FANDOM


(Community FA effort)
(Community FA effort)
Line 585: Line 585:
   
 
Things to do include personal relationships - all he has are some bullets under the heading "social interactions" and a list of relations - elaborating on personal details such as how torn he was between Ferengi/Federation values, interests such as tongo, obviously more and better pictures, and his life during the occupation. He also has no timeline, which may or may not be necessary in this case. If you'd had this idea a month ago, I could have suggested the [http://memory-alpha.org/en/index.php?title=Occupation_of_Bajor&direction=prev&oldid=165527 Stub of Bajor], but I think [[Occupation of Bajor|it's come a long way]] since then. --[[User:Schrei|Schrei]] 23:19, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 
Things to do include personal relationships - all he has are some bullets under the heading "social interactions" and a list of relations - elaborating on personal details such as how torn he was between Ferengi/Federation values, interests such as tongo, obviously more and better pictures, and his life during the occupation. He also has no timeline, which may or may not be necessary in this case. If you'd had this idea a month ago, I could have suggested the [http://memory-alpha.org/en/index.php?title=Occupation_of_Bajor&direction=prev&oldid=165527 Stub of Bajor], but I think [[Occupation of Bajor|it's come a long way]] since then. --[[User:Schrei|Schrei]] 23:19, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  +
: "''[[Memory Alpha:Refit of the Week|Refit of the Week]]''", great title, Schrei! — '''[[User:pd_THOR|<span style="color:#CC0000;">THOR</span>]]''' <sup>[[User_talk:pd_THOR|<span style="color:#FF9933;">''=/\=''</span>]]</sup> 01:54, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:54, October 9, 2005

Template:Tenforward

Article records

Are the articles that hit a certain number of viewing recorded somewhere? I just noticed that the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine article has been viewed more than twenty thousand times. Was the 10,000th article recorded? Excelsior 10:53, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Individual page hits can be found here: Special:Popularpages. The 10,000th article wasn't recorded automatically, but a user posted it here a while ago. Apparently, this topic has been (re)moved. -- Cid Highwind 11:28, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking more along the lines of a special page (a hall of fame if you will) that would show the articles that hit a certain number of hits. The DS9 page hitting 20,000 is excellent is it not? It should be recorded for posterity. Tough Little Ship 23:26, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)
The 10,000th article topic was apparently deleted by an anonymous user without being archived, but I've recovered it and placed it in the archive. For the record, T'Pring was the 10,000th article. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 01:26, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed DS9 has just hit 30,000! Tough Little Ship 23:49, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Contradictory info

There are many bits of info in star Trek which lack consistency. For example:

1. In Voyager it says that the Breen use biological based ships like Species 8472, but in DS9 it shows metal ships flying through space.

2. Damar and Wayoun aruge over the climate of the Breen Homeworld, but in a previous episode Dukat states that there is a Cardassian embassy on Breen

These are just 2 examples. What should writers do about these Contradictions while wrtiting artciles?

For #1 i would ask you: is it entirely impossible that the breen have used two different types of ships in their history? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 06:39, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)
If the information is indeed contradictory, both facts should be noted, accompanied by a small note stating the contradiction. No speculation. -- Cid Highwind 11:54, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Do you think contradictory information should be noted under a specific heading such as Summary or Background Information for episodes? Is there a specific place for errors and inconsistencies? - GrilledCheese17 05:45, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • I just thought of another piece of contridicatry info. At one point it is stated that the Dominion is 2000 years old, yet at another it is stated that it is 10,000 years old. Tobyk777 01:49, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a simple footnote could be included. Then asterisks or superscript numbers can be added to the contradicted info, and then it can be explained in the stated asterisk or superscript number in the footnote. Enzo Aquarius 01:54, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • For example, with a reference to the Dominion, it could be phrased like this: (Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 02:01, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC))

The Dominion was thousands of years old by the 24th century.

In Episode X, the Dominion was stated to be over two-thousand years of age, however Episode Y stated that it was of an age approaching 10,000 years.

    • Additionally, as I mentioned earlier, this type of format could be used:

First contact with the Klingons occured in 2151.*

Footnote (In title form of course, I just don't want to mess up the formatting of this area) *Though first contact was visually shown in "Broken Bow", it is mentioned in TNG that first contact with the Klingons occured Year


Now, your idea is also great Mike, however it's not the most convenient in a large article (Unless it's done as a footnote at the end in italics of course and not in the middle of the article). Enzo Aquarius 02:12, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't see why it would be inconvient. I think that this is a great way to sort it out. Tobyk777 06:09, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • It's a good solution. The tricky thing about contradictions that is often forgotten, is that characters can be lying or wrong. Jaf 13:11, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf

Policy Reminder - Summary field

I think it is necessary to remind ourselves of the policies from time to time. Policy of the day: Always fill summary field

Whenever I have a look at the "Recent changes", only about 10-20% of the edits contain an edit summary. Please, try to use that feature more often and, if possible, try to make the summary meaningful by really describing what exactly you changed on the page. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 09:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, I would discourage archivists from marking major changes to an article as "minor" -- there are a few who have never made a non-minor article edit, but also never even tried to use the summary field. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 13:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please, try to use that summary field... It's useful! -- Cid Highwind 13:06, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Everyone who is too lazy to use the summary field should have a look on my user page ;-) --Memory 19:21, 4 Aug 2005 (UTC)


Links to Alpha or Beta Quadrant article

There are many location articles which state a location in either AQ or BQ as definite (see "What links here" for AQ and BQ) although this was never mentioned in canon. Often, this is just personal speculation. I suggest to check all these articles - if nothing definite about the location was said, we could instead link to an article (called Local space, for example) that basically states that the location is "somewhere in the neighborhood" and links to both Alpha Quadrant and Beta Quadrant. -- Cid Highwind 14:24, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)

References

I'd like to point out that Logan 5 has been moving references from articles into lists at the the bottom of the page (example Ferengi), while Gvsualan has been running about doing the opposite and removing reference lists (example Breen). Is one of these users in violation or is there no standard? As a regular user of MA I find I am sometimes wondering where info comes from and would therefore like to see the in-article info kept, at the same time I am also sometimes wondering which episodes a certain species has been referenced in and would therefore like to see the lists kept. Would it be difficult to simply leave both types of citing in place? Jaf 13:47, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)Jaf

Linking from within an article is important to see where a specific bit of information came from - we're losing that information if we are just using lists at the bottom. I agree with Gvsualan here, and think that this is a part of some policy somewhere (at least we discussed this already). Double references could be a solution, although I don't know if they are necessary in all cases - let's discuss this further. -- Cid Highwind 13:53, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, it's been a month Cid, I'm starting to think we are the only ones who care about references. Jaf 13:14, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf
  • I have a separate issue with references. Mainly, I have been operating under the impression that when citing episode sources, one should use the following format for inline references: (TNG: "Encounter at Farpoint"). However, I've been seeing a lot of episode citations using italics, i.e. (TNG: "Encounter at Farpoint"), so much that I've even started doing it. Which way is preferred for episode citations? - Intricated 18:45, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Table Design

In creating The X-Files Wiki, I was wondering if I could use or adapt Memory Alpha's design for the "browser" class table, so that episodes can link to the next and previous ones (like here on Memory Alpha). However, I'm not very adept at code, so could someone paste the necessary programming for a "browser" class table here, please? --Defiant | Talk 21:40, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Template talk:ArticleOfTheWeek is messed up

Template talk:ArticleOfTheWeek seems to have no recent nominations. All of them are very old. Where are the new ones? Have they moved? Has the system changed? What is the Policy for voting or nominating for AOTW? None of these questions are answered on MA anywhere which I can find. Tobyk777 03:39, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • As far as I know of, voting hasn't been necessary for some time as no one's suggested any, so I've just been changing them every week. I wouldn't call it messed up, just neglected. Template talk:ArticleOfTheWeek#Suggestions#August 18 2005, I just changed it yesterday. If my contrib.'s are in the wrong format I apologize, as I just followed what the previous person was doing. - AJHalliwell 03:48, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • AJHalliwell is correct, I don't ever recall enough interest in the AOTW to require voting... for a while, they were so neglected we were actually doing articles of the month(s) since no one took the initiative to change them every week! If you want a specific article to be featured, simply reserve it under the appropriate week (if it hasn't been taken and if the article has not been AOTW already) and I'm sure there won't be much of a problem. I suppose we should put something under the blank Policy section, though. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 04:53, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Audio and Video Clips on MA

