreeding — I really don't feel comfortable absolutely calling someone a "Vulcan" or "Andorian" until we're told it, or until we, as in this instance, go to their homeworld. We're calling them Deltans mainly on the basis that we know we're on Delta — not because they're bald and reminiscent of Ilya. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}17:36: Fri 01 Jun 2012 </span> | |||
So, issue #2 is out, and most of the ''Next Gen'' characters have now been named and identified. Not all of them, though: Dr. Crusher is only called "Doctor", Cmdr. Riker's first name hasn't been used yet, and Counselor Troi has been called "Counselor" and "Deanna" but not "Troi". I've unprotected the articles on [[Data (Assimilation²)|Data]] and [[William Riker]], and I'm inclined to do the same for [[Beverly Crusher]], even though we don't technically know her name yet. Anyone object? Are there any other locked pages that need an admin to unlock them now? —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <sup>[[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk to me]]</sup> 03:32, June 28, 2012 (UTC) | |||
:P.S. Did we decide to what extent we can '''categorize''' the ''Next Gen'' characters based on information that's not explicitly in the comic? For example, Picard isn't identified as human; does that mean that he can't be in [[:Category:Human spacecraft captains]]? —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <sup>[[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk to me]]</sup> 03:56, June 28, 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Also, how far do we take the business of "readily identifiable characters"? I ask because in one panel there are two medical personnel who look to be {{ma|Selar|Dr. Selar}} and {{ma|Alyssa Ogawa|Nurse Ogawa}}, but they're not named as such. The likenesses are certainly good enough to identify the characters, but these are fairly minor TNG characters. Do we name them? Create articles for them? —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <sup>[[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk to me]]</sup> 04:49, June 28, 2012 (UTC) | |||
Sounds to me like uncredited extras with no lines.[[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] <sup>[[User talk:Boblipton|talk to me]]</sup> 10:44, June 28, 2012 (UTC) | |||
To expand, the attitude taken in analyzing this comic for the purposes of this wiki should be that this is a brand new venue for the Doctor, full of '''significant''' and '''insignificant''' details. Do people have real lines and actions that advance the story, or are they present just to mutter "Rhubarb, rhubarb" and sort of indicate that, you know, there are other people around here and this particular frame is composed a bit better with someone standing over there? In the former case, yes, they need a mention here. In the latter, no. They don't matter to us. I don't expect, for example, that the [[zigzag plotter]] will receive an entry over at the ST wiki, even if it shows up in a panel or three, because it doesn't matter to ST. [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] <sup>[[User talk:Boblipton|talk to me]]</sup> 12:26, June 28, 2012 (UTC) | |||
:That sounds reasonable. What about the category issue? Before this issue came out, CzechOut was removing [[:Category:24th century individuals]] from the pages of the Trek-related characters, on the grounds that we didn't yet know it was the 24th century. It seems a fairly arbitrary line to draw, if we can say that we know Riker is William Riker (even though his first name hasn't been used yet), but we can't know that he's a human from the 24th century for purposes of categorization. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <sup>[[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk to me]]</sup> 13:28, June 28, 2012 (UTC) (didn't realize I was signed out) | |||
A certain level of consistency is a good idea. Although it has not been stated yet, these are clearly ST characters from an alternative universe. Checking a couple of characters from ''[[Day of the Daleks (TV story)]]'', I see that [[Shura]] is both a 22nd century person and a person from an alternative earth (specified as ''DotD''). I expect that all the ST characters will wind up as 24th century and alternative universe (Assimililation) and see little harm in noting so right now, but this runs against '''''POLICY''''' {I'd like to do that in extra large letters and underlined too, but you get the idea} that until we actually see it in a valid source, we see nothing, we know nothing. I think it comes down to a foolish consistency being the hobgoblin of little minds and see nothing wrong in marking it now and saving time later, but there's nothing much wrong in waiting until that conclusion is made apparent to even the most block-headed, lest we be accused of '''''VIOLATING POLICY''''' are are darned to Heck.[[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] <sup>[[User talk:Boblipton|talk to me]]</sup> 20:48, June 28, 2012 (UTC) | |||
