Bureaucrats, content-moderator, emailconfirmed, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, threadmoderator
85,404
edits
Forum:IDW Doctor Who/Star Trek crossover: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forum:IDW Doctor Who/Star Trek crossover (edit)
Revision as of 21:56, 16 February 2012
, 16 February 2012no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
: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}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">05:37: Thu 16 Feb 2012 </span> | :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}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">05:37: Thu 16 Feb 2012 </span> | ||
::Can't we link to both? | ::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''. | |||
:::But this talk of linking ''is'' a bit peripheral. This thread is really about coming up with a common approach for how we write ''our own'' articles. Since the event is still months out, we have time to agree a common stance for writing the various articles that will certainly ensue from the publication of this story. So far, it appears as though the über-strict approach is being favoured by the respondents to this thread. And I'm ''sort of'' okay with that. | |||
Certainly, I don't think the presence of Worf gives us cause to write an article about the Klingon language, nor that because we meet Data we necessarily have an article about the positronic brain or his "father". | |||
:::The danger here is going too far off the panels of the comic into what's "common knowledge" about ''Star Trek''. | |||
:::We have a similar issue all the time with historical figures, where some editors will include commonly-known facts about real people, without understanding that the DWU writer didn't get his facts right. For instance, there are differences between the DWU accounts about [[w:c:tardis:Marco Polo]] and the real [[wikipedia:Marco Polo]]. We need to ensure that we're always using what we ''know from the DWU'', not what we know from textbooks. | |||
:::On the other hand, it is a visual medium. And being shown something is ''as good as'' having it specifically named by dialogue. If, for instance, we get no rank out of, I dunno, Worf, but the artist has carefully drawn in the rank insignia, I think we can call him "Lt. Worf", or "Lt. Cdr Worf", depending on what we see. 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? See what I mean? I agree ''in principle'' that we should be literalists, but because comics are a visual medium we don't need to be told ''everything'' by dialogue. Sometimes we're shown things rather than told them. If we get a likeness of Sir Patrick and "Picard" in dialogue, is there any doubt it could be ''another'' Picard ''but'' Jean-Luc? | |||
:::I think we should agree from the outset to use the names of the characters ''as they're presented on MemBeta'', even if we don't fully get that name in the script. We need to make it easy for casual users of the site to understand whom we're talking about. | |||
:::This is going to be especially important for technology. We're just ''not'' going to get explicit dialogue for all of the standard equipment of the STU. I think that if we see a phaser, but it's not called a phaser in dialogue, we should be able to write an article about a ''phaser''. Similarly, we don't, I think, have to get a horrible line of dialogue like: "Pardon me, Doctor. Let me use this communicator to talk to my Chief Engineer." If the panel depicts Picard hitting his insignia and talking, then we have the basis for an article about a ''communicator''. Or if they go to a holodeck, we don't have to be ''told'' it's a holodeck to know that's what the article ''here'' should be titled. If we never see the holodeck, then the presence of the ''Enterprise'' is not enough to allow for an article about it. But if we see the holodeck, we don't need an explicit line of holodeck to tell us that's what it is. | |||
:::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}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">21:56: Thu 16 Feb 2012 </span> | |||
