|Ten Forward → Voyages of... pages (Reply | Watch)|
The three divided histories of the original Enterprise make sense, it has a huge history. But is it maybe unrequited for the other series ships. The USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) page has a comprehensive history on one page, and it works, maybe just having the adventures at a glance box at the bottom of the other Enterprise's, Voyager, Defiant and DS9 would be enough and the histories could just be kept on the existing ship pages just as comprehensively as they might be on the voyages of pages. -- 8of5 20:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that pages such as USS Enterprise (NCC-1701), USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D), and USS Voyager (NCC-74656) should be fairly standardized but that right now they aren't. I have just begun working on the Voyager page but I don't know what the ultimate goal is. For example, should the history portion seek to be comprehensive including canon and non-canon like the Voyager page is trying to be? Comprehensive with respect to just non-canon like Voyages of the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) (2264 to 2270)? Only include a few important incidents? As for the "adventures at a glance" box, I assume that should include everything. But in what format? The pages now are each different. Some include stardates if available (which I like) and Deep Space 9 doesn't even include "episode", "novel", etc. I think that references should be included and I think it looks better unlinked (like the 2264-2270 page) but linking looks fine too. Also, are specific section headings like "Chapter 12" needed for works in multiple timeframes? If they are in multiple timeframes, do we cite it multiple times like in the Chronology? I think these pages are important enough to the wiki that they are worth improving and worth discussing how we want them to look in the end. Jdvelasc 01:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think Voyages of the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) (2264 to 2270) and the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) are the best so far, but both need work as do the others this page talks of.
- For the article segment I think the 1071 five-year mission layout is spot on, by year then headed by stardate if know. For this segment I think only canon information which is required knowledge for non-canon on the page and very major events should be noted, and it must also be relative to the ship not the adventures of the crew (not that they don’t go hand in hand).
- For the mission logs I'd go:
- stardate: Title (series format) - subdivide if required
- And I'd say don't link the series and format in the mission log listing, and do list canon title there too. --8of5 02:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Since no one else has responded, I will do as 8of5 suggests. A few more nitpicky questions - right now in the Voyager Mission logs, I list things such as -- *Strange New Worlds I: "Fiction" (VOY Short story) -- I like the SNW heading, but this could be deleted. Right now I don't list the book numbers like "(VOY novel #14)" but of course I could easily do that. There is also the question of what to do with alternate timelines. Just place them right in the mix - maybe try to make a note of where they come from? And does anyone like the mini-edit boxes that allow users to edit say just the "2372" portion of the mission logs? This is how it is currently done on the Deep Space 9 page. I believe this should just about determine exactly how the Mission Logs (or should it be "Adventures at a Glance"?) should look. Jdvelasc 22:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd say yes for noting the anthology of miniseries first, so like this:
- stardate: Miniseries: Title (series format) - subdivide if required (alternate timeline)
With the last section used to note alternate timelines, flashbacks, holodeck reacreations, etc. As for using subheadings in the mission logs section, I'd say yes, it does make the contents list abit long at the top but is handy not to have to scroll through, another option could be to break the whole list up by year into seperate boxes, which just taking what is currently on the DS9 page looks like this:
Quite long, but does give the scroll wheel a rest. -- 8of5 23:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)