m (Episode pages: Moving convo because this page is so long)
(Episode pages)
Line 624: Line 624:
== Episode pages ==
== Episode pages ==
:''Conversation moved to [[User talk:Vedek Dukat/Episodes]].''
:''Conversation moved to [[User talk:Vedek Dukat/Episodes]].''
{{User_talk:Vedek Dukat/Episodes}}

Revision as of 17:03, November 14, 2005


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 Weyoun argue 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)


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)
  • I see no point in double referencing a page, hence why I removed the "references" section at the bottom of various pages and limited it to appearances, as appearance can't necessarily be cited on a page as easily as one might cite a specific reference at the end of each sentence or paragraph. Additionally, we do not italicize episodes (just movies)...I argued that what you are arguing long and hard and it was nevertheless decided that it is unnecessary to do (italicizing eps). I don't know the exact talk page that was discussed, but after futher analysis of that discussion (at that time), I do think it looks better and I'm pretty sure it is the proper way to cite an episode (versus a series or movie). --Alan del Beccio 00:26, 20 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)

Interstellar history

(text moved to Talk:Interstellar history.)

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

See Memory Alpha:Naming conventions

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.

Subpages Gone Wild

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

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)

Dont quote me on that
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."
"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)

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)

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: ).

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)
Having received no input in favour for, or in opposition to the new template, I have continued to use it. However, as I have included the template with the indention already, I have not been manually indenting it when amending image description pages. However, I'm also not indenting {{imageparamount}} anymore; iirc there was a comment made some time back about the possibility of adding the indention inside the {{imageparamount}} template, and configuring a bot to make the adjustments to the pages which already indent it.
Is this something I imagined, or should we just leave the {{imageparamount}} template as it is, and just continue to add an indention when utilizing it? — THOR =/\= 05:45, 16 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 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, 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)

Star Trek: Enterprise reference site

I discovered a helpful site full of trivia and references related to Enterprise written in note form - [1]. I just thought I'd share that with the MA community! --Defiant | Talk 14:08, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Main Page Featured Articles

Is there any way to track how often a particular Featured Article is listed on the homepage? We've had several FAs approved over the past month or so that haven't been shown yet, while at the same time we are repeating some articles that I know I've seen listed before. Just a thought that it might be good to try to use as many different ones as possible on the main page. Logan 5 15:30, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Have a look here. If you're talking about First Battle of Chin'toka, the former AotW has been Second Battle of Chin'toka in June, not this one. Only the Intrepid class was AotW twice because somebody forgot to strike it from the list. --Memory 00:51, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Slow performance MA

The last few days I have great difficulty to reach MA. When I do it takes ages to load a page (+1 minute), let alone trying to edit it. Anyone else ? -- Q 20:16, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Yep, same problem here. Yesterday, one of the Wikicities wikis was featured on Slashdot... again. See section "Pirateopedia" above. -- Cid Highwind 20:24, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • I haven't even been able to get on for a few days. I could acess the internet, but MA didn't work for me. A few hours ago it started working again. Tobyk777 23:52, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I've been having that trouble, the "Show Preview"s have been specifically annoying. Seems to have subsided a little. - AJHalliwell 00:57, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Unnamed Character Pages and Their Lengths

Greetings, as some of you have probably noticed, I have been working on Unnamed character pages (Most recently for the USS Saratoga). These pages are also becoming increasingly popular because they seem to be very easy to add to. Now, pages like Unnamed Humans and, especially, Unnamed Vulcans (which is already huge) will eventually grow to a highly expansive size (Especially Humans). Instead of keeping all of the unnamed characters on one page (And cause some massive loading), I recommend we assign various pages like 'Unnamed Humans, Page 1', that way we can sort characters and keep loading times short. Of course, this isn't really a case at present (Vulcans seem to be the biggest page thus far, along with some of the Starships, but they can, and most likely will, get very large), but it will in the future. Discuss please. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 02:47, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

