There are many bits of info in star Trek which lack consistency. For example:
- In Star Trek: Voyager it says that the Breen use biological based ships like Species 8472, but in DS9 it shows metal ships flying through space.
- Damar and Weyoun argue over the climate of the Breen Homeworld, but in a previous episode Dukat states that there is a Cardassian embassy on Breen
These are just 2 examples. What should writers do about these Contradictions while wrtiting artciles?
- For #1 i would ask you: is it entirely impossible that the breen have used two different types of ships in their history? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 06:39, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- If the information is indeed contradictory, both facts should be noted, accompanied by a small note stating the contradiction. No speculation. -- Cid Highwind 11:54, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Do you think contradictory information should be noted under a specific heading such as Summary or Background Information for episodes? Is there a specific place for errors and inconsistencies? - GrilledCheese17 05:45, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps a simple footnote could be included. Then asterisks or superscript numbers can be added to the contradicted info, and then it can be explained in the stated asterisk or superscript number in the footnote. Enzo Aquarius 01:54, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- For example, with a reference to the Dominion, it could be phrased like this:
The Dominion was thousands of years old by the 24th century.
- In Episode X, the Dominion was stated to be over two-thousand years of age, however Episode Y stated that it was of an age approaching 10,000 years.
- Additionally, as I mentioned earlier, this type of format could be used:
Footnote (In title form of course, I just don't want to mess up the formatting of this area) *Though first contact was visually shown in "Broken Bow", it is mentioned in TNG that first contact with the Klingons occured Year
- Now, your idea is also great Mike, however it's not the most convenient in a large article (Unless it's done as a footnote at the end in italics of course and not in the middle of the article). Enzo Aquarius 02:12, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see why it would be inconvient. I think that this is a great way to sort it out. Tobyk777 06:09, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- It's a good solution. The tricky thing about contradictions that is often forgotten, is that characters can be lying or wrong. Jaf 13:11, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Right, that's why there is the italic writing. ;-) --Memory 18:37, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- I don't like the Wikipedia footnotes (and they seem to be controversial even on Wikipedia). Hasn't the i&i style be included in the STYLE already? If not it should, of course. -- Cid Highwind 1