Forum:IDW Doctor Who/Star Trek crossover

So what do we think of the announcement of the IDW DW/ST:TNG crossover? How do you think this will impact our coverage of the topic of Star Trek, which is already somewhat bifurcated into an in-universe and out-of-universe article? If we have to start creating articles for Worf and Troi and Riker and the lot, where will it end? Do we go with a policy that very narrowly says "only write about Star Trek topics that are actually in the story"? Or do we say, "Worf is evidently a Klingon, so therefore we need an article about Klingons" or "If it's the Enterprise-D, there must have been an Enterprise-A, -B, and -C, too?".

I guess what I'm trying to understand is where the boundary will be, because I have a feeling this is going to be a straight up, serious, honest-to-god crossover, and I don't think any of us want to just say, "Okay, that's it, the STU and the DWU are now merged. Any STU topic is valid here."

Another thing to consider. This crossover will almost certainly result in w:c:tardis:Jean-Luc Picard and w:c:tardis:Data (android). Question is, how in the world do we write those articles. We're probably gonna get next to nothing in terms of narrative explanation of who they are, as the writers are expecting we'll know those characters. There's every possibility we won't even get ranks, positions or even full names outta these guys. So how do we handle them? Do we go off of strictly what we know from the narrative, as we would any other topic? Or can we slip in the word "Captain" to the Picard article if we're not told it in the narrative? Or -D to the name Enterprise if we're not told it?

Yes, of course I know we need to read this thing, but I thought it might be as well to get us all thinking about the implications of this crossover ahead of time, since it might well engender a lot of writing.

I personally think it makes sense to go for a super narrow tolerance on this one and insist upon a very literal reading of the text. Otherwise, we'll soon be hosting a mini-Star Trek wiki. 01:45: Mon 13 Feb 2012


 * We should probably only put information that is in the crossover story into our articles. For example, if Counselor Troi uses her empathic powers, but it is never mentioned that she is half Betazoid, then we can mention that she comes from a telepathic species, and maybe mention that she is a Betazoid in the Behind the Scenes section. If Worf is directly stated to be a Klingon then we can create a Klingon page, but not add any information about the Klingons that doesn't come from the IDW story. It would be ridiculous to assume that Star Trek and Doctor Who share a universe, since Star Trek takes place in a universe where first contact with aliens was in 2063, and (apart from a few occassions) there was no contact with aliens before that point, and certainly no full scale invasions or organizations designed specifically to fight aliens. Not to mention other obvious problems, like the fact that the alien ship in Area 51 was clearly not Quark's Treasure, or the fact that Star Trek has been stated to be fiction in the Whoniverse.Icecreamdif talk to me 04:54, February 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, other Wikis on fictional universes have articles on crossover characters who have appeared in their respective universes.


 * http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Spider-Man


 * (I would have linked to the Marvel Database's article on the Doctor. but that includes plenty of info from Doctor Who the t.v. series, making it not the ideal example.)


 * actually, this wiki does already have articles on crossover characters from Lovecraft and Sherlock Holmes so... not a problem. --24.60.0.191talk to me 21:16, February 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * I feel confident that IDW will think of DWU and STU continuity with this. The TARDIS has the ability to fall into different universes, and I have a feeling this comic will demonstrate the DWU and STU as two seperate universes, with the Doctor, Amy and Rory merely falling into the wrong one. Another thing is to remember that this does not take place in STU canon (see Canon), so regardless of whether or not any of us want to merge the DWU and STU, those over at Memory Alpha will be opposed to it. The preceding comment was made by Bigredrabbit (talk to me) 08:23, February 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * We should only cover what the story covers. Nothing else. I'm not a Star Trek genius, but if a character from the Star Trek universe has two powers, and they use one of them in the comic story - we should only cover that specific power that is used. We should not focus, think about or even mention anything that is not used or mentioned in the story.


 * Going back to the X character. If they, say, have three powers in the Star Trek universe and use one of them, mention another and don't mention the third at all, we can only acknowledge the powers that are seen or mentioned and would add it to the wiki - briefly.