<div id=tech><div id=sfh>Admin conduct warning</div> | |||
:Bob, is there any way you might — just ''possibly'' — post in a way that is ''on point'' and doesn't, yanno, make fun of the work of other users? You were offered adminship, man. And a chance to actually affect policy in a direct way by rewriting the manual of style. You refused ''both''. After being ''quite sincerely'' offered such opportunities, it's more than a little galling to find you continuing your pointed rants against policy. | |||
:To put it bluntly, Bob: be helpful in these discussions — or be '''''quiet'''''. You are officially on notice that if you ever pull out that "hobgoblin of little minds" phrase again — or in any way denigrate other users by suggesting that they are "blockheaded", "foolish", stupid, or possessed of any other negative — it will be construed as a [[tardis:no personal attacks|personal attack]]. You can't go around telling people they have "little minds". It's just not ''nice''. And, no, the fact that you're quoting Emerson doesn't make it okay. When you divorce the statement from its "Self-Reliance" context, it just sounds '''horribly mean-spirited'''. | |||
:Your work on this wiki is valuable, Bob. We all appreciate your tireless copyediting. But when contributing to forum threads it's important that you answer the question on offer and leave the bile ''in'' the body. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}04:57: Tue 10 Jul 2012 </span> | |||
</div> | |||
In answer to [[user:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]], above, the removal of [[:category:24th century individuals]] was simply me following existing [[tardis:spoiler policy|spoiler policy]]. I wouldn't call it an "arbitrary" line to draw, as there are serious disadvantages to writing articles about narrative elements in stories that are still ongoing. It generally ''creates'' work when editors make assumptions about unfolding stories. (Silents/Silence: I'm looking' at you, punks. And ''The Pandorica Opens''. And Martha Jones in ''Don't Step on the Grass''.) In the long run, it saves time and effort to go slowly, and add things as we know them for certain. If the 24th century never gets mentioned in this story, '''they aren't 24th century individuals'''. It's a lot easier to ''wait'' for confirmation than to add that fact now, only to have to remove it later. If she's not yet Beverly Crusher, wait to create the article until she is. If Ogawa isn't named, wait until she is, or until the whole story is published, whichever comes first. ''Then'' make a determination about what to do. | |||
I personally wouldn't have unlocked [[William Riker]] (especially since he might be Thomas), and I certainly wouldn't unlock [[Beverly Crusher]]. We just need to chill a little bit on the major characters until we get full names. There's really no rush to ''any'' of this. We're not a news service. Better to get it right the first time. Any users who want to get a jump start on the page can, after all, create [[Talk:William Riker]] or [[Talk:Beverly Crusher]] and ''start'' writing the articles in a setting that will have little impact on ''other'' articles. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}04:57: Tue 10 Jul 2012 </span> | |||
:I sincerely doubt that this is Thomas Riker, not only because he's a moderately obscure character for the writers to pull out, but because the story is set during TNG's fifth season (stardate 45635.2) and Thomas Riker wasn't rescued from Nervala IV until the sixth season (stardate 46915.2). I unlocked [[William Riker]] on the principle you suggested above: | |||
::''If we know that the captain's full name is Jean-Luc Picard, but the script only calls him Picard, I think we give him his full name anyway, and then mention in the BTS note that he wasn't actually named in the script?'' | |||
:Some of this is also based on visual identification — as you yourself said, comics is a visual medium. I'm not sure what the difference is between identifying an unnamed energy weapon as a phaser and identifying the unnamed red-headed doctor of the ''Enterprise''-D (who looks like Gates McFadden) as [[Beverly Crusher]]. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <sup>[[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk to me]]</sup> 01:15, July 11, 2012 (UTC) | |||
<div id=tech> | |||
