Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek

Add discussion
Active discussions
WikiProject Star Trek (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Book referencesEdit

Please note that user User:Sundayclose is removing references from various Star Trek episode articles.[1]
Deleting references seems counter-productive, whatever point about citation style Sundayclose is trying to make.
See also:
[2] Dax (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode) ‎
[3] The Passenger (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)
[4] The Nagus ‎
[5] Vortex (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)
etc...contribs list at offset for 2021-11-08
I thought I was more-or-less following the example of existing Star Trek articles. (For example Past Prologue lists several books after the other references.) I know I could use the simpler more common referencing style but that gets messy when repeatedly referencing individual pages from the same book over and over. I do not want to argue about reference style. I am going to pause until it becomes a bit clearer how the people of Project Star Trek would prefer repeated references to the same book to be done. -- 109.79.178.97 (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I've been a Star Trek fan since the first episode of TOS in 1966, so I don't take problems in ST articles lightly. First of all, I am not "trying to make" a style for the article. The style for that article is already well established. I am trying to keep one style in the article rather than mixing styles, per MOS:VAR. For the benefit of other editors, here is an exchange of comments I had previously with IP 109.79.178.97 on the article's talk page in an effort to help them understand the problem. But they are not willing to accept Wikipedia's manual of style, specifically for citations and references:

(beginning of previous comments)
This article contained a footnote referring a book called the Nitpickers guide. This was not an inline reference so it was not entirely clear where in the article this book reference was being used. It is not the most common reference style but many of the Star Trek episode articles use this style of reference and I've seen it in a few other places too. It is a bit more complicated and I might not be getting it exactly right but it seems like a good way to reference books, especially when many different pages are being referenced.

Sidenote: It was not clear why The Nitpickers Guide was added in the first place[1](way back in 2007) but it doesn't seem to have been added to support anything specific. -- 109.79.178.97 (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC) I added a reference to another book The Deep Space Nine Companion (Erdmann). The reference was to Google books which includes extensive previews. The previews include several pages of that book that are relevant to the production of this episode. I added the book reference but I did not immediately add production details for this episode. An editor unfamiliar with this style of reference deleted both book references. I restored the references and then made use of the book reference to start the Production section. The editor again deleted both of the book references,[2] apparently not having seen that the book reference was now needed by the production section. If editors feel it is necessary to discuss the citation style and use another style WP:STYLEVAR then it would be helpful if they lead by example and reformat the references in the way they think is more appropriate but deleting the references entirely does not improve the article.

Please restore the book references[3]. -- 109.79.178.97 (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:STYLEVAR does not support your argument; in fact, it opposes it: "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change". You do not have a substantial reason to change the style that is already well established in the article just because you like it. Read WP:MOS and WP:CITE. You need to use the style consistent with the way the article is already written, regardless of what's in other articles. Styles can differ across articles, but not within articles. In this case, if you want a reference in List of References, cite it in the article and it will appear in the list of references. If you simply want a link to the websites (and if there is a good reason to do so), it can go in the External Links section. It's not a matter of me being "unfamiliar" with anything; it's following Wikipedia's style. So, no, I will not restore your inappropriate edits. You clearly have not read the links I have provided. It is your responsibility to read and abide by them. Sundayclose (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:V. The book reference is needed to support the Production section. If you want to done in a particular way it is not clear how deleting the book references helps achieve that end. I point to WP:STYLEVAR not to support an argument but because I do not want to argue about styles all. This article already included one book reference and I thought I was following the existing style. (See also Past Prologue which includes a list of books after the references.) -- 109.79.178.97 (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You are not following the existing style for this article. Another article may not use the same style, and in fact Past Prologue uses a different style. What is it that you don't understand about: You can't mix styles within the same article? I don't think I can state this any more clearly: If you cite the source in the article properly, the citation will show up in the Reference List. Is the problem here that you don't know how to cite, or is it that you don't want to cite? If you don't know how to cite, AGAIN, read WP:CITE. If you need more detailed help, place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will come along to help. But don't ask for help if you're expecting someone to tell you that you can mix styles within the same article. It's pointless and a waste of time to complain about how you can't do it the way you want to, or someone reverted your edits, or other articles do it the way you want it, or you haven't taken a few minutes to actually read WP:CITE. If you ask for help, ask how to cite a source so that it is placed in the Reference List. If the problem is simply that you don't want to cite and don't care about Wikipedia's rules of writing style, then this is not the place for you. Sundayclose (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
(end of previous comments)

This IP simply refuses to accept that a style cannot be changed within an article, even if other articles differ in style. I have serious doubts that the IP has read WP:MOS or WP:CITE. The only way to accomplish changing the style in one Star Trek article is to get a clear consensus to set a consistent style in all Star Trek articles (or at least all articles for a specific series such as DS9), and then (and here's the big problem) change every Star Trek article to conform to that style. If someone wants to take on that massive project, be my guest. I'm having a hard enough time getting this IP to maintain consistency in just one article. Sundayclose (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Because of fractious disputes about citation and English styles, there's not really any way to have a consistent style across all Star Trek articles—you'd have to go to the talk page of each one and propose changes. Realistically, you can change it as much as you want and if no one complains, then it's not a problem, but obvious that's not the case here. You should follow whatever the original article's citation scheme was to start with.
If a citation is lose (unattached inline) and it's been there randomly for years, I don't think it makes much sense to keep it, period. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 03:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I completely agree that the style that is already established for citing should be followed. It would be very simple to cite the source somewhere in the article, then it would appear in the References section. That's what I can't get the IP to understand (or they don't want to understand). Sundayclose (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Deleting references. Styling references. I'm talking in one direction, Sundayclose is talking in a different direction. The guidelines WP:MOS and WP:CITE are long and talk about many different things, but the part of WP:CITE that seems relevant here is WP:CITESHORT, which resembles the existing formatting I was trying to follow for book references.
User:David Fuchs several articles included unattached references to "The Nitpickers Guide" (they all seem to have been added in 2007 and as a general reference not to cover any specific facts), and deleting those is somewhat understandable. But in an article like Move Along Home where I used a refence to the book "The Deep Space Nine Companion" to start the Production section[6] it is not clear why someone would delete the reference to that book, leaving the shortlinks "Edrmann and Block (2000)" without the corresponding long full book reference. -- 109.79.169.117 (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