 * We need to set up a template, like the Wikipedia one to the Memory Alpha wiki, so we can link the pages we create to the Star Trek stuff to more detail pages at Memory Alpha - and hopefully vise-versa. MM/ Want to talk? 12:14, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we won't want to link to MemAlpha, but MemBeta, because they'll actually cover this thing. They have a canon policy which is essentially compatible with ours, in that they accept the events of other media.  In fact, I've asked this question at their forum.  14:09: Mon 13 Feb 2012


 * This isn't difficult. Memory Alpha is linking to TARDIS Index Files for Doctor Who articles in their article on the crossover, so why not just link to Memory Alpha articles in the same way? --Ben Paddon talk to me 22:09, February 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, MemAlpha will only have out-of-universe articles on it, because they won't consider the story canon in any way. They consider it just a piece of merchandise, not a source with which to write in-universe articles.  That's very different to our approach, because we believe the comic is canon. That poses questions for how we handle the Star Trek parts of the story.  Principally it forces us to consider where the line is between the STU and DWU.  Put another way, we can't just create a link to MemAlpha and be done with it. Our view of our universe is much more compatible with MemBeta.   05:37: Thu 16 Feb 2012
 * Can't we link to both?
 * Well, in this instance, a link to MemBeta articles will actually be more helpful than MemAlpha ones, because MemBeta will actually attempt to cover this story as an event that actually happened to Picard and company. The MemAlpha articles won't. If we include external links, they should be relevant.


 * But this talk of linking is a bit peripheral. This thread is really about coming up with a common approach for how we write our own articles. Since the event is still months out, we have time to agree a common stance for writing the various articles that will certainly ensue from the publication of this story. So far, it appears as though the über-strict approach is being favoured by the respondents to this thread.  And I'm sort of okay with that.

Certainly, I don't think the presence of Worf gives us cause to write an article about the Klingon language, nor that because we meet Data we necessarily have an article about the positronic brain or his "father".


 * The danger here is going too far off the panels of the comic into what's "common knowledge" about Star Trek.


 * We have a similar issue all the time with historical figures, where some editors will include commonly-known facts about real people, without understanding that the DWU writer didn't get his facts right. For instance, there are differences between the DWU accounts about w:c:tardis:Marco Polo and the real Marco Polo.  We need to ensure that we're always using what we know from the DWU, not what we know from textbooks.


 * On the other hand, it is a visual medium. And being shown something is as good as having it specifically named by dialogue. If, for instance, we get no rank out of, I dunno, Worf, but the artist has carefully drawn in the rank insignia, I think we can call him "Lt. Worf", or "Lt. Cdr Worf", depending on what we see.  If we know that the captain's full name is Jean-Luc Picard, but the script only calls him Picard, I think we give him his full name anyway, and then mention in the BTS note that he wasn't actually named in the script?  See what I mean? I agree in principle that we should be literalists, but because comics are a visual medium we don't need to be told everything by dialogue. Sometimes we're shown things rather than told them.  If we get a likeness of Sir Patrick and "Picard" in dialogue, is there any doubt it could be another Picard but Jean-Luc?


 * I think we should agree from the outset to use the names of the characters as they're presented on MemBeta, even if we don't fully get that name in the script. We need to make it easy for casual users of the site to understand whom we're talking about.


 * This is going to be especially important for technology. We're just not going to get explicit dialogue for all of the standard equipment of the STU.  I think that if we see a phaser, but it's not called a phaser in dialogue, we should be able to write an article about a phaser.  Similarly, we don't, I think, have to get a horrible line of dialogue like: "Pardon me, Doctor.  Let me use this communicator to talk to my Chief Engineer." If the panel depicts Picard hitting his insignia and talking, then we have the basis for an article about a communicator. Or if they go to a holodeck, we don't have to be told it's a holodeck to know that's what the article here should be titled.  If we never see the holodeck, then the presence of the Enterprise is not enough to allow for an article about it.  But if we see the holodeck, we don't need an explicit line of holodeck to tell us that's what it is.


 * If we see a Ferengi, but it's not called a Ferengi, we still have an article about Ferengi, rather than Unnamed alien (Insert story name here). If they never name Worf's species, he's still a Klingon, because we can see he's a Klingon. See what I mean?


