Memory Alpha talk:Guide to layout

Background information
I think we will be going for an all-knowing Star Trek universe perspective (like the paper Encyclopedia did). That would mean that episode titles and 'meta-information' should not be in the main body of the article. Behind-the-scenes info should go in something like ==Background information==. It also means that episode names themselves should probably not be used in as a point of reference (the closest ST-universe equivalent are Stardates, so you could create links like Stardate ). --Harry 10:55, 1 Dec 2003 (PST)
 * Whatever happened to this idea? --OuroborosCobra talk 19:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

More appendices
The following two appendices are used regularly and should be included. Suggested wording:

Appearances
A list of episodes/movies in which the article subject appeared. List only those episodes that aren't already referenced in the article text, but yield important additional information about the subject.

Background
Further information about the subject, originating from official but non-canon materials such as interviews, technical manuals, encyclopedias, novels, etc.. Avoid putting fan speculation here.

Further suggestions
Additional suggestion: All appendices should be subsections in a section Appendices (see example above). Reasons:
 * 1) Better separation of content and meta information.
 * 2) Readability of TOC.
 * 3) Allows 'in-universe' sections with the same name (Maquis has a section Background, for example).

-- Cid Highwind 18:52, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)
 * I like the == Appendices == idea. One section title i've been considering is a word that comes along with Trek fans' appropriation of the term "canon"... instead of === Background ===, we could create a section purely for showcasing data from credible but non-canon sources: === Apocrypha === . Anyone like this? --Captain Mike K. Bartel


 * I like the /extra page idea better, because it provides better readability of both canon and non-canon info. And what does Apocrypha mean? -- Redge 13:20, 21 Jun 2004 (CEST)


 * The term 'canon' was originally derived from biblical study (which is why it is a bit comedic to use sometimes), apocryphal is from the same context, meaning the same as the word 'non-canon.' Okuda liked to use this word a few times discussing canon in his Encyclopedia. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 23:03, 21 Jun 2004 (CEST)


 * I like this whole Appendices thing; I noticed Mike had been using it, but was unaware of why. I also like differentiating between "Apocrypha" and "Background."  I think we should make sure we go light on Apocrypha, though.  I've used it very sparingly: the USS Bozeman article and to mention a few names not given in episodes (ex: trellium mining planet or Xindi-Insectoid councilor).  Other than small mentions of significant facts, we should try to avoid it. --Steve 21:36, 22 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Italicization?
By the way Cid, I notice that you added the note about italicization to this policy, but I seem to have missed it being discussed here, because I certainly don't support that, especially since many articles written before it show the italicization supported in the old policy. Is there some technical reason the policy needed this change, or can users discuss it. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 23:06, 21 Jun 2004 (CEST)


 * I didn't see that as a rule change, but as a clarification (see edit summary) of an existing 'implicit' rule - as Steve noted here, most of us don't and didn't ever italicize info in separate 'Background' sections (as far as I am aware, there never was any 'old policy' defining that style). In my opinion, italicization alone can't be used to mark background information, because it is also used for quotes or, generally, emphasis - that's why both italicization AND indentation is used for inline notes, for example. If you feel that this needs further discussion, feel free to do so. -- Cid Highwind 00:22, 22 Jun 2004 (CEST)


 * I feel that the use of italicazation&indentation to differentiate in- and out-of-the-box info is too vague; I think we should always use a "Background" or "Apocrypha" section. I also feel that parenthetical episode citations should not be italicized, since their status as out-of-the-box info is pretty obvious.
 * Doing this could potentially free up italicization&indentation to be used for alternate universe info; or maybe we should come up with something wholly new for that.
 * --Steve 21:36, 22 Jun 2004 (CEST)


 * Still, I'd like even less to see italics used for alternities, but i have to disagree on the italics.. i think NOT italicizing makes it look clunky for episode titles and backgorund paragraphs. I'd support indenting AND italicizing such data --Captain Mike K. Bartel 22:19, 23 Jun 2004 (CEST)


 * Regarding alternate universe info, I think I&I should depend on some specifics of the alternate timeline - if the information is unknown to inhabitants of the original universe, it should be indented/italicized; if the information is known, this should not be done.


 * Take T'Pol as an example: The timeline basically didn't happen - info about it should be i&i'd. The events of  are known to the crew, so info about that should just be a normal part of the article. This makes sense if we think of MA as an encyclopedia written by an in-universe person in Trek's future.


 * Regarding other italicization, I generally agree with Steve - it could make sense to italicize episode titles, but not to italicize whole, separate blocks of text (and even less to indent those!)... -- Cid Highwind 15:00, 25 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Perhaps we should only italicize info that is meta-trek. I don't see why alternate timelines don't just deserve an own section. -- Redge 21:12, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Background vs. Apocrypha
OK, I guess we've had this discussion several times already, but let's follow it through this time. Do we need both sections? Why do we need both sections? What is the difference between them?

The original suggestion for an "apocrypha" section (see above) reads as if it was just meant to be an alternate name for the same section as "background information" - although the scope of an "apocrypha" section seems to be a little more limited than that of a "background" section. Since then, "Apocrypha" has been added to this guideline page, but from its description, it is absolutely unclear what the meaningful difference might be (and if we manage to describe a difference, why it is necessary to separate two different types of background information from each other). Compare:


 * Further information about the subject, originating from official but non-canon materials such as interviews, technical manuals, encyclopedias, novels, etc.
 * Writings in different medias (principally in books and comics), the authenticity of which is questionable.

Both explicitly mention tie-in novels as a main resource of information to be put here. Both explicitly mention the "non-canon" nature of such information. The possible content of both, for all intents and purposes, would be a "reader's digest" of the more extensive Memory Beta article about the same topic.

So, unless someone has a good answer for the above questions. why' don't we just combine these sections back into one? -- Cid Highwind 13:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I first of all am presuming you're talking about the two sections on normal, in-universe pages. On ep pages, for example, having an apocrypha subheading under Background Information often makes perfect sense where there's other subheadings (eg. Script, Cast, Effects).


 * I disagree that Background and Apocrypha are the same. To me, "Apocrypha" should deal with all non-canon (but licensed) material on the subject.  Background information should then cover all other "background" such as: who played a char, that a ship was a re-use, that a name came from a script, mentioning inconsistencies (not nitpicking)...etc.


 * Having said that, I agree that "apocrypha" is not particularly necessary on in-universe pages, for "Background Information" can cover all of that. – Cleanse 23:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To me, "Background" information is stuff about the actor behind the character, where the character's name came from, that kind of thing. Apoc is stuff from novels, games, etc.  It strikes me that rather than merging things, we should be making the distinction more clear on this guide page. -- Sulfur 16:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)