IP 109, the article does not use WP:CITESHORT, which has a "Notes" section where the citations from the article show up and a "References" section that gives details about the sources that are cited in the article. You are ignoring and (have been repeatedly ignoring) the more salient part of WP:MOS, which I have given you more than once: "The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that 'When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change.'". The Arbitration Committee has binding authority over guidelines, policies, you, me, and everyone else who edits Wikipedia. So, again, you can't change the article's style without consensus. Once again, you want to mix styles in an article, and that is quite contrary to WP:MOS. As you have been told, it would be extremely simple to get the source in the References section: cite the source appropriately somewhere in the article, and voila! It's in the References section. If you don't know how to do that, give me the information on the source here and exactly where you want the citation in the article and I'll do it for you. But instead of taking the simple solution for your concern, you want to browbeat us on talk pages because you can't get your way. Now, it's time for you to drop the stick and move on. Continuing to push and push for something that clearly is not supported is disruptive editing and a waste of everyone's time. This is the last time I repeat this information here. If you continue refusing to get the point or continue forum shopping on different talk pages, and especially if you unilaterally decide to make changes to an article contrary to the current style, my next discussion on this will be at WP:ANI. Then you can either defend your disruptive editing there or lose your editing privileges. If you need an official warning to stop disruptive editing, consider this the warning. I'm finished responding here unless someone besides you decides to weigh in. Sundayclose (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
The argument to "not change a style unless there is a consensus" doesn't hold water with me. If an editor is "cleaning up" an article and finds that references can be ordered or displayed more effectively, then they should go for it. Our job here isn't to get bogged down with a "norm" or even how similar articles "do it" but to make the article better, more clear, more organized for our readership. If the changes being made accomplish this, then by all means press forward. StarHOG (Talk) 16:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Your opinion is fine, we all have them. But it doesn't supersede WP:MOS or the Arbitration Committee. Those do hold water. My opinion opinion is that keeping a consistent style isn't getting "bogged down", and in this case keeping the style doesn't make the article any less readable, nor does it deprive the reader of information. The information can easily be incorporated into the current style, which is what I have suggested numerous times to IP 109, but that has repeatedly fallen on deaf ears. And how much changing and mixing styles is enough and how much is too much? If I want to change all the Star Trek articles to a mixed style that includes an occasional citation that shows up in a References section, and a few with APA style of noting the author and date of a source in parentheses instead of a citations, and a few more in which I just name the source in the text of the article with no citation at all, that should be OK with the rationale that it's OK to change and mix styles. It would satisfy some editors, but to a lot of readers it would be confusing. And what's wrong with that; we're writing for ourselves not the readers, right? There's a reason the Arbitration Committee said no changing styles within an article; they didn't just make that decision on a whim. But the bottom line is, we don't change the style of an article to accommodate one user who won't make the slightest attempt at putting the information they desire in the article using the current style. So in this case, there is no change in style (or mixing styles) without consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Why did you place opinion in italics? Do you think this discussion is someplace for your personal attacks against an editor for making a comment that doesn't side with you? You're just restating your argument over and over again. You have my "opinion," I suggest the two of you wait for more editors to weigh in to form a consensus. StarHOG (Talk) 03:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I italicized the word probably for the very same reason you italicized it: to emphasize a point. Italics is often used for emphasis. If I had identified my opinion first, I would have italicized it to set it apart from a policy or guideline. So to address your concern, I have edited my comment above and italicized "opinion" in describing my opinion. If you are still offended, I can edit it further and remove the italics from my first mention of the word "opinion". If you think italicizing the word "opinion" is a personal attack, then perhaps you should make a complaint at WP:ANI. But you might want to remove the italics in your edit so an admin won't be confused as to who exactly is making the personal attack. I've never stated that I oppose a consensus. In fact, I've repeatedly said that a consensus is needed to change the style in the article. I've never stated that I oppose waiting for other editors to weigh in. I understand how the consensus process works. Why do you assume I don't? Sundayclose (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Production notes in articlesEdit

I'm a little concerned about the growing amount of production notes in articles. Not only are they borderline trivia, I'm concerned that they may be getting copied from source material. I don't own the sources quoted, so I can't check on this. For example, the production area of Return of the Archons reads like a trivia who's who for this episode, and the way it is written does not look like a paraphrase. Can anyone owning this source material check? And what are people's feelings on this seemingly pile-on of trivia in the articles? StarHOG (Talk) 04:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

If you can't verify the source and absent evidence of plagiarism, I think you have to assume good faith. As for whether details are trivia, that seems like something that can be decided on a page-by-page basis. In the context of a "casting" section in a more fleshed-out episode I wouldn't find most of it too extraneous, though I'd probably condense returning credits rather than listing them one after another. It would probably also demonstrate its utility if there's non-fan sources referencing these roles (such as actor obits and the like.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)