 * Just as there's a danger of going too far with the connections and ending up with articles about Khan and Gary 7 and the Mirror Universe and Dax, there's equally the danger of being so narrow in our interpretation that we don't accept what is given to us visually. Our article names have to be useful and searchable. I worry that we'll end up with Unnamed weapon (story name) rather than phaser.   21:56: Thu 16 Feb 2012
 * Sounds like a sensible approach to me, although I'm not sure whether we need articles on e.g. Klingons or Ferengi or e.g. technology seen in the background. We can call Worf a Klingon in his own article without actually having an article on Klingons. 78.9.146.201talk to me 01:13, February 17, 2012 (UTC)

Well, if a member of an alien species appears in the Whoniverse, we pretty much have to give their species an article. It obviously wouldn't include the legends of Kahless, or their redundant organs, or really anything that isn't mentioned in the comic. Will we have to create a Betazoid article, because unless Troi starts reading people's emotions, people unfamiliar with Star Trek will just assume she's human. Also, if we do make articles about Klingons and holodecks just because we know there names from Star Trek, then will Soong-Type Androids have to be mentioned on the android article if Data appears?Icecreamdif talk to me 05:43, February 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd just go with "android" without going into this much detail. 78.9.146.201talk to me 09:39, February 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * But this underlines the difficulty I'm trying to highlight. We may very well not get a scene of Data saying, "Hello, I'm an android."  That's likely to be knowledge which it's assumed the reader will know.  Thus the mere presence of a figure that looks like Brett Spiner brings with it a myriad questions for us.  It is sensible for us not to include the fact he's an android, even if he doesn't say he's an android?  00:07: Sun 26 Feb 2012

as someone who has never watched star trek before, i think it would start to get confusing if things that were not mentioned by name in the episode were given their own articles. although i think it would be ok to mention the name of an object like a phaser in the main article for the story, the word "phaser" should link to the article on the star trek wiki unless we are given considerable amounts of information on what it is, its name etc which probably wont be given. so, long story short, if something is mentioned in the episode, we should make an article about it, but if it is seen but given no extra information, it can be mentioned on associated pages like the episode page but should be linked to the article on the star trek wiki. Imamadmad talk to me 06:14, February 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * I hear ya, but IDW aren't going to spoonfeed aspects of the STU through dialogue. That would make for a very boring, very insulting read.   After all, it's not like DW always names its objects.  There are many, many episodes where the sonic screwdriver isn't named.  We just know it is because we see it, we hear it, and, based on our prior knowledge, we can obviously put two and two together.


 * We can't set as a precondition to creating articles that "it might confuse people who have never watched it before". This franchise is fifty years old, with significant parts, in several media, either actually missing or practically missing.  If we start worrying about whether other people have seen it, we'd never get articles like Andric, Vogan (The Vogan Slaves), Sarah Jane (Who's Who?), Trojan War, Abbot of Amboise, and many, many others.


 * Your own lack of knowledge about the STU doesn't mean that we shouldn't be able to create articles on things which are clearly depicted, but unnamed by dialogue. After all, we have many articles that are based solely on visual inspection — like Volkswagen Beetle, HMS Teazer, London Borough of Barnet, real world people who appeared in archive footage, Doctor Who actors who played themselves — or aural examination, like practically the entire contents of category:Songs from the real world.  It seems to me that the better approach is to give things their proper name in the STU and then provide a "behind the scenes" note that it wasn't specifically named by the story, but that it is unmistakably that object/person/species.  16:19: Fri 17 Feb 2012


 * I agree with Icecreamdif (at the start or this discussion) and MM, cover what is in the comic's panels and only what is in the comic's panels. For us the rest of the Star Trek universe doesn't exist.
 * So unless someone refers to a Galaxy-class starship, Ablative armour, dilithium crystals or specific temporal cold wars we don't mention it.


 * However I also agree though with CzechOut that we do need to treat the Star Trek universe like the DW universe in identifying everyday objects from the STU's point of view, so stuff like phasers, holodecks and shuttle replicators found on Intrepid-class starships as normal "everyday" stuff as we do here with the DWU.
 * But these everyday objects need to appear and have a significant part to play in the story, so I don't think we should have articles for tricorders, turbolifts or warp engines just because Data has a tricorder on his hip, a turbolift is seen at the back of the bridge or the Enterprise's impulse engines happen to be seen.
 * They actually need to use a tricorder to scan for temporal emissions, a phaser set to rotating modulations or adjust the intermix controls on the warp core to allow for close warp around the sun to head back to the '80s.