On memory alpha, almost all of our Data is in the form of articles or pictures. I say almost because I found an audio clip on the page: Battle of Sector 001 If you click on the quote (Of what the Borg say) it should play. (Although it did not work on my computer) I was wondering what this was about. Can anyone put audio and video on MA? Is it fobbidden? Does it take up too much space or not work? I think that audio and video would make huge additions to our database, and make MA more visualy pleasing. Tobyk777 18:55, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • There is a notice on the upload page that states the reasons (mainly bandwidth and server space) video is not permitted. I wonder about the audio thing, because the copyright vs fair use thing is more jaded with the way we have the main themes to several shows stored on our server. But I think the reason there aren't more audio clips is that 1) it just doesn't occur to most people and 2) it's a lot easier to hit the screencap button in WinDVD or Windows Movie Maker or whatever program than to extract the audio, find the part in question, crop it, choose what format/bitrate to save it, and spend the time uploading (if you're on dial-up). ;) You're right in a way - audio and video would make huge additions, at least to the amount of server space we us. --Schrei 19:49, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think that putting Audio and Video would be a copyright violation just becuase someone could alter the recording. Also if they arnt premiited becuase of server reasons, than why was the one clip I mentioned premitted on MA, and on A featured article for that matter. Tobyk777 01:06, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • I didn't mean any clip is a copyvio - I was referring to the theme songs. People in the USA can legally have a 30 second clip of a song (not sure about video) and distribute/store them however they want, since hypothetically this is not causing any loss of profit to the copyright owner. That's why places like iTunes, Walmart, and other digital music places have them. On the other hand, if you have the whole thing, it becomes a Napster-type situation. I don't think a fan site is in much danger though. Anyway, the clip you mentioned is permitted because it's audio, whereas video is prohibited because it consumes a lot more space. --Schrei 23:23, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, if Audio clips are premitted how do you put them onto MA? Tobyk777 23:46, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Seems audio clips have to be accessed with the Image tag, they're uploaded like any other file though. I added a couple of quote sound files to Tribunal (maybe woulda been a good idea to do it on a non-FA article), but it's weird - the upload page claims mp3s and oggs are both allowed, yet when I tried to upload an mp3, it said that extension isn't allowed. --Schrei 07:33, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Line diagrams/technical drawings

Do any of the articles on the site have technical drawings of the objects they describe? I have looked at several starship articles, but they only have photos. It would probably be a nice addition to have 3-way projection drawings for important ships. Presumably, all previously published plans would constitute copyright violations on the site? Would that include model kit instruction sheets? --Nineworlds 00:49, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I probably would. We include only book jackets and cover images from licensed products like novels -- so if it wasn't included, so i assume the same holds for collectibles -- we are probably prevented by copyright law from reproducing images of their documentation, like complete plans and decals (as opposed to simply using the images to display their packaging and the collectible itself).
If archivists takes it upon themselves to create their own technical reference, and upload it here (by default granting this community the right to display or edit the image), then it could be included.
The images would have to be accurate however, as Memory Alpha:Policy requires of all information in the database -- in the past, I've removed or altered images i've drawn (in flags and banners and Starfleet ranks, if you must know) to comply with reminders from other archivists of details which might not be true to the original canon episodes and films -- this is another reason we avoid using pages from licensed (or fan-based) sources, like comics or Star Trek reference works -- many of them aren't true to the actual show or movie, which is our boundary of what we are supposed to be contributing.
One exception that has come up is graphic art used for episodes -- for example, line drawings of the Ptolemy class were projected onto a monitor in Star Trek II, so the original artwork is visible in a Star Trek production -- and can be reproduced on Memory-Alpha -- classified as fair use, just as screencaps are -- but this is a rarer case. Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 01:30, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)
That brings up an interesting point--since the Doug Drexler-produced encyclopedia drawings have shown up as background graphics in DS9 and VOY episodes, does that make the original artwork fair game? -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 01:52, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)
As long as it was shown onscreen, i'd say this probably qualifies -- i think this is exciting, and am ready to start helping to catalogue which artworks are appropriate for inclusion (as well as establish others that are not -- however we should try to stress maintaining the style it was viewed in (just as i changed the colors of the Ptolemy image to match the Star Trek II appearance rather than the black and white FJ SFTM version -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 03:39, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)
You should have a look at Shisma's Userpage -- he designed a lot of vessels already -- Kobi - (Talk) 09:07, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
LOL Kobi - that link didn't work as you want ;-) --Porthos 22:36, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Starship class templates?

I'm sure some of you have already seen that I made two templates for starships named Enterprise and Defiant but do you think some templates should be made for classes of starship e.g. a template with all of the Galaxy class starships, or do you think that it would be taking things too far? I'm asking simply because I'd gladly make them but feel that they may be removed.--Scimitar 15:42, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I think that's an awesome idea, as MA doesn't use templates as often as it might (ie a character template, episode nav template, etc). Perhaps a general starship template would even be good, although there are probably too many variables to account for to make that feasible. I recently created a template to make the episode sidebars uniform, although I've only applied it to the Voyager episode Prototype so far. --Schrei 16:29, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
I think what you've implemented at "Prototype" is an awesome idea. I can see that being really really useful in a lot of other boxes we use (ships, personnel, books, etc). — THOR 17:19, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
This already exists at the German MA - have a look at USS Lexington for example. --Memory 16:50, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
I must admit I find these templates somewhat annoying. I don't care much for them when located at the far bottom of a vessel that has only appeared on Trek once. However, if a name was used multiple times for different vessels, several of these templates would appear on a page. It clutters the article, IMO. Ottens 18:41, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
I'm not particularly fond of these, they do seem a bit cluttersome. - AJHalliwell 18:52, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • It does look cluttersome...Especially when it comes to the Excelsior class. Why not remove the registries? I mean there are only 2 ships that I can think of that are the same name and class, I dont see that it is necessary to clutter all the templates just to accomodate those two ships. --Alan del Beccio 19:55, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Such as:

Template:AmbassadorClassStarships/temp You could almost remmove the USS's as well. --Alan del Beccio 20:02, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • Done. Does it look better now or should I not bother trying any more?--Scimitar 22:53, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Timeline reset scene - "Storm Front, Part II"

Why are there pages about the people (notably Presidents) who appeared in the timeline reset scene in "Storm Front, Part II"? The pages are written as if they are the same people in the Star Trek universe. Shouldn't these be changed to be similar to the pages about actors? After all, that's what they are, their roles are only uncredited. --Defiant | Talk 16:21, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)

No, Stephen Hawking is the page about the person in the Star Trek universe -- or is it the page about the Stephen Hawking who played him. Hmm... -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 13:35, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I feel we should make a page for the timestream and place the images there, deleting the random pages about Clinton, Blair, Bush. We can make all the little speculative arguments that the community feels the need to have there made into notes at the bottom or something. These pages are currently causing endless trouble and absolutely every word on them is non-canon because we don't know anything about their context. Should we decide to keep these pages and not place them into an article about the timestream then we are soon going to end up having to work them into Human history and then heaven help us. Jaf 13:19, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf

The N-word... is it really necessary?

Content moved to Talk:Negro. --Alan del Beccio 23:40, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Interstellar history

I was just looking at our Interstellar history section, and was admazed at how incomplete it was. Most of the species histories are non-existant, and the ones that do exist are all incomplete articles. I think we all need to start working on this section becuase I suprised to see how large of a section was so incomplete. Tobyk777 04:56, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Dealing with vandals

I just want to remind everyone that we can only lose if we try to play the game on their level. If the vandal(s) return(s), please don't insult or start vandalizing yourself - just use the established ways to revert the vandals' actions, let the admins know about it and ignore him otherwise. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 21:03, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I want to infom you that there was a vandal on my talk page about 5 min ago. Although he posted a compliment, it was vandalism. The exact message was : "Tobyk777 rules, unlike the Breen, they suck!" Just thought I would report that. I deleted the message. Tobyk777 01:06, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Also, try not to harass IP users or new users until they actually vandalize something. It's really easy to frustrate a new archivist by reverting all of their edits, without explanation. Frustrate someone enough like that and I'd wager they might get angry enough at your insensitivity to start some vandalism of their own.
Reverting someone's edits without initiating any talk at all or trying to explain to them how to use a discussion page may be construed as harassment.
If you revert an edit, have a thought and leave some talk. Its policy. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:05, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization in article titles

I have noticed that often times 2 articles with the same name just cipitalized diffrently get formed. Many of these have been recomended for merging on Memory Alpha:Votes for deletion In fact 2 are on right now. Should we insitue a policy to prevent this? I have an Idea. it could be something like this:

All words in article titles are capitalized. OR The first word in article titles is capitlized.

