User talk:CALQL8

Welcome
Hi. Welcome to English Wikiquote. Enjoy! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote.
 * To ask for help or to talk with another editor, visit our Village pump.
 * To browse Wikiquote, take a look at our browsing start page.
 * To sign with a date, write four tildes (~&#126;) and save.
 * Before creating new articles, consult our guide. You may practice how to edit a page at Sandbox.
 * Be bold.

My ST:TOS error
Thanks for fixing my editing error in Star Trek: The Original Series concerning the "DO NOT REMOVE" comment. I did a global replace of "--" to a UTF-8 em-dash (—) and failed to notice that I'd screwed up the HTML comment markup. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek films
I saw your note about creating Star Trek Movies on LrdChaos's talk page. (By the way, you should always include a link to an article when discussing it on a talk page, to make it easy for readers to jump to the article under discussion.) I urge you to move it to one of the other film titles and split off everything else into individual articles for each film, as I suggested at Talk:Star Trek: The Original Series, for the following reasons:


 * Standard Wikiquote practice is to have one article per film. There is no compelling reason to have all Star Trek films in one article, because:
 * Each film has enough material to generate a non-stub article for each film. Indeed, most already have sufficient quotes to avoid stub status.
 * Including multiple works in a single article is much more common for TV shows, and even there it is beginning to come under fire for the lengths they grow to.
 * Doing this for films inevitably looks ugly. See Star Wars for an excellent example of why not to do it. Even with only 3 films, Back to the Future got bad enough to warrant being split into separate articles.


 * Wikipedia has individual articles for each film. It makes sense to have a same-named Wikiquote article to match WP. (Incidentally, Wikiquote uses the primary IMDb title, following its case and punctuation conventions, as our canonical representation, unless there is a compelling reason not to. So does Wikipedia, but they sometimes mess up. We can address the odd cases where there is discord between the projects.)


 * Wikiquote articles should include short introductions to their subjects. Doing the equivalent for this article would suggest 13 introductions: 1 for the overall article, 1 each for TOS and TNG headings, and 1 for each film. Those 10 film introductions should indeed be included, but in the separate articles.


 * It seems likely that a combined article will have to be expanded even more, given the buzz about an as-yet-untitled Star Trek XI.


 * We already have a Star Trek index page to make it easy to jump to each film. Additionally, the "See also" section of each ST article should include links to every other ST article.


 * Searching for Star Trek quotes on a single page, perhaps the only significant reason to combine the films, is needlessly constraining. It assumes someone knows that a quote came from one of the ten films and not one of the six TV series. It's just as easy to use the "Search" button for words in a quote, which automatically looks through all Star Trek quotes (and every other article, for that matter, in case the searcher confused a Jean-Luc Picard quote with a John Sheridan (Babylon 5) quote). You can even essentially limit searches to Star Trek articles by including the words "star trek" in the search box. No need to worry about which of 7 (or 17) articles to examine.


 * There is no quibble putting Star Trek: Generations into a TNG section, despite it including TOS characters.


 * Even if we were to keep one article, it should be named Star Trek films, as "film" is the canonical Wikimedia term for a motion picture, and neither "film" nor "movie" in this situation is a proper noun that would require capitalization. (This is a moot point, but I mention it to point out some style guidelines that you may find useful for future articles.)

I'd do this myself, but I prefer to leave article work to those who are interested in maintaining a subject, and despite being a Trekkie-cum-Trekker for nearly four decades, I've never gotten around to working much on the ST WQ articles. However, if you are unsure or uncomfortable about some of the changes I suggest, feel free to ask questions or raise concerns here or on my talk page. I'll even do the basic restructuring if you would prefer. But we really don't want to encourage massive articles needlessly. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't worry JeffQ, you didn't scare me off, (and by the way, I am a "him"). Actually, I agree.  Star Trek Movies probably should be 10 seperate articles, but until I, or someone else, has the chance to do that, I think that having a seperate article for the films is better than having the films with the articles for their respective series (Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Trek: The Next Generation).  Formatting one article is easier than formatting ten.  I will take your suggestion of renaming the article Star Trek films, however.  By the way, it was I who initially suggested the the new article in Talk:Star Trek: The Original Series before I became a member.  Thanks for your help.  CALQL8 15:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, you're right about a "films" article being better than the messy TV-and-film combo across two articles. But since the basic formatting has already been done, I've gone ahead and created the 10 film articles. I still regret not taking action on Star Wars, but I care less about it than Star Trek, so I pushed aside some other stuff and spent the 45 minutes it took to get them all established. I'd appreciate it if you could look them over and tweak anything I missed. I've replaced the List of Star Trek films link (a WP article whose case I had to fix — grr) with individual WP film article links for each, added an IMDb link per film, and added the films to the "See also" sections. What I haven't done yet is create proper intros (usually 1-3 sentences from the WP film article) or add the cast. (I also haven't added taglines, which I don't usually care about, or individual quotes, which I prefer not to generate, as I believe the dialog format is better for sourcing purposes.) Anyway, they're started, so we should probably redirect Star Trek films and all their current variants to Star Trek, which has all this information. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * JeffQ, before you go through the trouble, I already fixed the links in the TOS movie articles in Wikipedia, but not the TNG movies. CALQL8 03:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops! Too late. While I was tweaking some other things, I removed the unnecessary parameters from the WQ links. I just finished the TNG films, too. By the way, it occurred to me that the Star Trek navigational footer template in use in the WP articles could be adapted for use here, if you want to take a crack at that sometime. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, thanks for restoring ST5 to Star Trek. I got myself so bollixed up between Final Frontier and Undiscovered Country that when I worked on undoing some dumb mistakes, I created another one by deleting ST5 from my master list. I also made the same mistake when fixing List of Star Trek films, but that one I eventually caught myself. I swear it wasn't a Freudian slip! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all your help JeffQ. One other thing I need help with, something I don't know how to do yet.  We need to remove my Star Trek films article.  I was thinking we could have it redirected to Star Trek, which now includes a list of the movies.  How do we do this?  CALQL8 04:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You're quite welcome. To redirect an article, just replace the entire content of the old article with the following line:
 * #REDIRECT New article title
 * Thank you very much for working on these articles. Between you and a few other editors, Wikiquote's Star Trek articles are getting some long-needed attention. Now, if we could only find some conscientious Star Wars fans… &#9786; ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandal Blocked
I have blocked the vandal Tawkerbot2 and have reverted the damages. - InvisibleSun 03:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, thank you. --  CALQL8 03:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for your vandal alerts. You may save your time with one sole alerts, on WQ:AN, where all sysops are expected to watch. --Aphaia 05:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)