 * For major character artucles like Troi's in Icecreamdif's example, I don't think we should mention she's a Betazoid unless it's mentioned in story and we definitely shouldn't create a Betazoid article if it isn't mentioned. A link away to MemoryBeta can provide extra information like that. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:45, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * You make a lot of good points, but I'm a bit too busy to respond to them point-by-point. I'd only throw out that T:WIKIFY disallows "significance" as a criterion for creating an article.  What matters is simply appearance in a story.  17:37: Sat 18 Feb 2012


 * I'm standing by what I said earlier. We should only make articles based on what ever is seen or mention - and only name articles by the name they are given the the comic.


 * If there is a character, who say, has four powers. In this instant we will call him Bob. Now I don't know if there is someone in Star Trek called Bob or not. If, in the Star Trek universe Bob has five power and in the comic he uses two. However, he only mentioned what one is called and does not name the other power. We will then create an article based on both powers. The power he names will obviously named what ever the name of the power is. The other, unnamed power he uses, will be called Unnamed Power, since we do not have enough evidence to name it. Even if something is named is the Star Trek universe, we cannot call it by it's proper name if the power is not named in the crossover.


 * Back to Bob's other three powers. If he mention he has three other powers, we add it to the article about Bob. However, if he mentions he only has one other power, or only mentions another power, we can only say he has the amount of powers mentions in the comic story. We should not create articles on things that are just plainly mentioned if their use or some sort of information is given to use in the comic strip story. We must look at this from a Doctor Who point of view - we cannot add information based on information from the Star Trek universe. All information must be obtained from the story, not from the larger franchise.


 * On the other hand, if Bob uses a phaser, and states 'I'm using a phaser', then we can call the article 'Phaser' and add all the information we get from the comic story to the page. We cannot add anything from outside the comic story (i.e the larger Star Trek universe). However, if the word Phaser is no mentioned, then we should call it 'Unnamed weapon'. This should also go for an individuals as well.


 * Basically, to sum, we can only create proper named articles if the name of the place/object/person is mention. If not, then it's 'Unnamed thing'. We can only add information to the articles based on what the comic strip says. We cannot add anything to this wiki about the Star Trek universe from out with the comic. MM/ Want to talk? 00:34, February 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer CzechOut's approach myself - if a phaser is used in the story in a significant way but not named, the authors of the comic clearly assume that the readers know it is a phaser. Same with e.g. saying "Captain Picard" or "Mr. LaForge" - I'd still call the articles "Jean-Luc Picard" and "Geordi LaForge". I generally don't think we should use any information from outside of the comic in this wiki, but I would make an exception in case of people or objects. Just like Volkswagen Beetle, HMS Teazer, London Borough of Barnet mentioned by CzechOut. 78.8.1.40talk to me 11:22, February 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah,"must be in dialogue" has never been the threshold of inclusion for this wiki. An important, and probably overriding, part of our deliberations must be that the item must be findable with a "proper" name, if at all possible. It's sure gonna be a lot easier to find phaser than unnamed weapon (story title).


 * If our heroes are standing in an obvious forest, we don't need someone to say "Doctor, we're in a forest!" in order for us to claim that a story takes place in a forest. It would be insensible to call it an unknown environment (story name). If we hear "The Lion Sleeps Tonight", or "Ticket to Ride", or "Paperback Writer", we don't need the song to be named by dialogue to be included here. If we see the queen in Voyage of the Damned or Silver Nemesis, we don't need her named as "Elizabeth II" for us to have an article on Elizabeth II. And we allow many articles' names based on credits, like Grandma Connolly.   We have hundreds of articles whose names are not based on dialogue. We have even more that include information not in dialogue.


 * The Doctor doesn't have to tell us in every story that the little pen-like thing he points at stuff is called a "sonic screwdriver". He only rarely defines "TARDIS", but we accept that it always stands for "Time and Relative Dimension(s) in Space", even though the last time he defined it on TV was maybe Smith and Jones, five years ago.  Point is that you could pick any random episode of DW and tons of things that are intrinsic to the show wouldn't be defined.  I'm sure you can find tons of episodes where it's "Rose", "Martha", "Donna" the entire time, but we never question that it's "Rose Tyler", "Martha Jones" and "Donna Noble".  We don't need to be told the full names of things in order to know the full name of them.  We recognise, "That person looks like Rose Tyler, so it must be Rose Tyler, as opposed to someone posing as Rose Tyler, or a Rose Tyler from a different universe, or Billie Piper playing a different character."