Something like this needs to be done to prevent mulitple articles with the same title and the same info from being formed. Tobyk777 22:49, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

The policy exists already -- Memory Alpha:Naming conventions -- or do a search about capitalization (spell it like I did to get results) -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
To clarify, wiki format prefers lower-case as the default unless we are dealing with proper nouns -- but some nouns (like ranks) can be used either lower-case or upper-case, so by default we use the lower-case (as it is more likely to occur in lower case since, in American English, "The rank is called lieutenant commander." is how it occurs in the sentence since the rank is being referred to, not a person (so the noun isn't proper). -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 23:04, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • It makes sense now thanks. I've never seen that page before. Mabe we should make it more obvious so other people don't make the same mistake. Tobyk777 23:09, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
For those who are for some reason unable or unwilling to click policy links, here's some yummy cut and paste:
  • Lowercase second and subsequent words. Unless the title of the article is a proper noun, all words except the first should be lowercase, not capitalized. (Example: [[Photon torpedo]], not [[Photon Torpedo]])
  • Links are case-sensitive. [[Akira class]] and [[Akira Class]] link to different pages, an additional reason to make sure you are using the preferred lower case capitalization.
    • Exception: The first letter of a link may be lowercase - [[Warp drive]] and [[warp drive]] link to the same page. Complicated constructs using pipe links are unnecessary in this case.
  • Use singular nouns. Because the wiki engine will allow you to append suffixes after a link, it's best to use the singular form of all words, unless the subject is generally always in the plural form. (Examples: [[economics]], [[photon torpedo]], but not [[photon torpedoes]])
  • Use common names. Use the most common name of the subject that does not conflict with the names of other articles.
  • Be precise. Ambiguously-named articles will likely create confusion for readers. (See also: Disambiguation)
  • Use spelled-out phrases, not acronyms. The only exceptions to this rule would be subjects where the acronym is much more well-known than the original meaning, like NASA or LCARS.
  • Don't create subpages. Although the wiki engine accepts the slash ("/") character in article titles, refrain from using it to suggest a hierarchy of articles. A name like [[Federation/Starships]] would be an example to avoid.
  • Avoid special characters. There are a number of characters that are not accepted by the MediaWiki engine in article titles. These include the piping character (|), the asterisk (*), the ampersand (&), curly braces ({}) and square braces ([]).

Copies of subsections

I have noticed that there are a fea articles on MA with identical sections. Instead of the info being rewitten, why can't the info be filled in with copies of text from MA? for example In the article Dominion, the history section was trasfered to a diffrent section, Dominion history. In this case wouldn't it make sense to copy the article Dominion History into the history section of Dominion? There are sevral other examples like this. Often times we have a species history or philisophy in a seprate article, then in that species main page we have a blank in the history or philosophy section. Why not just copy the articles. There is no need to write 2 articles about the same species history. This would aolso contribute to completeing the vastly incomplete Interstellar Histroy section I talked about higher on this page. Tobyk777 22:54, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Ehm, you didn't get the idea, did you? It is exactly the plan that this content is outhoused into subarticles so that the main articles don't become too big and a link directs the readers to the other site.

Occupation of Bajor

Well, User:BajoranBrouhaha made a very valid point (even if s/he was a vandal) about how much the article could be improved, so I added a basic outline with what I think is a good start in the section about the aftermath. I'd like to get some help with it though, since it's obviously a big project - particularly the TNG aspect, since Bajorans were first mentioned on that show. It's very much a work in progress - particularly the part about the Bajoran Occupational Government, which didn't get an article in the first place because it was only mentioned in "The Collaborator" by name. --Schrei 01:53, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • This is a huge project. This article in fact has the potential to become the largest on MA. This could get even bigger than Riker (Currently our largest article), as there is so much info on the subject. I'll contibute a few things, but this will require a colaberative effort by our whole congregation. Tobyk777 03:35, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't know about it being longer than Riker, but I'm pretty sure it'll be Article of the Week by the time I'm done with it! :D But seriously, if someone doesn't mind watching (or better yet, remembers) how the Bajorans were introduced in episodes like "Ensign Ro," I need whatever TNG-based info that wasn't repeated on DS9. --Schrei 02:49, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Subpages Gone Wild

Moved to Memory Alpha talk:Your user page. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

Character relationships

I think we should make pages for the relationships between major characters. We currently write the information out twice and it seems kind of pointless. If you take the relationship between two major characters, say Jean-Luc Picard and Beverly Crusher as an example, there is easily enough to be said to justify an article. By duplicating all info and putting it all down on each character page we make character pages unnecessarily long and waste space. Jaf 21:56, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf

On the major charcter pages, we have sections for personal relations. Tobyk777 23:17, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's kind of my point. Jaf 23:20, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf

hi, i read this and wondered how you plan to make relationship pages. is there a romance page per show, or just Beverly_Crusher_and_Jean-Luc_Picard? sounds a bit overly complex, i think every coin has two sides so maybe tell the same story from a different PoV? Makon 03:01, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

In response to your question about PoV: Because this is a television show using characters as oppose to "real" people, we are not caught in a world of subjectivity in terms of "How is the captain looking at this?" unless clearly demonstrated that by the show itself. An episode is filmed and therefore has only one point of view and in that sense it is objective and can be recorded as such. Jaf 03:47, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf

I don't mean for it to be limited to romantic relationships. I see this as a natural move for this wiki. It's similar to the process we seem to be undergoing of creating pages for species' history, philosophy, religion, wedding or sexuality, instead of keeping it all on the main species page. Except with character relationships there is even more reason to break them from the parent pages (ie avoiding repetition). Jaf 18:10, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf

Good idea, but as the history pages it should be limited to cases where really extensive information is available, e.g. William T. Riker (this page is just too long) and Deanna Troi (somebody just copyedited it to Deanna from Riker). Then we can substitute these sections with a link to William Riker & Deanna Troi (arranged alphabetically for the surname, R ... T). --Memory 21:47, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I absolutely don't like this idea. I think that any relationship should (and can, regarding the scope and POV) only be described in the context of the person having that relationship with someone else. It is not comparable to "SPECIES history", which is a well-defined topic of its own, while "X's relationship with Y" seems to be rather unencyclopedic. I also don't see the problem of content duplication here - as stated above, there's always the possibility to focus on the person having the relationship on each of the characters' pages. -- Cid Highwind 22:50, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Ok, but e.g. the duplication on William T. Riker and Deanna Troi is just pointless, especially regarding the fact that the Riker page is daunting long. --Memory 23:14, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Why not just incorporate the information into the article instead of pointlessly separating it? - 200.81.94.59 23:16, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Besides which, isn't it also pointless for the Federation to have secondary back-ups, as pointed out by a Cardassian in some episode? - 200.81.94.59 23:17, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Maybe we could separate big pages, like Riker and Worf, into section pages. Like on some big Wikipedia pages (e.g. George W. Bush) you could have a short summary of Riker's relationships with other characters and a see Relationships of William Riker for main article or something similar. It wouldn't stop "duplication" but it would shorten some of the big pages so that some people's browsers can read the page easier.--Tim Thomason 01:42, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)

moved from Talk:Jean-Luc Picard-William T. Riker relationship (deleted)

I think, in creating this page, the talk page should be utilized in either justifying, explaining or redirecting the reader to the discussion of why this page was created separately from the Jean-Luc Picard and William T. Riker pages, rather than creating a uniquely named (and somewhat nonconformed in style) page. --Alan del Beccio 16:53, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The answer to that would be quite logical. The following warning sign appeared to me when editting the Jean-Luc Picard page.
WARNING: This page is 52 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections.
And that's exactly what I did. I figured that the sections related to Picard's life and career were important to stay on the page itself, and thus I decided to create seperate pages for his relationship with others in case enough information is available to justify a seperate page. I currently created this page and Data-Jean Luc Picard relationship, and I think that another page about Picard's relationship with Beverly Crusher should be made too. Ottens 17:22, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Just because editing the whole page is large, doesn't mean users can't edit smaller sections as the warning suggests, not entirely separate pages. I dont' think we need these pages. Logan 5 17:42, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
The concern about large pages isn't for those who edit it, but for those who want to read the page, but have to wait for long periods for it to load on slow connections. Ottens 18:00, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
The warning you cite as justification specifically says: "some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb", nothing about accessing a page. Logan 5 18:02, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
You're right. Well, adding to that, some may have troubles viewing the page on slow connection also. ;) Either way, let's move the discussion to the related section in Memory Alpha: Ten Forward. Ottens 18:10, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)