: I apologize to the other people in this discussion, but as Czechout has seen fit to raise the issue of my manners, I feel it necessary to respond. It is true I was offered a nomination to the administration of this wiki that I refused. It is true that Czechout asked me to edit the manual of style. The reasons I turned down both opportunities (assuming that I was voted in to the first) are not simple, but the major reasons I turned down the first was that I have little talent for politics and felt that, had I accepted and was voted in, that I would be bound to go along quietly in public with decisions, right or wrong. The major reason I turned down the second was that my experience with style manuals was with the ''New York Times'' manual about forty years ago, a document that was perhaps three hundred words long and my suggestion that the vast, detailed and stupefying agglomeration of mechanical issues was deleterious to the semi-creative act of writing simply and cleanly; I disagreed at such a basic level with the philosophic basis of the manual of style that the only clear way I saw of editing it was to throw out the damnable thing and replace it with "Remember someone is reading this. Write cleanly, write simply and in British English rather than American, Australian or Indian English." | |||
: I explained these matters in what was as close to a private way as available to Czechout through talk pages and thought as little about them as possible since. However, Czechout has seen fit to criticize my criticism of some of the ridiculous assertions hereabout and the reliance on blind, crude, unthinking, rules. I do not feel that by turning down these offers I have given of my right and obligation to point out that nonsense is nonsense. If Czechout feels that it is rude to point out some of the utter nonsense that is spoken, then the easiest way to deal with it is to urge people not to talk rot. | |||
: Again, I apologize to those not involved in this dispute. [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] <sup>[[User talk:Boblipton|talk to me]]</sup> 01:53, July 11, 2012 (UTC) | |||
</div> | |||
::Yeah, fair enough Josiah. I was recently reminded to consider the possibility of doppelgängers, and so u-turned on my earlier "use Jean-Luc Picard even if we only get Picard" notion. Thomas Riker ''is'' all but impossible given the setting, and who'd want to make an Evil Twin of Crusher? | |||
::Visual identification ''is'' sufficient in comics, particularly as the publishing schedule gives us ample opportunity to correct mistakes between issues. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}21:31: Mon 16 Jul 2012 </span> | |||
==A question of categorization== | |||
Yesterday, Memnarc added [[:Category:Mutter's Spiral species]] to [[Deltan]], [[Klingon]] and [[Dai-ai]], and [[:Category:Stories set in Mutter's Spiral]] to [[Assimilation² (comic story)]]. I [[User talk:Memnarc#Mutter's Spiral|pointed out]] that although the story is set in the Milky Way, aside from the first issue bits in Ancient Egypt, it seems to be set in the ''Star Trek'' version of the Milky Way — which isn't called Mutter's Spiral. We don't yet know the exact mechanism of the crossover, but it very much looks as if the Doctor and the Cybermen have been inserted into the ''Star Trek'' universe, rather than the two universes being completely smushed into one. (We haven't seen a Judoon in a Starfleet uniform or anything like that.) | |||
So the question is, '''is''' this set in Mutter's Spiral? Are the Klingons a Mutter's Spiral species, or not? My inclination is to say "no" for the time being, at least until we learn more about the nature of the crossover (which we may well do in the next issue, given the appearance of Guinan). What do others think? —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] [[User talk:Josiah Rowe|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 02:48, July 23, 2012 (UTC) | |||
:I'm all for waiting and seeing whether more light is shed on this in the actual comic. I probably jumped the gun on this one. [[User:Memnarc|Memnarc]] [[User talk:Memnarc|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 04:26, July 23, 2012 (UTC) | |||
::I think we really need to wait. | |||
::Really it would have been preferable to wait for the whole story to have been published before creating anything as we've only got 3/8 of the story at the moment. | |||
::I suspect at the half way point there'll be some explanation of the wobbly dimensional thing the TARDIS went through in the first issue. But until then we need to wait and hold off from creating any big categories or recategorising things as we're working with less than half the information. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 04:51, July 23, 2012 (UTC) | |||