 * This crossover story is similarly a "snapshot" of the Star Trek universe. No, we shouldn't be puttin the whole history of the Klingon Empire on to our wiki, just because we'll likely see Worf.  But we shouldn't fail to call him Worf just because that word never appears in word balloon.


 * Moreover, this situation is very different to your typical DWU story, because it's written for both fandoms. It's a Doctor Who story that happens to have Star Trek characters in it.  And it's a Star Trek story that happens to have Rory and Amy and the Eleventh Doctor in it.  IDW are not going to insult either fan base by walking you through the basics of either universe.  We're not going to get, in dialogue, what's necessary for naming the things we see in a way that's useful for an encyclopedia.  16:06: Tue 28 Feb 2012


 * It strikes me as odd: we haven't even seen the thing and  we already have a movement to consider whether we should dump it as utterly disgusting. People are saying what is going to be in it. Does anyone but me think this odd? I see that some people call for dumping the whole thing on the ST wiki.  Suppose their bigwigs decide to dump it here?


 * I think we should wait and see how "real"  the crossover is. If it's some sort of dream story, we can handle it one way.  If it turns out that the Star Trek universe is two dimensions to the left and up up from the DWU and they'll be back, that would call for a different viewpoint. To decide how much we "like" the comic for reference here before we see it seems ridiculous to me. Given that we have a very strict policy of locking articles on Doctor Who episodes before their debuts, we should also lock away our opinions of this comic until we have a chance to actually see it.


 * So, what do we think of the Fiftieth Anniversary show? Disappointing? Boblipton talk to me 11:26, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Bob, ya realise that the first issue actually came out the day before your comment, right? And I don't think we can realistically lock the article up after the first issue has been released.  The best we can do is to advise people to not go beyond what has actually been released.  It's harder to do with comics than televised episodes, since the gap between instalments is a month instead of a week.
 * The point of this thread was not to condemn the ST portion of this story to another wiki, but rather to try to figure out, beforehand, a general approach to how we would best include the material, based on a set of likelihoods. Nothin' wrong with advance planning. 17:36: Fri 01 Jun 2012

Interwiki template suggestion
I suggest we tag all our Trek-native in-universe articles with a header template containing a suitable Trek image from the crossover and a bit of text like:


 * This article on a Star Trek universe subject is written from a Doctor Who universe point of view. For further information on the subject from a Star Trek perspective, see (Memory Beta link generated from page name).

I think this could really help us keep everything lean and crossover-specific around here. As an added bonus, it'd automate the necessary interwiki back to Memory Beta. &mdash; Rob T Firefly - &#916;&#8711; - 03:18, April 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * We don't need a boilerplate type of template. We have  and  for easy in-line linkage, and  and  for easy bottom of page, "external links" section linkage.


 * This is sufficient. Even though these templates have a default of using our pagename as the MA or MB pagename, I'm finding that our pagenames are often slightly different than theirs.  So the interwiki linkage is semi-automated at best.  We have to call the article "the Borg", whereas MA and MB can get away with "Borg".  We can use USS Potemkin, cause there's no other such vessel in the DWU, but the STU is littered with Potemkins, so we have to link to the dab page, "Potemkin".  And so on.  The best solution here is just a standard external link template where we can deviate from defaults.


 * Also, we don't really need to say at the top of an article that the article is written from a DWU perspective, since that's the default condition of every in-universe article on this wiki.  17:36: Fri 01 Jun 2012

So what do we cover after all?
Well, the first issue is out, so we should probably decide what we cover. The comic featured aliens who were clearly Vulcans and Andorians, but didn't name them, so should we create pages for those species? There was also plenty of Trek technology, like phasers, so should we have pages for those? Part of it also took place on a planet called Delta, and featured aliens who were clearly Deltans, so do we make a Deltan page even if we don't have pages for Andorians and Vulcans? The TARDIS also landed in what is clearly Picard's Dixon Hill holonovel, but that will probably be addressed in the next issue.Gowron8472 talk to me 04:53, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Are they clearly Vulcan and Andorian, though? Who's to say the dude isn't half-Vulcan? Or one-quarter Romulan?  How do we know the Andorian doesn't have a pinch of Aenar in him?  These are really minor characters in the background, and just an image of a species isn't enough to give us cause to start an article about them.  Deltans, though, are the subject of the attack and therefore important enough to warrant an article, albeit a brief one, which has indeed been started.


