Why is "sehlat" italicised? --Bp 09:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Probably because it is a word in the Vulcan language (similar to bat'leth in Klingonese).--Tim Thomason 17:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
mmmm, alright. --Bp 21:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
There seem to be more links going to Memory Beta than there are links within the article. It would make more sense to me to link to their Sehlat article only, and move those other MB links to the relevant novel links. That encourages a) people to check out our article first, and b) look to Memory Beta if they want a more detailed look at things. In addition, the Sehlat article at Mb should have links to those references anyhow, so why the duplicated effort?
If we follow this practice everywhere, we'll have scads of external links going to MB at the end of articles to discuss someone's apocryphal appearances. Can you imagine the number of links on Kirk's article for example? I mean... seriously? -- Sulfur 14:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that's a bit hyperbolic. The "blue/white" ratio in this article is pretty damned high. The article text links to our own articles on the referenced works. I don't think your Kirk analogy is particularly apt, because apocryphal information about him is pretty sparse in our article and it neatly cuts off the discussion after a few scant paragraphs. No one's going to spend time writing up his whole apocryphal biography because it's not the focus of our work here. The apocrypha section of the Kirk article, as written now, would logically call for only three links, because that's how many novels are specifically named. I think your fear of this "practice" — and I really didn't think I was starting a practice — is a little overblown. I can't see editors here letting enough apocrypha into an article to make these huge long lists. As a matter of convenience to the end user, though, it seems to me common-sensical that if one mentions novel in the article, one should link to the MA article in-line, and to the MB article in the externals.
- The issue isn't one of duplication of effort to us, but ease of use for the end user. Why make them hunt through several articles when one can just point them directly to the book that one mentioned in the first place? CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 06:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I could see the problem if the article was constantly referencing apocryphal data, but it isn't. Theres an "apocrypha" section near the end, and "external links" at the bottom, which links to more information. So long as the bulk of the article is written from a canonical point of view, and apocryphal information relegated to footnotes, and afterthoughts... what could the problem possibly be? My two cents.Hossrex 06:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it was hyperbole. There were two sentences of Apoc info. There were four external links below them. That seems more than a little overdone to me. -- Sulfur 11:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- The thing is that "External Links" are supposed to be links to off-site articles about that subject. In this case, articles about Sehlat, not articles about any novel where a Sehlat might have been mentioned in whatever minor fashion possible. BTW, Sehlat isn't even mentioned in any of the three MB novel pages at the moment. Even less reason to link to them. -- Cid Highwind 12:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- My 2 cents: I have no problem with any number of external links as long as each one makes sense, i.e, as Cid says, they link to articles about the subject. I also have no problem linking to an article not specifically about the subject, such as a novel, if that particular novel has significant content about the subject (i.e. features the subject as a major part of the novel, etc.). It appears that the links in question don't meet those criteria. -- Renegade54 13:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to mention this? Edit
Here's a first possible mention. It fits the look of a Sehlat. It's mentioned in the episode article, but not on this article.
"Not precisely, Doctor. On Vulcan, the teddy bears are alive – and they have six-inch fangs.". Spock. – Jono R 11:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Except that he calls it a teddy bear, not a Sehlat.--31dot 11:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)