Deprecated style
A while back there was a consensus to keep the "series abbreviation" linked on EVERY occurrence of the term an episode list:
This was contrary to our link policy, which states that once a term has been linked, it should not be linked over again. People attempting to comply with the policy altered the lists to look like this:
This wasn't well recieved, its kind of unattractive, so the standard was set using the first method, which is contrary to the multiple link policy.
I've been toying with a new alternative, with the help of some style-minded archivists, where we tree the list to avoid even wasting the space to mention the series name over and over, let alone linking it:
I've added this to the policy page, I hope its well received.
Is there a bot that could help reformat all the long lists of appearances we have around here? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 18:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- There is no existing bot to do that, because it is not a standard wikipedia task. It might be possible to teach the bot to do that, but I think this style has too many exception rules, and it is more likely the bot will do harm here. On a personal note: I liked the first style, with the minor addition that all series abbreviations are excepted from the rule. -- Kobi - (Talk) 19:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Ug, I like this new style even less. (Also, Mike, I think the links look a lot better if there's a space between the colon and the quotation mark.) -- Steve 13:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
References (archived, Ten Forward)
I'd like to point out that Logan 5 has been moving references from articles into lists at the the bottom of the page (example Ferengi), while Gvsualan has been running about doing the opposite and removing reference lists (example Breen). Is one of these users in violation or is there no standard? As a regular user of MA I find I am sometimes wondering where info comes from and would therefore like to see the in-article info kept, at the same time I am also sometimes wondering which episodes a certain species has been referenced in and would therefore like to see the lists kept. Would it be difficult to simply leave both types of citing in place? Jaf 13:47, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)Jaf
- Linking from within an article is important to see where a specific bit of information came from - we're losing that information if we are just using lists at the bottom. I agree with Gvsualan here, and think that this is a part of some policy somewhere (at least we discussed this already). Double references could be a solution, although I don't know if they are necessary in all cases - let's discuss this further. -- Cid Highwind 13:53, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- Well, it's been a month Cid, I'm starting to think we are the only ones who care about references. Jaf 13:14, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf
- I have a separate issue with references. Mainly, I have been operating under the impression that when citing episode sources, one should use the following format for inline references: (TNG: "Encounter at Farpoint"). However, I've been seeing a lot of episode citations using italics, i.e. (TNG: "Encounter at Farpoint"), so much that I've even started doing it. Which way is preferred for episode citations? - Intricated 18:45, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- I see no point in double referencing a page, hence why I removed the "references" section at the bottom of various pages and limited it to appearances, as appearance can't necessarily be cited on a page as easily as one might cite a specific reference at the end of each sentence or paragraph. Additionally, we do not italicize episodes (just movies)...I argued that what you are arguing long and hard and it was nevertheless decided that it is unnecessary to do (italicizing eps). I don't know the exact talk page that was discussed, but after futher analysis of that discussion (at that time), I do think it looks better and I'm pretty sure it is the proper way to cite an episode (versus a series or movie). --Alan del Beccio 00:26, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- We do italicize in a lot of articles, that's still under discussion. --Memory 23:31, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Meta-Trek or not?
I've noticed that there are two styles of the episode references: the Picard type (TNG: "Family") and the Riker type (TNG: "Family") which is mixed with the Picard type for movies (Star Trek: Generations). This makes no sense, especially because the references are Meta-Trek and should be italicized like all other Meta-Trek comments. So the logical format will be:
- She adjusted phaser banks to emit a power beam. (TNG: "Encounter at Farpoint")
For movies:
- She adjusted phaser banks to emit a power beam. ("Star Trek: Generations")
--Memory 20:09, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Star Trek: The Next Generation is to Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country -- whereas "Family" is just the name of an episode within the series. The italicizing episodes was cast off a long time ago, and its just a matter of removing italics from the rest. Movies shouldn't be given " (quotation marks) and are italicized. This goes beyond what is and isn't meta-trek...this is citing sources. --Alan del Beccio 21:31, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, but if the sources are meta-trek, they have to be italicised like all M-T stuff that is not written in the M-T sections (e.g. "background information"). And title is title, episode or not. --Memory 21:46, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Obviously, the meta-trek rules don't apply to citing sources. And just as in the titles of short stories (ex. "The Telltale Heart", "A Rose for Emily") as compared with novels (Canterbury Tales, Robinson Crusoe), movie titles are italicized, while episode titles are "quoted." --Commodore Sixty-Four 13:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Ironically...
Ironically, I just had to fix the "punctuation inside quotes" problem...on this very page (not the Talk page). It originally read:
- Please note that, even though American English (MA's standard) recommends placing punctuation within quotation marks, episode title links are an exception: commas, semicolons and periods are outside of the quotes (when used against a linked episode or story name).
- Zefram Cochrane invented warp drive on Earth. (TOS: "Metamorphosis;" Star Trek: First Contact)
-- Commodore Sixty-Four 13:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)