 * I think for the moment there's absolutely no problem starting articles for things that are definitively named. And I generally don't have a problem with starting an article for something that is seen but not explicitly stated.  I think we can assume, for instance, that we've seen the Starfleet insignia, even though no one's  told us that it is the "Starfleet insignia".  Or that we've seen a phaser in action.  And that we've seen the act of assimilation.  (There's a very clear shot of the assimilation tubules going into some dude's neck.)


 * But on species — just because the STU delights in all manner of interbreeding — I really don't feel comfortable absolutely calling someone a "Vulcan" or "Andorian" until we're told it, or until we, as in this instance, go to their homeworld. We're calling them Deltans mainly on the basis that we know we're on Delta — not because they're bald and reminiscent of Ilya.   17:36: Fri 01 Jun 2012

So, issue #2 is out, and most of the Next Gen characters have now been named and identified. Not all of them, though: Dr. Crusher is only called "Doctor", Cmdr. Riker's first name hasn't been used yet, and Counselor Troi has been called "Counselor" and "Deanna" but not "Troi". I've unprotected the articles on Data and William Riker, and I'm inclined to do the same for Beverly Crusher, even though we don't technically know her name yet. Anyone object? Are there any other locked pages that need an admin to unlock them now? —Josiah Rowe talk to me 03:32, June 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S. Did we decide to what extent we can categorize the Next Gen characters based on information that's not explicitly in the comic? For example, Picard isn't identified as human; does that mean that he can't be in Category:Human spacecraft captains? —Josiah Rowe talk to me 03:56, June 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, how far do we take the business of "readily identifiable characters"? I ask because in one panel there are two medical personnel who look to be and, but they're not named as such. The likenesses are certainly good enough to identify the characters, but these are fairly minor TNG characters. Do we name them? Create articles for them? —Josiah Rowe talk to me 04:49, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds to me like uncredited extras with no lines.Boblipton talk to me 10:44, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

To expand, the attitude taken in analyzing this comic for the purposes of this wiki should be that this is a brand new venue for the Doctor, full of significant and insignificant details. Do people have real lines and actions that advance the story, or are they present just to mutter "Rhubarb, rhubarb" and sort of indicate that, you know, there are other people around here and this particular frame is composed a bit better with someone standing over there? In the former case, yes, they need a mention here. In the latter, no. They don't matter to us. I don't expect, for example, that the zigzag plotter will receive an entry over at the ST wiki, even if it shows up in a panel or three, because it doesn't matter to ST. Boblipton talk to me 12:26, June 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable. What about the category issue? Before this issue came out, CzechOut was removing Category:24th century individuals from the pages of the Trek-related characters, on the grounds that we didn't yet know it was the 24th century. It seems a fairly arbitrary line to draw, if we can say that we know Riker is William Riker (even though his first name hasn't been used yet), but we can't know that he's a human from the 24th century for purposes of categorization. —Josiah Rowe talk to me 13:28, June 28, 2012 (UTC) (didn't realize I was signed out)

A certain level of consistency is a good idea. Although it has not been stated yet, these are clearly ST characters from an alternative universe. Checking a couple of characters from Day of the Daleks (TV story), I see that Shura is both a 22nd century person and a person from an alternative earth (specified as DotD). I expect that all the ST characters will wind up as 24th century and alternative universe (Assimililation) and see little harm in noting so right now, but this runs against POLICY {I'd like to do that in extra large letters and underlined too, but you get the idea} that until we actually see it in a valid source, we see nothing, we know nothing. I think it comes down to a foolish consistency being the hobgoblin of little minds and see nothing wrong in marking it now and saving time later, but there's nothing much wrong in waiting until that conclusion is made apparent to even the most block-headed, lest we be accused of VIOLATING POLICY are are darned to Heck.Boblipton talk to me 20:48, June 28, 2012 (UTC) Admin conduct warning
 * Bob, is there any way you might — just possibly — post in a way that is on point and doesn't, yanno, make fun of the work of other users? You were offered adminship, man.  And a chance to actually affect policy in a direct way by rewriting the manual of style.  You refused both.  After being quite sincerely offered such opportunities, it's more than a little galling to find you continuing your pointed rants against policy.