So Ottens started with Data & Jean-Luc Picard and I "copycreated" William Riker & Deanna Troi to show the two possible variants, a complete outsourcing like you can see it on William T. Riker and Deanna Troi, or the "Thomason-Variant" on Data. --Memory 17:15, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Considering I iniated this (I felt someone had to make the first step), I logically support the creation of such pages. Currently, these are the pages we're talking about:
I was cleaning up the Jean-Luc Picard page, and because of its immense length, I felt it was appropriate to move particular content to other pages, in order to decrease the size of the character page. Logically, I decided to move information regarding the character's relation with other characters, reasoning the best place for information regarding to the character itself would be on his or her own page.
Although the naming of pages like this could be debated, I feel it's only the logical next step in the always expanding nature of Memory Alpha. If all information related to one subject, especially in the case of characters, were to be put on the subject's page, several pages would become enormous. We already apply similar practices on pages like Federation, with, for example, a link to a seperate Federation history page. Such breaking up of pages should, of course, only be done in case a considerable ammount of information is available on the newly to-be-created page, which is the case with Federation history and which is also the case with the four pages listed above. Ottens 18:08, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I really don't think this a good idea. Also, shouldn't there be some form of consenus before making such drastic changes? --From Andoria with Love 20:38, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, if we did this, there would be far too many relationship pages. You would have to create articles for Kirk & Spock, Kirk & McCoy, Kirk, Spock & McCoy, Geordi & Data, Tom Paris & B'Elanna Torres, Archer & Trip, Archer & T'Pol, Mayweather & Sato, Sisko & Kira, Kira & Odo, Bashir & O'Brien, and oh, so many more, and that would just be ridiculous. PLUS, nobody's going to be looking for an article about a specific relationship -- they'll be looking for an article about a character that can tell them about that relationship. --From Andoria with Love 20:49, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Shran that this should not be pursued any further without community input. Someone indicated above that there are two POVs to every relationship, and that's exactly why I think this is a horrible idea. I don't know anything about TNG, but let's use DS9 as an example.
  • Julian Bashir and Jadzia Dax should have entirely separate descriptions for their relationship - he was chasing her and meant well; she was annoyed but enjoyed the attention. Benjamin Sisko and Dax - he was glad to see her but a little unsure at first; she tried to remain friends while differentiating herself from Curzon Dax. Nog and Sisko - Nog was eager to get into Starfleet because he didn't want to end up like his father; Sisko thought Nog wanted to apply as part of a scheme. Jake Sisko and Nog - perhaps one of the best candidates for something like this, but they still had different takes on their developing friendship, coming from Human and Ferengi backgrounds. Then of course we have Odo and Kira Nerys, where she was basically clueless for four years while he tried to be a good friend, listening to her talk about Bareil and later Shakaar.
  • My point is that, unless character development was completely bland to nonexistant on other series, consolidating a relationship into one page shouldn't work in that the only way to do this accurately would be to have a page for Beverley and Picard, another for Picard and Beverley, etc. I strongly prefer getting a holistic view where I can browse the page and see information about the person without clicking 500 times. Even our Riker page, the longest on MA, isn't "too long" - that's why Wikis are equipped with a table of contents. :) --Schrei 21:05, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
That's no point, we're writing articles not from the perspective of one person, so both versions of a relationship section e.g. at Julian Bashir and Jadzia Dax have to be identical and written from a NPOV. (The TOC doesn't solves the problem for modem users) --Memory 21:34, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
NPOV, when talking about one person's relationship with another, still allows for variety. I was mostly addressing the part about Riker & Deanna's relationship information being duplicated. I'm not sure how slow it goes on dial-up though. --Schrei 21:37, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Guys! This is TV, the only point of view is from the viewer. The only subjectivity comes in when we apply ours and MA is not about fan interpretation. And it is not that hard to say "Bob chased Amy, Amy didn't like it'. Relationship pages are the best solution to information duplication and unnecessarily long character articles. Jaf 23:35, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)Jaf
    • I admit I was on a tangent earlier, and I made some unnecessary points. However, the fact that this idea solves absolutely nothing still stands. It adds to the time one has to spend (loading extra pages makes it easier on dial-up users?) to view the same amount of information. It's not worth arguing the POV thing, since like you said, it's TV (I'm right :P). --Schrei 00:18, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
The advantages of doing this:
  • Articles of main characters will be less long;
  • There won't be the same information on two pages.
Now what are the disadvantages? Ottens 13:01, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
If I want to learn more about, for example, Riker's relationship to different people, I can now do so on one page. After moving all the information elsewhere, I'd have to read several pages ("... and Picard", "... and Troi", "... and Guinan", ...) where, on each page, I might even read more than I'm really interested in, because relationships often are "asymmetric" (trust me, I know ;) ). -- Cid Highwind 13:08, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Ok, so if I understand correctly the disadvantages are:
  • Too much clicking;
  • Both characters POV will be on one page.
Jaf 13:12, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)Jaf
Yes, the pages are quite annoying. I am something of a mergest by Wikipedia terms, I still stand by my original statement that these pages complicate a simple process. Whilst I don't quite understand the "They need separate pages" argument, two PoV's are still preferable, for shaving off maybe five kilobytes of text and one or two pictures at most doesn't improve the load time enough to justify the fragmentation in my eyes. Makon 15:00, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I thought that having to click on links to read more about a certain subject was the whole point of a wiki? Anyhow, in regard to the different POVs. If a relationship is indeed written on one page from that character's point of view, and written from another character's POV on his or her page, then sure, they should be seperated. In the cases we're talking about, however, the exact same text appears on both pages. I think that's a little ridiculous... Ottens 22:19, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • It's the whole point of wiki when you are reading an article about Picard and you want to click a link to learn more about his artificial heart, not more about Picard on another page about Picard. With regards to these relationship pages, they should be written from the perspective of Picard OR Riker and therefore should not contain the same content as the creation of these pages forces upon the reader. --Alan del Beccio 22:35, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I quite frankly don't care very much whether the information is on the character's page or on a seperate page. It just seems somewhat awkward to me to have the same info on two pages. And while perhaps information should be written from two perspectives, they aren't. Ottens 09:09, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

This discussion is related to a vote for deletion - please see both pages.

Featured articles reading like episode summaries?

I can understand ojections to some articles becoming featured articles due to the fact that they may read like an episode/movie summary (or at least part of one). What I don't understand, however, is that some articles that read like episode/movie summaries are featured while other articles on a similar topic also read like episode/movie summaries don't become featured even though you could argue that both articles are as well written. I think the best example of this practice is with the articles on the Battle of the Bassen Rift and the Battle of the Mutara Nebula. Both go in to good detail of events and both read like summaries yet the former is featured and the latter isn't. I'm not complaining about the failure of the Battle of the Mutara Nebula, per se, to become a featured article but rather about how one of two articles on similar events written in similar styles with similar levels of detail became featured while the other one didn't. I won't accuse anyone of double standards but it really looks this way to me. Better yet, should I just take this matter to the featured article removal page and nominate the Battle of the Bassen Rift?--Scimitar 13:39, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

memorable quotes

Would it be significant to add a section on "memorable quotes" formatting for the articles on episodes? There are a few different ways that are currently used (see Broken Link, Ties of Blood and Water and Ferengi Love Songs for examples). Rcog 22:22, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

There's even more variation than that. It should be set up like this

Janeway: Dont quote me on that

Chakotay: What?

Janeway: Whatever I said in this quote

I personally think quotes should be set up as definition lists if more than one person was involved. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 22:31, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Janeway 
Dont quote me on that
Chakotay 
What?
Janeway 
Whatever I said in this quote

I like the formatting on most featured articles, such as Court Martial or United. Seems cleaner to me then some others, I particularly don't like the Ferengi Love Songs version. - AJHalliwell 03:10, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)


"Don't quote me on that."
"What?"
"Whatever I said in this quote.