IN continuance of dividing the pages up by century, I suggest dividing the characters up by groups they were encountered in -- were they inhabitants of a certain city, military unit, spacecraft, station, paramilitary organization, learning institution? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 08:49, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
According to our guidelines, any information should be placed where it can best be found. We already had that discussion about subdividing lists several times before, and I still disagree with the common practice to create deep tree structures... If I'd want to find an "unnamed human", I would look for it on Unnamed Humans - if I want to find an unnamed crewmember of starship XYZ (or any other person encountered in a specific situation), I would look on Unnamed XYZ personnel (which might even be a redirect to the starship article if there are only a few unnamed crewmembers). I really don't think that anything more complicated than that is necessary or helpful. If a list of "unnamed WHOEVER" gets too big (however that is defined), we should either find a sensible subdivision if such exists, or simplz keep it as a big list, which is a better solution than the "Page 1-X" approach in my opinion. -- Cid Highwind 10:16, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Hoshi's Father

I figure Hoshi's dad from "Vanishing Point" deserves a mention somewhere. Trouble is, I'm not sure where to do it. His last name is almost certainly "Sato", so I'm not sure if he really belongs in Unnamed Humans (22nd century) or not. --T smitts 06:49, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Possibly Sato would be the best idea. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 08:46, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that Sato family might work too, then Sato could disambig to Hoshi's page and the Sato family page. I think that that is more specific in terms of what it really is about: The "Sato" family... We have already done similar things with Picard family (even those most all those individuals were named) and the Bilby family -- to benefit the Bilby children rather than placing them on an "unnamed humans" page (as we know their surnames, just not their given names). --Alan del Beccio 00:35, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Starting a Real Starship Development Project

Considering that Trek is going to be off the air for a few years and real technologies that will pioneer space flight are approaching, wouldn't it be prudent for us to create a series of pages that actually give the basis for developing a working space craft?

IE: The space elevator will be operational in about 5-10 years. It's seems feasible for one to build a dayship that has it's own power and life support with manuevering thrusters to tool around orbit and ride the elevator down until we create "warp" ships. ;-)

All of this is in promotion to getting off the rock of course.

Ideas? Suggestions? Support?


  • However, on the same note, it would be prudent for archivists to deposit blueprints and schematics for said buildings. Much like a hall of records that contain blueprints for buildings that represent building codes or construction detail. Considering much other information is included into this database relating to space travel (since it is the premise of the ST series), it would seem the logical place to incorporate such information. - JFalcon 23:00, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Right idea, wrong Wiki. I'm all for finding some way to expand MA (like my profile says) but I think we all know what's gonna happen to MA in 5-10 years, it's gonna kill itself because the well of "canon" info (which is all MA allows) will go dry and we'll have nothing to do. Sorry if that sounds pessimistic but it's true. Vedek Dukat 03:02, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • In all of the material I've ever discovered for which there is much not listed (such as a series of Starfleet Academy like publications I've seen when I was a young child and never been able to find again - no longer in print or in circulation). I think the bias towards canon information that only originates from Paramount and "official" ST writers causes much degrasion in terms of completeness. I feel that in the spirit of the intent of the writers who created the concept of MA within the original series, it's prudent for us to encompass all material and knowledge possible in regards to space travel and xenobiology in addition to other matters in the fields of engineering, sciences and politics. Having cross referenced information in regards to ST related material isn't bad as it covers the actual intent of what it is. However, for a true MA wiki, expansion of knowledge and information is necessary for real use of this information. It's hard to believe that writers and archivists would not be excited with such an idea. In regards to the advancements within the next 5-10 years, in the past year of this posting, we've seen the launch of the first private spacecraft and it's successful flight, the launch and successful flights of Chinese spacecraft, the successful test of the crawler that will eventually create a space elecator allowing low cost with little polution access to orbital space. Not to mention other privately funded spacecrafts and what will come afterward. MA could be utilized as a repository for any and all information that would allow development of a truly working spacecraft including information on life support, propultion, navigation and orbital mechanics. -- However, it's just a thought. - JFalcon 3:00, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • You make some interesting points, although it would require a major policy change to make what you're talking about happen. Weyoun 05:50, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • That would be fascinating... ironically it would be anti-greed since nobody could patent a building design since it could be documented that a certain Wiki already laid out the plans ;-) --Funkdubious 22:44, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The future of Memory-Alpha.Org

Memory-Alpha.Org will run out of canon soon. The reason Memory-Alpha.Org sticks to canon is because we could barely keep up with canon. This is no longer true. We have an inexhaustible store of Star Trek as yet untapped:

Noncanon. We could write articles about fanfiction (we should not allow fanfiction itself because it would cause people searching the encyclpædia to get stories instead of technical articles). We can include speculation such as the the Xindispecies, being so obviously related, yet representing five families, four classes and two or three phyla (¿are the Aquatics chordates?) must be the products of genetic engineering. We could start an article about the eternal favorite of Star Trek Versus Star Wars (a single Imperator-Classstardestroyer could easily defeat a Borgcube).