 * To put it bluntly, Bob: be helpful in these discussions — or be quiet.  You are officially on notice that if you ever pull out that "hobgoblin of little minds" phrase again — or in any way denigrate other users by suggesting that they are "blockheaded", "foolish", stupid, or possessed of any other negative — it will be construed as a personal attack.  You can't go around telling people they have "little minds".  It's just not nice.  And, no, the fact that you're quoting Emerson doesn't make it okay.  When you divorce the statement from its "Self-Reliance" context, it just sounds horribly mean-spirited.


 * Your work on this wiki is valuable, Bob. We all appreciate your tireless copyediting. But when contributing to forum threads it's important that you answer the question on offer and  leave the bile in the body.  04:57: Tue 10 Jul 2012

In answer to Josiah Rowe, above, the removal of category:24th century individuals was simply me following existing spoiler policy. I wouldn't call it an "arbitrary" line to draw, as there are serious disadvantages to writing articles about narrative elements in stories that are still ongoing. It generally creates work when editors make assumptions about unfolding stories. (Silents/Silence: I'm looking' at you, punks. And The Pandorica Opens. And Martha Jones in Don't Step on the Grass.) In the long run, it saves time and effort to go slowly, and add things as we know them for certain. If the 24th century never gets mentioned in this story, they aren't 24th century individuals. It's a lot easier to wait for confirmation than to add that fact now, only to have to remove it later. If she's not yet Beverly Crusher, wait to create the article until she is. If Ogawa isn't named, wait until she is, or until the whole story is published, whichever comes first. Then make a determination about what to do.

I personally wouldn't have unlocked William Riker (especially since he might be Thomas), and I certainly wouldn't unlock Beverly Crusher. We just need to chill a little bit on the major characters until we get full names. There's really no rush to any of this. We're not a news service. Better to get it right the first time. Any users who want to get a jump start on the page can, after all, create Talk:William Riker or Talk:Beverly Crusher and start writing the articles in a setting that will have little impact on other articles. 04:57: Tue 10 Jul 2012


 * I sincerely doubt that this is Thomas Riker, not only because he's a moderately obscure character for the writers to pull out, but because the story is set during TNG's fifth season (stardate 45635.2) and Thomas Riker wasn't rescued from Nervala IV until the sixth season (stardate 46915.2). I unlocked William Riker on the principle you suggested above:
 * If we know that the captain's full name is Jean-Luc Picard, but the script only calls him Picard, I think we give him his full name anyway, and then mention in the BTS note that he wasn't actually named in the script?
 * Some of this is also based on visual identification — as you yourself said, comics is a visual medium. I'm not sure what the difference is between identifying an unnamed energy weapon as a phaser and identifying the unnamed red-headed doctor of the Enterprise-D (who looks like Gates McFadden) as Beverly Crusher. —Josiah Rowe talk to me 01:15, July 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * I apologize to the other people in this discussion, but as Czechout has seen fit to raise the issue of my manners, I feel it necessary to respond. It is true I was offered a nomination to the administration of this wiki that I refused.  It is true that Czechout asked me to edit the manual of style.  The reasons I turned down both opportunities (assuming that I was voted in to the first) are not simple,  but the major reasons I turned down the first was that I have little talent for politics and felt that, had I accepted and was voted in, that I would be bound to go along quietly in public with decisions, right or wrong. The major reason I turned down the second was that my experience with style manuals was with the New York Times manual about forty years ago, a document that was perhaps three hundred words long and my suggestion that the vast, detailed and stupefying agglomeration of mechanical issues was deleterious to the semi-creative act of writing simply and cleanly;  I disagreed at such a basic level with the philosophic basis of the manual of style that the only clear way I saw of editing it was to throw out the damnable thing and replace it with "Remember someone is reading this.  Write cleanly, write simply and in British English rather than American, Australian or Indian English."


 * I explained these matters in what was as close to a private way as available to Czechout through talk pages and thought as little about them as possible since. However, Czechout has seen fit to criticize my criticism of some of the ridiculous assertions hereabout and the reliance on blind, crude, unthinking, rules. I do not feel that by turning down these offers I have given of my right and obligation to point out that nonsense is nonsense. If Czechout feels that it is rude to point out some of the utter nonsense that is spoken, then the easiest way to deal with it is to urge people not to talk rot.


 * Again, I apologize to those not involved in this dispute. Boblipton talk to me 01:53, July 11, 2012 (UTC)