- Captain Janeway, Chakotay

I prefer this:

Janeway: "Don't quote me on that."
Chakotay: "What?"
Janeway: "Whatever I said in this quote."
--Memory 21:47, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • This is probably one of those stylistic things that's more personal preference than anything. I do it the way AJ mentioned, but only because I saw Court Martial as the Article of the Week and modeled my own pages after it. The way Memory and Mike (they're similar enough) suggest would probably be necessary though if you had more than two people in a quote. --Schrei 06:15, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)

templates need attention

The new "starship class" templates look real snazzy, but they are using a color tag in the tables for the background appearance -- basically, i thought we weren't supposed to specify colors in html, tables, or wiki tags -- that's what the style sheet is for.

if we don't have a class of table that has the proper appearance for these tables, we should make one, add it to the memory-alpha.org's website styles, and remove all extraneous coding from the articles like {{DaedalusClassStarships}} - -this way, if we ever need to change the style, we do it once on the style sheet, not having to go and recode dozens of these tables. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 02:55, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been busy elsewhere lately, and I entirely missed this. I don't know much about "color tags" and the like, but all of the starship templates look similar to every other navigational template (namely {{Dax}}, {{DWB}}, and {{Flint}}) in terms of specifying the colors used. I don't see any difference between the types of template, but if you have suggestions on how to remedy whatever is wrong with the templates, just tell me and I can start changing them if you wish. Or you can, or anybody, or whatever.--Tim Thomason 00:16, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Andorian glass beads and other illegal items

First, is it my imagination when I remember references to Andorian glass beads? I can't find any mention of them at all in MA but I'm sure I've heard the phrase somewhere, or something very similar.

And while I'm at it: Is there any evidence to support the idea that some "illegal" items such as the beads, and Rigelian flame gems, etc are illegal not because of any specific property, but perhaps because the Federation has some rule allowing member planets to regulate commerce in products that are indigenous to only a single planet? Seems to make sense that common minerals and commodities would have a common market, but that rare or unique items such as the beads or Terran pearls would be controlled by the race that produces them and no other species could trade in them. Speculation at this point, but any reference, even slight, to some system like that (for instance, an Andorian trader selling the beads when others can't) would help expand the understanding of the Federation economy and the various goods mentioned. Logan 5 14:54, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps an article listing contraband items might go into more depth about this.. Catgory:Contraband perhaps? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:00, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Oshah stated "Maybe we should start a category: organised crime, passive movements, and groups explicitly labelled terrorists" in an edit of Terrorism, also Crimes, Punishments and Capital punishment are requested at Memory Alpha:Requested Articles. I point this out because these things seem to be leaning in a similar direction and it might be helpful to keep them all together during such discussion. Jaf 02:37, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf

The Trouble with Templates

Between the accidental duplication of the episode infobox/sidebar and the recent change to the DS9 nav template, I think we need some place to discuss templates similar to the suggested categories section. I'm as guilty as anyone for doing this -I created and applied the nav template without any outside input, and look what happened when someone else did the same. --Schrei 19:20, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

For the act of fixing these templates i strongly suggest you enlist the help of a bot rather than adding the template to new episodes, and try to clean up the ones you are in the middle of fixing.
Manually going through all of them could have been avoided, so lets not start any more changes until we've
  • fixed the links in all the current uses of episode browser templates
  • add them via a bot, to provide some lag time, so users can size up the nav templates to be added, find any potential problems, and finally, cut the edit load down by having the bot do the massive numbers of edits necessary.
I realize everyone is willing to pitch in to get it done, but with so many people trying to make a mark on the template scene, its getting a little confusing, and this is where the mistakes are coming from. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 22:52, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I am trying to help clean this up, and if anyone would like to do so as well, i believe everything before the DS9 Season 4 episode Homefront is done. and yes, in the future let's use bots (robots? i'm not familiar with the term, but it sounds good.) Makon 00:02, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I Strongly agree that we need a Template suggestion page. These are popping up everywhere, and any (even new) users are creating them, I'm not sure their legit. - AJHalliwell 23:36, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Ya... Btw, did all the episode pages get done? Coke 23:41, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Has anyone contacted Kobi and asked him if he could have Morn fix the templates? --From Andoria with Love 23:44, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Can a Bot handle things like this? It's one thing to just tag something onto the end of the page, but dunno about sifting out the syntax. Coke 23:55, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Wikicities

Well, last month I nominated MA to be featured on Wikicities, which hosts the project, even though MA is technically a sister project (which I didn't know at the time). I thought at the time that the featured thing was dead since it hadn't had one in months, but apparently they started a formal vote, and it looks like a couple people found it already. Anyway, just wanted to tell you all to vote for us since we are eligible to be featured. (Just log in with your normal MA username/password if you're unfamiliar with it.) And props to you if you can figure out the definition of "furry fandom." --Schrei 22:28, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • I just voted. Tobyk777 04:34, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • I think you forgot to log in, because there's an IP user who voted twice and both are crossed out. But it's not like we're in danger of losing at this point. Last month's nominee won with two votes. --Schrei 06:10, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Plot types

I personally think this is a great idea, but I wanna see what other people think first. User:Ged created it and put it on episode pages like Babel. So what do you guys think? --Schrei 01:05, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • I like it. I've definitely gotten deja vous a few times while watching Trek. Coke 01:10, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Frankly it's a little too 'meta' for me. I think MA should be limited to discussing documented elements of Trek, not this type of dissection. Logan 5 01:27, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping to work my way through all of The Original Series episodes indicating the plot types, but this met with displeasure from User:AJHalliwell, who undid the changes. Two others have already voted against it.

User:Coke has already expanded the Curable disease plot with episodes from other series, so the idea resonated with someone.

Is there no way in which I can link to the plot types from episodes or do I have to wait until I complete all the TOS episodes before I could do that?

Is the issue that I put in the table? Should I link from the summary section or another section instead? --Ged 02:02, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I dont' think it's any of those things, it's more that this type of article may be outside the scope of what MA is trying to do: namely to document on-screen and production related elements of the show, not just to take them apart in a fan-discussion sort of way. What you've put isn't accurate, just maybe not really what the community is after. But that's why Ten Forward is here, to discuss that. Logan 5 01:36, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • We've had people do edits to many episode pages at once, only to find that later they had to be changed for one reason or another. Also, this has been suggested in category form already at Memory Alpha:Category suggestions. I know I'm not fond of this idea-- it seems too non-encyclopedia.- AJHalliwell 02:11, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Glitches

I'm not sure if anything can be done about this, but recently I have been running into a lot of bugs on MA. A common one is having a table at the bottom cut off the text. Also, when trying to access "Macet" nothing happened, and my computer opened up Microsoft FrontPage. Is this just my computer, or are these problems regular? Can anything by done? Jaz 03:37, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • I have encountered some glitches, but not the Macet one. Often, various glitches arise depending on your web browser and there are ways to correct. Most of the glitches I've encountered are image-based and I remember those being addressed at some other time. -Platypus Man | Talk 04:50, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Sometimes I get database errors, but reloading does the trick. As for images, the only thing I've had trouble with that wasn't browser related is that it takes a while for a new version to be visible in articles and other places, even if it shows the new version on the image page. It did seem like Wikicities was going slower earlier though. --Schrei 06:10, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • About the images- the glitch I have sometimes is either overlapping images or when text goes behind the images. I reported this on one page that was doing it and someone changed the code and it was fixed. The reload error has happened, but I would call that more of a problem than a glitch. -Platypus Man | Talk 11:53, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • Are you using Firefox? I've had a similar problem (someone brought it up somewhere on Shran's talk page) and I don't think there's anything to do about it. --Schrei 15:20, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)

the arada

Can somebody please refer me to an article about the arada or harada species that is commonly speaked on at TOS, but never seen? They are like the Breen of the TNG and the DS9 series.

