Ok, you need to treat all of the articles as if they are "historical" rather than fictional. Write as if you are a historian of that timeline. It's unnecessary to say which story he is from and what role he plays.

We do have a template you can use to provide all of the literary information. For the body of the article, think historical. TR 04:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's what the template was getting at... my bad. So where do we enter "metadata" about the character in terms of the books? PonderousMan 04:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The list of categories and the templates should cover it. The templates are an ongoing project, which is why they haven't been used much. I'm still tinkering with them. Take a look at Jake Featherston for an example of the template. TR 05:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've started revisions to fit the standard. (Have to dig out my copy to do this properly *smirk*) I see how the templates can cover the "metadata" without getting in the way of the articles. I'll take a look at existing templates... is there someplace they are flagged as "ready"? PonderousMan 05:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Now you're riding the trolley. Getting the templates hammered out once and for all in the next couple of days, I think.
FYI, even though Crosstime Traffic is a series, each book really acts as a standalone, so each one has its own set of categories and sub-cats. TR 05:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the use of OTL for "home timeline"... Since the timeline for Crosstime Traffic is not *our* timeline, isn't it a separate timeline from OTL? Or is "OTL" relative to a given story? (If so, what does the phrase "history as it actually happened" mean in that entry? Do we need another term for the Crosstime Traffic series, since they all involve multiple (non-OTL) timelines? PonderousMan 05:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've not read the whole series, but I assumed that the "home timeline" is meant to be ours a century from now. If it isn't, then we can address that issue. TR 16:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think what he means is, it started as OTL but the century plus stuff isn't part of the historical concept thereof. Not unlike the old Star Trek references to things that should have happened by now. Turtle Fan 19:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. Didn't we establish such works are not "AH" or even honorary AH as our young friend argued? TR 20:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I see the distinction - AH vs Science Fiction hinges on whether there is a difference from OTL as we know it here and now. (Of course, this means over time SF can become AH... but that's what you are referring to with Trek, right?  :P )
I'd have to go back thru the book to see if they make a clear distinction or not... but I expect not. There's a lot of stuff about energy crises, etc., but I don't remember anything that clearly was past instead of near-future. PonderousMan 21:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.