I've removed the Mutter's Spiral categories from those four articles. Now, the Ancient Egypt bits in issue #1 are set on Earth of the ''Doctor Who'' universe, which is in Mutter's Spiral, but I reckon that's taken care of by [[:Category:Stories set in Egypt]] (which is under the Mutter's Spiral category in the category tree). —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] [[User talk:Josiah Rowe|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:26, July 23, 2012 (UTC) | |||
===Unnecessary links to Memory Beta=== | |||
I've noticed that [[User:Captainmike]], an admin at ''Memory Beta'', is adding the [[:Template:mbx|"mbx" external link template]] to the [[:Category:Elements|element]] pages. Isn't this template only for ''Star Trek'' universe articles like [[Jean-Luc Picard]] and [[Borg (species)|the Borg]]? Should the template be taken off the irrelevant pages? --[[User:MrThermomanPreacher|MrThermomanPreacher]] [[User talk:MrThermomanPreacher|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:24, August 7, 2012 (UTC) | |||
:I'd think so. Unless an element is mentioned in the ''Star Trek'' crossover, or with some other ''Star Trek''-related context, I don't see why the link to Memory Beta is relevant. It makes sense to have the {{tl|mbx}} on [[dilithium]], but not [[lead]]. Captainmike also added {{tl|mbx}} to [[TARDIS]], which seems a bit more defensible to me, since that article talks about appearances of something specifically ''Doctor Who''-related in ''Star Trek'' fiction. | |||
:That said, I've invited Captainmike to join this conversation, so he can explain his reasoning. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] [[User talk:Josiah Rowe|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 02:35, August 8, 2012 (UTC) | |||
::I don't think the links are unnecessary. At the end of this crossover we are going to have dozens of identical topics between the two wikis, and it certainly is interesting to see whether or not one franchise has a different interpretation of a topic that is common between them. Certainly there will be a limit - beside the basics like elements, there are going to be tons of ways that the franchises are so different that this won't be possible - Dr. Who often travels in different galaxies, none of which will be visited in Star Trek, for example. It's relevant in that our wikis are working together and the links allow users to see what the other wiki has going on for the identical topics. | |||
::Of course, you've called this section "unnecessary links" so i'm not sure why you would seek out a conversation to me. seems like minds have been made up already. -- [[user:captainmike|Captain MKB]] 21:30, August 8, 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Not necessarily. The section heading reflects Thermoman's opinion, and while my initial response was to agree with Thermoman, I'm willing to be persuaded — which is why I asked for you to explain. I guess the question is whether we need to have Memory Beta links for every topic which exists in both universes. While I certainly think the links are useful for topics like [[Jean-Luc Picard]] and [[TARDIS]], I'm not clear on why a reader here would be interested in the treatment of [[lead]] in the ''Star Trek'' universe, or vice-versa. Can you elaborate a bit on that? —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] [[User talk:Josiah Rowe|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:18, August 9, 2012 (UTC) | |||
::I think the {{tl|mbx}} should only be on articles that have appeared in the work where they two universes come together. Which at the moment is only ''Assimilation^2''. | |||
::I don't deny that it's interesting how the two universes are linked and what's shared. But that should be through stuff that actually exists in the work, not just by stuff that happens to exist in both universes/on both wikis. | |||
::The external link on [[Lead]] doesn't enlighten further on its ''Doctor Who'' universe existence or connection to the ''Doctor Who'' universe. | |||
::I think this link between the DW/ST universe and the stuff that it shares and how the two franchises are different (or similar) would be best dealt with on an overview page for this crossover, not on interlinking various random pages. | |||
::I still think it's too early to be adding these links which will be tiresome to rollback, if at a later date (say next issue) we actually get some answers about how this crossed universes works. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 14:47, August 9, 2012 (UTC) | |||