There's an article about the "Jarada". However, they only have been mentioned twice, both times TNG. -- Cid Highwind 16:16, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Featured Article criteria

discussion moved to Memory Alpha talk:Featured article nomination policy

Signature policy

moved to Memory Alpha talk:Username, please continue discussion there. -- Cid Highwind 16:23, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

New language version of MA

What do you guys think about the prospect of a Spanish MA? Before I say anything, don't get the wrong impression - this is just an idea, and I think AJHalliwell's the only person I've even mentioned it to. I'm curious if anyone here speaks the language and would be interested, assuming such an expansion is feasible. The thing is, I don't have the time or skill (my Spanish is mostly street slang) to hammer out the details, grow the Wiki, etc. I also don't know about the potential audience. But if someone else was interested or at least didn't mind a partner whose contributions would be mainly DS9 articles in need of copyediting, I'd be glad to help. And like I said, that's assuming MA is ready/able to expand. Any thoughts? --Schrei 02:19, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Has all the series been translated in spanish? Because I think in the case of my native language, they have not. What do you guys think of adding a Translation info to the series page? Maybe this way, we would know what language version would be nice to start. If its the case for spanish (or any other language), only adding a skeleton (with bots and the like) would be a enough to attract some spanish-english people that could translate articles all they want, I think. --Rcog 03:27, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)
If only your native language was Spanish instead of French, we might make beautiful music (or at least articles) together. ;) But seriously, I think it's best to just leave things as they are with the links to other language versions of pages. Not sure if Trek has been released in Spanish either - I was just curious if anyone was interested.
Oh, and it turns out that all it takes for MA to expand is for someone to fill out a Wikicities application (and of course translate the critical pages). I suppose I could start my own Spanish Wiki with cobbled-together barrio talk and then let it go dormant like 90% of Wikicities... --Schrei 04:20, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I think if you track down spanish speakers here and look at editors in the spanish wikipedia who contributed to the Star Trek pages (if they exist) it would be a nice idea. However I would not like to see it go down like the Polish MA. As for translation: the Dutch MA is a good example that even undubbed Star Trek can have a good encyclopedia -- Kobi - (Talk) 07:20, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I've seen the Spanish Wikipedia pages before, and there's little to nothing. The truth is that Trek is mostly nonexistant in Hispanic countries (or at least Mexico). There are probably Spanish-speaking Trek fans in the USA, but they'd just as soon use the English version. :) What happened to the Polish MA? Did it never start, or was the content erased? --Schrei 07:59, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Sex

Haha, thought I'd catch yall with the title. But yeah, could someone have a bot change gender to sex on those infoboxes? It's more correct and makes more sense. Ben Sisqo 04:04, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)

There was a discussion of "sex" versus "gender" in talk:sex i believe. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

Sets/scenery

I noticed that most scripts i've read have a list of different sets or scenery the scenes will take place in. Perhaps this list would be well adapted to episode articles. Not only could we list a complete roster of locations visited in an episode, we could use it to cross reference which sets were reused as other locations. For example, Encounter at Farpoint would list all the sets introduced for TNG, and the fact that the battle bridge was a reuse of the USS Enterprise bridge, main engineering was the movie era engineering set, etc. "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II" would list engineering and the battle bridge being seen, but that this time around the battle bridge was a reuse of Data's laboratory. This colud also mean a list of each time the various "Planet Hell" sets or locations were reformatted or reused (Vasquez Rocks in TOS, the TNG rock stage, the DS9 cavern stage, VOY's eponymous Planet Hell, ENT's CGI locations, etc)

This has great potential to expand MA, perhaps even by an index, category or reference table, or a separate article (or background section, if its an article that already exists, like battle bridge) for each set piece we've seen being reused. If we standardize a style for this note first, it should be easy to systematically add it to many articles or list the data somewhere. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:04, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • In the long term this could lead to articles about popular set and/or locations. Jaf 02:44, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf

Centuries and Years

A new anonymous user (24.118.54.76) has brought up an interesting issue over years and centuries. By the looks of it, we used to use the '2300-2399' (As an example) method of measuring a century (Thus that would be the 24th century). However, 24.118.54.76 brought up a fact that people rely on the method of measuring a century as so: '2301-2400'. So basically the question is, which one is correct for use in MA? - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 16:02, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)

That's odd, since the later is, IIRC, correct. The 1st century was from the year 1 'till the year 100, 2nd century from 101 to 200, etc. So the 24th century would start in 2301 and end in the year 2400, hence naming it 24th century. Ottens | SITE TALK | 10:33, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Pirateopedia

Today on MA, a strange logo has been in the corner of my screen. It appears to be a pirate (or rather a one eyed potato) with the word "PIRATEOPEDIA" under it. It links to the main page. Does anyone know what this is? Jaz 16:10, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT)

I'm not seeing it, could it be some kind of wiki-virus? Also, as almost no one has edited a page in two hours (wow) is anyone else having trouble loading MA? Mine is loading really slow then screwing up, I figured it was just mine, but maybe not. - AJHalliwell 20:52, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Mine is slow too, and this text appears blue. Images are not appearing, and links are not working. Something is seriously wrong.Jaz 21:45, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT)
Woah... This was so trippy, I thought either someone slipped me something or I was in a time travel episode. The Pirateopeda logo randomly started appearing instead of MA, and every time I hit submit to add a comment here, it'd just show a preview except my timestamp kept going off by a few minutes or hours. Then the most random stuff kept happening. Not to mention the recent changes claimed a change I'd submitted to Odo five minutes earlier had happened five hours ago. All I can say is, woah. --Schrei 21:28, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)
The blue text is what happens if someone messes up his custom signature. I think Ottens did in the section directly above. As for the rest - Wikicities apparently has been "slashdotted" today. :) -- Cid Highwind 17:03, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT)
At the risk of further exposing my non-Trekkieness, what's slashdotted mean? :P --Schrei 17:10, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT)
That only exposes your general "non-Nerdieness"... ;) www.slashdot.com describes itself as "News for nerds", and a link on that page works like a Distributed Denial of Service attack for most sites. Today there's an article about the Uncyclopedia on the front page. -- Cid Highwind 17:16, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT)

I can see the "pirate-potato" too. Strange. --84.131.34.121 17:20, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT)

  • Mine's got a radio-controlled car on it, with the words "Radio control wiki" on it. Does anyone have any idea how long this goes on for? I can't even sign in! 86.139.74.227 22:01, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • We got hacked. BTW, where does the name-server for this site sit? And who controls it? Logan 5 22:29, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Checking to see if things are fixed yet. My I've let my life become to connected to MA. We were hacked? See, that sounds more probable to me than that slashing thing. Although I have yet to see the dinosaur-pirate-potato-wiki. - AJHalliwell 18:12, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT)
Believe it or not, we were not hacked. :) You can still see the pirate logo on www.uncyclopedia.org, which is their logo for today... -- Cid Highwind 22:55, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Wait a second, what the hell is Uncyclopedia.org? I just went to it and it looks almost like a wikipedia virus. Tobyk777 14:59, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Believed, just understand what hacking is better. Any idea when we'll be back up? Hm, I wonder if this'll get a foot note in the history of Memory alpha page, "The Talk-Like-a-Pirate Day Blackout." - AJHalliwell 19:38, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT)
Things seem to be back in working order now. I hope... --From Andoria with Love 07:12, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Then again, maybe not. --From Andoria with Love 07:13, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Things are working sporatically for me, and the times of my edits are appear at random hours. Edits I made now appear edits I made several hours ago. Other than that my browser keeps timing out, I haven't experienced anything else ya'll have been talking about. --Alan del Beccio 07:19, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)
This is getting really weird. When I log in, I'm unable to upload anything or even edit a page. When I try to edit something, whenever I klick "save page", I only get to see the preview. When I want to upload something, I get all kinds of strange errors. Now, I'm not logged in, and I can edit posts, but can't upload new images. This is getting really frustrating! Well, at least now we know, what is causing this: http://www.wikicities.com/wiki/Community_portal (scroll to the bottom). --Jörg --80.228.2.55 12:03, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Well I did not see any logo, but then again (yesterday) I could not even reach MA. Although reaching the DutchMA was no problem, I've got a DNS error back from the proxy server at Wikipedia(Cities?) so I think the problem was on their side. Today it the first time I can reach MA and read anything. -- Q 15:43, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I see the logo still. The fact that it's "pirate" and the overall bad response, etc lead me to think the site had been high-jacked and we were being denied entry, a common hack move. Glad to know I was wrong. Logan 5 12:19, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Also, there are still major bugs. After I hit Save it shows up as Preview only, and then about an hour later actually DOES save. Logan 5 12:19, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)
  • Ahah! I'm finally back, after trying for a day! This is the first time it's let me sign on. 86.130.244.110 14:16, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)
Yeah, if this wasn't a hack, its simply the site running like it was reprogrammed by some kind of stupid person... -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 17:58, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Is it just me or does it put things in the recent changes in random order? It claims the images I uploaded over the past 5 minutes were at random times over the last hour. --Schrei 19:35, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Discounting Infomation from Canon Material

I saw in a did you know on the main page a few weeks ago, "The prodcers themsleves discount the events of the Voyager episode Threshold becuase ofd how sceintificaly inacurate it is." (or at least something like that) On Threshold's backround info section, it says the same thing. I researched this, and found that it is true, that both the writters, and producers of Voyager agree that the information is invalid to the Star Trek universe. So, does this mean that it is invalid on MA? (I'm not making a statment with this remark i'm asking a question) If we have info on MA which although comes from a canon source, but the makers of that source discount it as true, then is it cannon, not cannon, true, false, etc.? I was just wondering about that. Tobyk777 04:26, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