This is not the end. We just have to broaden our mandate. A few months ago, Someone started an article about the respectful but hilariously satirical STAR WREK — The best 'Star Trek' parody since 'The Next Generation'! The response was that at the time we could not broaden our mandate with about two dozen canonepisodes of Enterprise for processing an year to process. That certainly was true at the time; but now however, we literally have nothing else to do but create a synopsis for every character of STAR WREK . — Ŭalabio‽ 04:16, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to make your text so bulky? (I've since tightened it up). Anyway, "Soon"? I don't see that we are anywhere near running out of canon anytime "soon". So without giving an opinion on anything else other than that, I think this conversation is overly premature. Other than that, I don't like this idea at all. Lets get to point "B" before we start heading for point "C". --Alan del Beccio 04:33, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
We "literally" have plenty more to do, so i say no -- the logistics (not to mention the copyright problems) are kind of mind boggling. I'd rather not disrupt the achievement of a canon database (our ultimate goal) by mixing the data with fan fiction and parodies (completely irrelevant, in my opinion).
I like non-canon, if you'd like, see how pages on novels and comics could be expanded -- I think its an important part of Memory Alpha. Perhaps suggest a website directory that we could police and monitor, to link to gaming or creative sites that are outside of our parameters.
I won't allow this site to be turned into a commercial for cheap knockoffs of Star Trek when theres a perfectly good original series, its spinoffs and movies and tied in licensed media like collecible publications. I'm not a fan of much stuff that Joe Schmoe ran off in his garage, or put on his website -- expecially if we are talking about a commercial venture to capitalize on Star Trek. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 04:37, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Check here to see how much still needs to be done! --T smitts 04:43, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
MA definitely won't "run out of canon" soon. There's still much to write about, and even more to "write better" about. Until both has happened, there's no need to discuss the possible inclusion of fan-fiction and other unofficial material. -- Cid Highwind 09:46, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
*lol* Look at this or this, that's work for years... --Porthos 10:08, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, 747 stubs and 183 incomplete articles...out of the current 48,827 articles, that means roughly 6% of the content we have in M/A still needs some sort of attention, and that doesnt even count what hasn't be written yet. --Alan del Beccio 18:14, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
This is why I thought Memory Alpha:Refit of the Week was a great idea, but apparently no one was interested, which is indicative of the larger problem: Most of the easiest stuff has been covered, and people get lazy. Even once we finish cleaning up things like the technobabble no one actually understands or the actor pages where no one's sure what to add, I think there are more encyclopedic (but also more difficult) things to write about, such as Ethics and Politics of the Klingon Empire. Weyoun 18:58, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Hey Alan, dont be so cynical. The reason why Memory Alpha is cool is because everybody contributes.
  • How am I being cynical, unsigned user, by simply stating the facts? --Alan del Beccio 18:18, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I thought about Memory-Alpha, and if it would run out of material after some time. But we still have LOTS of work to do, not to mention tons of episode reviews (And with Star Trek magazines, new information is always released every month). Then, of course, new books are always coming out, and TONS of books don't have a page here. So there is still lots of work ahead! - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 23:51, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly Against - Not that this vote is really needed ;-) I very much DON'T like this idea. Fan fiction is just ridiculous, I could write a story right now with references out the BAK, and we'd be making ridiculous articles for years. We clearly have more articles to make, and if it runs out, we'll simply find more. I know many episode summaries that could use a lot of work, and if not work, improvement. Among other things, their "references" are ridiculously small. Not to mention the many actors and actresses we have to do. Which are constantly being added to. A movie may be coming out in the coming years. But yes, if all goes well, we'll run out of canon material, which means we'll have to work on the pages for all those novels that could use work, the comic books, and many others. I don't think we need to worry about running out of articles yet, and when we do, I will strongly oppose the includinh of fan fiction and the kinds of speculation that were referred. - AJHalliwell 00:33, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
And even when we run out of articles, there are always ways for improvement. For example, take a look at the Amanda Rogers page (and there's even 4 articles linked to it which aren't done). A one-timer Star Trek appearance/mention, and the article is quite expansive and detailed. A number of character pages could have the same amount of detail (If not more) in the future. Additionally, there will always be something new found or observed, especially with background information (stuff on LCARS displays especially). - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 21:59, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
How about the New Voyages (the professional-quality fan-produced extension of TOS)? Normally I wouldn't suggest non-canon, but since it has the endorsement of Gene Roddenberry's son and the cooperation of original TOS actors (like Walter Koenig) and writers (like D.C. Fontana), maybe data from that series could be added?
EmiOfBrie 23:28, 4 Nov 2005 (CST)
This topic was already discussed previously, and the idea was rejected. Click here to learn more. --From Andoria with Love 05:45, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