...What? It comes from a canon source so it belongs here. Ben Sisqo 05:12, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
What the writers and producers of Trek interpret as canon is not the same as MA's canon policy. Two examples that are not considered canon by Paramount are The Animated Series and information from these computer screens - Image:Archer biographical.jpg and Image:Sato biographical.jpg, taken from "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II". However, they are both featured on this site and are considered canon by MA. --Defiant | Talk 12:02, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
They are considered valid resources by MA -- which means we will use them here as information -- because they were featured onscreen. Many times, even entire episodes or movies will be, in the producer's mind, not relevant, and they will disregard events and information from a previous production in favor of a new interpretation. This is an example of what is referred to as a changed premise -- the producers originally use one story, but then ignore previous information to allow a different story later.
For example - the Trill makeup. There was an original version, but they later decided to make it simpler, resulting in two very different types of Trill. Klingon blood was first seen bright purple, but was made much darker by later productions.
Data was originally considered as a character of alien origin "found" by the Federation. Only the later revision of "Datalore", 16 episodes later, made him the product of a Federation scientist, because they ignored their original idea (although no references to "alien Data" ever made it onscreen, making this a pure piece of background information. (as an aside, this is why we have background information as a subsection -- to ensure that we separate what appeared onscreen from what didn't appear onscreen -- this way we can list all of these canon references but without having a visible contradiction -- and a note that it has never been explained why something is "inconsistant" or "disregarded" in that manner, from what the producers call "canon").
I've changed the title of this subsection -- its a lot people for people to know you are talking about canon if you write canon -- as cannons have little to do with this. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 12:22, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

AD/BC vs CE/BCE

I've run across a few times when a date must be described in one of the above ways, so I have a question: Since they mean the same thing, should we use AD & BC or CE & BCE to describe these certain dates? We should only use one set to be consistent. My vote is the secular and more politically-correct CE/BCE. Whatever the choice, I think a policy should be reached. -Platypus Man | Talk 19:16, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)

It has -- -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 19:38, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't do me any good to tell me that it has. What is it? -Platypus Man | Talk 21:19, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Sorry -- i accidentally cut off the last part of that note when i copied it into the edit summary -- the removed portion reads "our timeline uses CE/BCE" -- i can't seem to find a talk page where i remember discussing it however -- someone must've deleted it -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 23:32, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I haven't seen anything regarding such a conversation. I'm curious what the basis was for the decision, as in "The Big Goodbye", when Picard was configuring the holodeck for his Dixon Hill program he specifically said 1941, stammered for a second and quickly added "AD" to it, as if to clarify which 1941. --Alan del Beccio 04:03, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • And for that matter, the DOB of Flint's alter ego was referenced as "BC", iirc. --Alan del Beccio 04:16, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • What do CE and BCE stand for? Makon 04:56, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Musical instruments

moved to talk:musical instruments.

boilerplate messages

I was looking at Image:Riker on phoenix.jpg, and found that it had both the {{imageparamount}} and {{imagecopyright}} boilerplate messages. The former states:

The copyright of this image belongs to Paramount Pictures. Its use is contended to be consistent with fair use rules under United States copyright law. See Copyrights.

Whereas the latter states:

This image is copyrighted. It is used here with the explicit permission of the owner, Section 31. The terms of permission do not include third-party use (Image source: www.section31.com ).

These seem contradictory to me. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the person was intending to state that the image belongs to Paramount, but the file itself was procured from a source other than the uploader (namely, Section 31). Obviously, both Paramount & Section 31 cannot both own the image.

I guess my question should be that, in addition to {{imageparamount}} and {{imagecopyright}}, should we have one that indicates that the image file itself has an original source that differs from the individual who uploaded it.

Or I could just be way off-base. — THOR =/\= 15:41, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • I think the first one says it all and the the source should not matter -- in terms of screen caps, if Paramount owns it. The second one, which I'm not sure everyone is necessarily aware of, is for artwork that doesnt fall under the first template, such as Captainmikes rank insignia images and such. Either we go by that or we limit our caps, as I have suggested before (when we had our first wave of Trekpulse images come in), to user-capped images only. We already know that Jorg has pretty much every image on file that this site will ever need, not to mention the fact that I own nearly half of the DVDs, which I too can cap, as well as another half a dozen members here who have similar capabilities; I really dont think we can use the excuse that we don't have the resources from within, so why bother snatching images from other websites and making up yet another boiler plate to justify covering a non-contributors screen cap, that someone else can upload over with an original user-contributed screen cap the next day? --Alan del Beccio 17:26, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
The copyright ownership has always been Paramount. It is a matter of courtesy to attribute the image to the person who capped it, but the ownership remains Paramount's. Perhaps we could use the normal {{imageparamount}} for all Paramount owned material (all screencaps and publicity photos), and the {{imagecopyright}} for any image that belongs to someone else.
If we are still interested in attribution to section 31, trekpulse, and others, we could create a separate, second boilerplate stating they capped the image -- although the copyright, and the right to sell the image was never theirs, they simply circulate it in a fair use manner, as we do. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 03:44, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking, was something as a courtesy saying something to the effect of:
This image is not the product of a Memory Alpha contributor, but rather it was provided for use here by Section 31.
THOR =/\= 18:53, 30 Sep 2005 (UTC)
In what I'm sure is going to prove to be a prime example of overenthusiasm, I created what I was discussing above in the {{imageprovided}} template. Subsequently, I have also updated Image:Riker on phoenix.jpg by both removing the {{imagecopyright}} tamplete, and adding the new one. Input? — THOR =/\= 19:57, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Template:TV Series

This template was created by Ben Sisqo and probably inspired by our German version (see de:DS9). It's a good idea I think, but when I saw Defiant's reason for moving it to the bottom - MA traditionally puts stuff there - I realized how different, and potentially controversial, having this at the top is. However, I don't think it should be at the bottom since nobody's going to see it there with seven seasons of episode listings between them and the navigation. I think Enzo had a good idea when he suggested placing this in the middle of the article, right before the episode listing (see Template talk:TV Series), but what does everyone else think? --Schrei 21:04, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • First of all, I think the bottom of an article is the best place to place such a navigation template, if we would place it on pages at all. People go to a certain article for the content of that particular article. They move down, and when they're finished reading the article, then they move on to another one. When they're finished reading, they're at the bottom. Hence this is the best location to place templates such as these.
  • Besides, I think the width of the template could be reduced in using something like the following format:
Star Trek television series
The Original Series | The Animated Series | The Next Generation | Deep Space Nine | Voyager | Enterprise

Ottens 21:11, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • The stylistic issues can be dealt with later, right now I want to focus on whether to include it and, if so, where. But yeah, that does look a bit better. --Schrei 21:23, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I think it is more logical to generally put it at the bottom, since one doesn't want to scroll all the categories and other generics stuff before seeing the effective article. Maybe we could put a link to the episode listing instead of having the whole list on the main serie page? What do others think? - Rcog 01:57, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • That's an excellent idea and one I thought of when I first came to MA but never wanted to bring up since I was still new. --Schrei 02:10, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
What does that mean? Just having links to individual listings of seasons on each series page? For example, Star Trek: Voyager would link to VOY Season 1, VOY Season 2, etc.? --Defiant | Talk 02:16, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
No, at least not if Rcog is thinking what I am, which is to do it like Wikipedia and have a comprehensive list page instead of separate season pages and a list that bloats the series page. --Schrei 02:21, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I definitely say bottom. But not all templates should be like that, "this is up for FA status" for example is something you want to point out right away. And I don't see a problem with the list, and isn't wikipedia's format a really long table, with many pictures? Kinda like Startrek.com has; - AJHalliwell 02:34, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

You gotta hand it to the Wikipedia people, the TNG episode list is color coded and everything, and their sidebar leaves us in the dust. Dunno if we wannt go about trying to emulate their stuff, but if it's at the very bottom, you definitely need to remove the list. Ben Sisqo 02:39, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I think we should get rid of the season pages and just put as much info as we can on each series page beside each episode - hopefully, it would start to look like the wikipedia pages or StarTrek.com, but slightly different too. Also, I think we should consider displaying different information beside the episodes. For example, I think single "FA"s could signify featured articles and the image at the top of each episode page could be displayed next to its link on the series page. That way, it would be easier to tell which pages still need images at the top of its table. --Defiant | Talk 03:16, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I support that. In fact, this already exists at the German MA like the series template, for example here. It can be very useful to have such a numbered list. --Memory 22:56, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
What do users think about adopting the method used here - Star Trek: The Animated Series/temp? Any ideas on how to improve the table? --Defiant | Talk 23:13, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)
That page shows a lot of promise and would be a great idea. The Wikipedia TNG list is well done, and I think something similar like what you've got in mind would be perfect. If you look at the Wikipedia pages for some of the early TNG episodes, you can see they've already begun to implement what I was aiming for with the ill-conceived episode sidebar template: a standardized placing of the info, which can be uniformly applied and altered cosmetically as desired. Anyway, one thing at a time - I like it. :) Putting the list on a separate page still sounds like a good idea though. --Schrei 01:18, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I'm slightly unsure of how to proceed with implementing the changes. Is there a waiting period? Is the MA community at large even comfortable with, or in support of, these modifications? --Defiant | Talk 12:55, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)

As no-one opposed this idea, I've just went ahead and changed TAS accordingly. --Defiant | Talk 14:15, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)

One thing: I don't like these "micro-thumbs" on the left side, "Memory Alpha is not an image gallery" (quote) --Memory 23:26, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
It adds to the experience since nobody's ever actually watched TAS. You should just link to the Wikipedia page though since it's already been done. Vedek Dukat 23:39, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
The images could show which articles are missing episode images, if users make sure that the images on the episode lists match those in the articles. This is just an example of what the other series pages might be changed to, so VD's comment that a lot of people haven't seen TAS is not really relevant. Also, I think the episode list and actual episodes themselves should be all internal, not on Wikipedia. --Defiant | Talk 00:33, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)
The problem with the pics is: if there are some missing on the ep. pages the table will look unsymmetrical (unacceptable), and if all articles have one, we don't need it as indicator. So MA is not an image gallery ;-) --Memory 18:36, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Well, my idea was... keep it until all the episode articles have an episode image and then remove the "micro-thumbs". Also, I think the statement, "MA is not an image gallery" was probably added to discourage users from uploading too many images, as the sentence is pretty much presented in that context. I don't think it means this kind of activity, using images that have already been uploaded. --Defiant | Talk 18:48, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

LCARSource (Wikisource)

I had the idea the other day, for use as the long detailed summaries, to have a Wikisource like thing for memory alpha. That way the "Summary" is a summary, and they can go to the much more detailed Memory Alpha Wikisource page for the Defiant-class summaries. Now that I think about it, this could also be used for other things; things like the letters written to Picard in his Picard family album are kinda long to be on the Jean-Luc Picard, Picard family album, or Star Trek: Generations background section; maybe we could have something like this to put down all the really long text on Star Trek. (Other examples coming to mind are Rudolph Ransom's bio-file, from "Equinox, Part II", currently housed on Talk:Rudolph Ransom. Another example would be Captain Janeway's file from "The Killing Game", and I'm sure there are countless others. Thoughts? Opinions? - AJHalliwell 20:51, 30 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • Not a real thought but maby some sort of 'Personal logs' or Ship or Captain log category, were policy could/might be enforced less strict from POV or dictionary standpoint ? -- Q 21:04, 30 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • You could do an LCARSource if you wanted to archive scripts and other useful information, although the whole "don't submit copyrighted work without permission" would have to be modified for its purposes... --Weyoun 00:15, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • In my opinion, it would be better to break pages up. For example, Federation history is on a seperate page, with a short summary of its content on the Federation page. That, to me, makes more sense than creating a whole new wiki. The same could be done in regard to relationships between several persons, for example a page dedicated to the relationship between William Riker and Deanna Troi, summaries of its content on both respective pages and links to the relationship page. If a background information section of a certain movie becomes way too large, then create the page "MOVIE TITLE background information". Ottens 16:22, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

External link(s) vs. External Link(s)

  • Do we capitalize the "l" from links or not? From the relevant help doc, it appears that we do not, but it's done on so many articles. Also, do we pluralize "link" even when we have only 1 external link? - Intricated 18:49, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • I've always capitalized the "l," but I'll stop if it's deemed incorrect. As for pluralizing it, I say that putting "External link" points out the fact that there is only one of them. I know that that sounds stupid, but for standardization if nothing else, they should all be pluralized. -Platypus Man | Talk 19:27, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • This seems trivial. What's not to say more external links won't be added in the future? Linking to Wikipedia is always an easy first external link, more can certaintly be added if someone knows of more relevant or useful external links to add. And it has also been my understanding that each subsection heading is like that of a chapter or a heading, which is generally capitalized in a novel or textbook. --Alan del Beccio 14:47, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree with the "link(s)" issue, in that it should be "links" at all times. However, the capitalization issue is still vague to me. I personally prefer to capitalize the entire title for "External Links", but it seems to go against the rules:
You should capitalize the first word of a header and any proper nouns, but leave all of the other letters in lower case.
Example: == Example header for Memory Alpha's manual of style ==
I can go either way on this matter; I just want to ensure that I and everyone else is clear on what is expected of them when they edit/write articles. -Intricated 17:22, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)

MACOs Starfleet

File:Cptn Vanik.jpg
"If you think you are being treated unfairly..."-Darth Vader ("The Empire Strikes Back")

I'm still new at this. But, it doesn't look like my contributions are necessarily wanted. I did some reworking of Starfleet and MACO pages, trying to simplify and consolidate information that would be helpful. The major changes I floated out on the articles' talk pages first, to see if anyone agreed with my proposals. Since noone replied after awhile, I figured to just try it and see what everyone thought. Although I borrowed some text from elsewhere, it remains an original composition. I had hoped that the community of M/A would assist in refining my work so it wouldn't be out of line with M/A guidelines (which I tried to adhere to). If there's anything too much like the source, why not help make some edits or additions to bring it more up to snuff? That was my only point. Since M/A aspires to be the best source for Star Trek information, "an online version of the Star Trek Encyclopedia", there's only so much I can do without being duplicative of other reference material, intentionally or not.--Mike Nobody 20:46, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)

It's not the case that your contributions are generally "not wanted" - just this specific contribution was, in my opinion, unacceptable. First and foremost, much of the text you added was a verbatim copy of the Wikipedia text, which is not acceptable because the two projects are using different licenses. Second, most of the rest was copied from other local articles. While this is generally allowed, of course (we'd like to see a reference where that information was copied from, though), it was unnecessary in this case, because this information was spread across several articles for a reason. Third, included in your additions were some paragraphs completely unrelated to the topic (information about the structure of the Federation Starfleet, information about the Mirror universe). Additionally, all this old and new content was arranged in a very incoherent way. After a comment on the talk page that didn't really have any effect, I reverted the article - not because I was too lazy to "refine" your additions, but because addressing all of the problems would have come close to a revertion anyway: removal of wikipedia content, removal of duplicate content, removal of unrelated content, restructuring of the remains.
As I was the one doing the revertion you are bringing up for discussion here, I'll let others decide if this was correct or not. -- Cid Highwind 21:50, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Community FA effort

Maybe we could add something similar to the Improvement drive in the Star Wars wiki? --Defiant | Talk 13:48, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Additionally to the peer review? --Memory 19:38, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Yes. I see no problem with running them simultaneously, does anyone else? --Defiant | Talk 19:53, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, if only because I don't like being similar to Wookiepedia, maybe we could have general "Community MA effort", to improve several things, along with featured articles. Some things the community could work on collectively, are the (I was recently flabbergasted at the) gargantuan number of stubs and uncategorized pages. Also, unused images could probably use some cleaning. - AJHalliwell 21:12, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I think that's a great idea! If we nominated a specific article every couple of days to a week for everybody to contribute to and focus on we could certainly get rid of a lot of our {{pna}}'d and {{stub}}'d articles. And we would be collectively enhancing the community effort. — THOR =/\= 21:43, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

This is a good idea because, whereas Peer Reviews are for articles people have worked on when they want opinions from the community, Refit of the Week (I want royalties if you use that title!) would be for articles that need work when it's too big a task for one person. Could we make Quark our first Refit of the Week?

Things to do include personal relationships - all he has are some bullets under the heading "social interactions" and a list of relations - elaborating on personal details such as how torn he was between Ferengi/Federation values, interests such as tongo, obviously more and better pictures, and his life during the occupation. He also has no timeline, which may or may not be necessary in this case. If you'd had this idea a month ago, I could have suggested the Stub of Bajor, but I think it's come a long way since then. --Schrei 23:19, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

"Refit of the Week", great title, Schrei! — THOR =/\= 01:54, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.