New form of vandalism

Over the past 24 hours I have noticed several dozen random IP users contributing to pages by essentially re-saving the current version over itself, and not actually making a useful contribution to the page(s) whatsoever. Granted this is more annoying than vandalism, it is still vandalism none-the-less, and I just wanted to make a note of it, as it does waste a lot of time for anyone review the recent changes. --Alan del Beccio 18:04, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)

A new bot for Episode title linking to Episode listing pages

Hey guys, I've started an RFC (request for comments) for a bot to link Episode titles into the Episode listings pages...

The basic premise is to link episode article summaries into any listings pages that list the episode. For example, the Voyager series has an Episode listing in the "VOYAGER Series" article, and each Season has its own Episode listing again.

The bot really has a much more profound use as to creating linked text in WIkis, whereas text from a source article can be propogated to multiple places and optionally the Wiki engine could treat those propogations as "soft edits"

See the User:EnEpiLink page for more specifics. and dont forget to post initial suggestions here! --Funkdubious 22:36, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Pages that would get the initial treatment:

I don't see any reason for a need for this. I prefer to keep things the way they are now, and this seems to clutter the list a bit. - AJHalliwell 00:20, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I prefer this as new format for the series pages. Perhaps also without pictures. --Memory 20:15, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I don't. This form clutters the page and has no advantage to browse through MA's episodes easily. Because of its placement, between the cast and background info, it forces the reader to scroll to the end of the page before he or she has something useful to look at. (repositioning it does not prevent this) The form it currently has is much more suited for navigation. -- Q 15:00, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I can work in that format. Although assembling the stardate info might be harder, but thats the beauty of a wiki, I suppose.--Funkdubious 17:48, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason to do what you are suggesting, Funkdubious. If anyone wishes to learn about the episode, all they need to do is click on the link to that episode. There is no need to clutter the pages with information people can read by just one click. --From Andoria with Love 20:19, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Then you're saying there's no reason for "information at your fingertips", and instead vying for "information just one more click away" or "information maybe if you search the right keywords". The key to a great database (which Memory Alpha is) is having several different views of the information. Which would include at least an episode description whenever episodes are listed in a table, but not having each episode's minutia which is perfect for the actual episode page. --Funkdubious 17:48, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I think it is more important to have one central resource for each piece of information than to have "information at your fingertips" everywhere. Putting information not only on the page where it belongs, but also on several other pages means much content duplication and as a result, more work to keep everything updated all the time.
Your suggestion actually consists of two questions: Do we need it (episode summaries on every page), and if we need it, how do we achieve it? I personally think that we don't need it, but if the majority thinks otherwise, I'd still strongly suggest not to use a bot to copy information if there's a much better solution: If this is really considered necessary, templates could be created for each episode (for example, {{EpSum_Broken_Bow}}), containing a small 3-4 sentence summary of the episode. This template could then be included in the episode article and everywhere else. That way, there's only one page that has to be edited, not many. -- Cid Highwind 12:30, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I hear you, Cid, and I appreciate your comments. From my point of view, it seems much more concise to have the descriptions tag along with the episode listings, since the description is one of the primary ways to distinguish between episodes. I agree that you can click on the episode title... I was just suggesting that having the episode descriptions help the users to quickly locate the episode being sought. "Oh yeah... thats the one I'm thinking of!" Basically having that information minimally aggregated for the viewers via the episode list. I'd love to be instructed on how to do this properly, because I feel its a big win for everyone.
On another note, if I was willing to invest in the time to do it (about 3 seconds per episode), then I'd surely appreciate Shran not reverting the changes because He thinks it shouldn't be that way. Especially since the discussion hasn't run its course. Not only is that rude, but awfully pretentious.--Funkdubious 07:27, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I must agree it has its advantages. I myself ran into the same problem were I was looking for a particular episode from which I knew its contents but not the title anymore. A small description beside the link might have helped to find the episode quicker. -- Q 15:00, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Precisely what I'm talking about Q. Most of the time I don't remember the title, but I obviously remember what the episode was about. Thanks for reaffirming my position. Any other comments?--Funkdubious 18:10, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Another angle to this is Episode ratings. With members/raters voting on the article page, the ratings could transfer into the VOY/TNG/etc pages, showing popular episodes. Perhaps we just need a good Episode listing template?--Funkdubious 18:47, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Here's a little supporting evidence for having the descriptions:

Well since I'm not seeing a whole lot of opposition to it (and can't imagine why there would be), I'll invest the time to make it look good. Optimally, we can figure out a way to have the Episode Descriptions "auto-export" but I don't believe current Wiki implementations allow for this. (Templates come to mind... whereas the Episode page would have

{{description=This is the description}} and then the episode link page could have: *[[Caretaker_(episode)|Caretaker]]: {{Caretaker_(episode):description}}

In addition, I've proposed this "exporting" to the MediaWiki feature request list.--Funkdubious 02:48, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if you're still insisting on that "export" feature because you like it so much, or because you haven't completely understood how templates work, yet - so I'm just going to present the way that already would work, again:
  1. Create a template page for the episode description, for example Template:Description_Caretaker (just a suggestion: use that order instead of Caretaker_Description to have all episode description templates sorted together later).
  2. Move the existing description from the episode article to that page and replace it with a template link: {{Description_Caretaker}}
  3. Also use that template link in whatever other contexts you want, for example: ;[[Caretaker (episode)|Caretaker]]:{{Description_Caretaker}}
-- Cid Highwind 12:35, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Yeah I do like the export feature, and Templates would be a good workaround for what I'm trying to accomplish. But since the episode descriptions shouldn't be changing that often, it should be ok.--Funkdubious 18:00, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Another thing, the MediaWiki devs are considering meta-data to be attached to pages. I filed a feature request at [[2]]. They appear to be considering the new feature, which would be exactly what we need here. Basically, you'd create meta-data for the article and have both the page and the episode listing page import that meta-data. For instance, the episode pages would get KeyValue pair like "Description"="some description", then in the episode page, you'd have {{meta:Description}}, not sure what the syntax would be for one page to import the meta-data from another page, but the possibility is being considered.--Funkdubious 18:08, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Why are you going template-happy over something that will have use on exactly two pages (the series page and the season page)? That sounds a bit harsh, but honestly, we don't need 700+ new templates (that's how many Trek episodes there are) for something like this... I do like the idea of descriptions possibly, but not templates or ratings (see below conversation on ratings). --Broik 15:42, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the template thing is probably a bit overboard. It would be nice (for purity sake) for the Description to automatically update Listings if the Episode page itself's description is changed. But in theory, the episode descriptions shouldn't change, and therefore the listing pages wouldn't change after the initial table treatment. --Funkdubious 18:13, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

As I wrote above, I prefer this, so we don't need these 700 (!) temps. --Memory 20:59, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Given all the above text, an episode list with descriptions helps the casual Trek fan to find the particular episode he was looking for. Although I do like the TAS episode list, its still missing a more vital piece of info for somebody who would've sought out the Episode list, IMHO. Also, I agree that 700 new templates is probably overkill, unfortunately. On the other hand, the episode descriptions won't be changing so it should be ok. ...And since the DB is only 8MB, according to the dump, it has the space ;-)--Funkdubious 18:08, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate Image Section

OK. All of us who watch the Images for deletion know how many duplicate images we seem to get. I came up with an idea for a special section of the page specially for duplicate images. I put my proposal on its talk page, but it didn't get much response, even after my pimping of it on the deletion page. I'm putting this here so that more people will see my idea. Please, don't reply here, go to the images for deletion talk page, where the proposal already is. Thanks. -Platypus Man | Talk 23:17, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • It would just be easier to upload one over the other and post the former for immediate deletion (if they are indeed duplicate images). That is, essentially, what I, we (the admins), do when we merge images and pages anyway. The difference here is that you do not have the ability to delete, so posting it for immediate deletion fulfulls that aspect. For that matter, that this is more or less (indirectly) approved in the guidelines for immediate deletions. --Alan del Beccio 18:22, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Memorable Quotes and other things

Is there a standard for where to put memorable quotes sections? They're placed right before the background section in some articles, but others put them inside the background section. I think that's silly, since they're not background information at all, but I don't want to change it without getting input from others. Sloan 18:54, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • While not strictly speaking a style guide, there is an episode template at Memory Alpha: Template for Episode that should probably be the first word on episode article layout. It has "Memorable Quotes" as a subsection of "Background Infomation", which is the first section after the summary. --9er 05:11, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • This leaves me wondering, because according to this, many episodes do it wrong with the reference lists, which link everything regardless. However, that part I can live with; my real issue is the fact that, as stated, quotes have nothing to do with background/behind-the-scenes/trivia type information. Shouldn't it be changed? Sloan 06:17, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • Quotes were added to the template as a second-level section by Redge on 13 May 2004. Captainmike switched quotes from a second-level section to a third-level section on 7 Dec 2004. Whether there was discussion about these changes beforehand I don't know. Personally, I'm slightly in favor of them being a separate section, but I don't feel too strongly about it. --9er 06:34, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I actually thought it was standard for them to be above tha BG info section, and I moved them accordingly on a couple pages only to realize there's no standard. It seems logical to have it right after the summary though, since that's part of the summary in a sense. --Broik 01:35, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree. It should be the first section right after the summary. --9er 02:08, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • As do I. That's the disadvantage of a Wiki format, though; no centralization unless it's self-enforced. Makon 02:14, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • As I indicated in my edit summary when I changed the template to the order you guys are talking about, this seems to be the consensus unless there are a lot of people who simply haven't been on MA to see the convo yet. We'll see what happens. Weyoun 02:29, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Episode ratings

I just had another thought... episode ratings. This would be included most likely in the actual Episode page. How about a rating system of 0-5 stars, 0.5 increments. My suggestion is to rate an episode, you must be registered, one step to ensure single vote. Not sure of how you'd go about doing this via a wiki...

Just throwing it out there to see if it sticks ;-) --Funkdubious 17:46, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • Absolutely bad idea on a Wiki. Episode ratings are just too subjective. If there was an automated system like a BBS or something would have, maybe, but here it just wouldn't work, especially since there are such broad differences of opinion on this kind of thing. --Vedek Dukat (Talk) 19:27, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Memory Alpha is a wiki and needs to support neutral comments not reflecting any personal preference. There are countless forums or episode guides out there in the web, we don't need this here -- Kobi - (Talk) 20:40, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Neutrality is key to a wiki i agree. If there was some way to list the episodes in order of their MA pageviews it would be interesting though -- it would be a rating based on how many people have read each episode here on MA - and which is sought out the most. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 21:04, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
For the record,
  1. Trials_and_Tribble-ations (14928 views)
  2. These_Are_the_Voyages... (12864 views)
  3. In_a_Mirror,_Darkly (11820 views)
  4. Star_Trek:_Nemesis (10577 views)
  5. In_a_Mirror,_Darkly,_Part_II (9851 views)
  6. Star_Trek:_First_Contact (9830 views)
  7. What_You_Leave_Behind (8455 views)
  8. Star_Trek:_Generations (8432 views)
  9. Endgame (8046 views)
  10. Affliction (7574 views)
  11. Broken_Bow (7535 views)
  12. All_Good_Things... (7182 views)
  13. Star_Trek_IV:_The_Voyage_Home (7087 views)
  14. The_Way_of_the_Warrior (7059 views)
  15. Star_Trek:_The_Motion_Picture (7025 views)
  16. Star_Trek_VI:_The_Undiscovered_Country (7021 views)
  17. Star_Trek_II:_The_Wrath_of_Khan (7003 views)
  18. The_Visitor (6980 views)
  19. Star_Trek:_Insurrection (6163 views)
  20. Far_Beyond_the_Stars (5839 views)
  21. Demons (5779 views)
  22. First_Contact (5773 views)
  23. Encounter_at_Farpoint (5620 views)
  24. The_Aenar (5544 views)
  25. The_Cage (5340 views)
  26. Star_Trek_III:_The_Search_for_Spock (5293 views)
  27. Threshold (5219 views)
  28. Emissary_(episode) (5217 views)
  29. Star_Trek_V:_The_Final_Frontier (5201 views)
  30. Divergence (5169 views)
  31. Where_No_Man_Has_Gone_Before (5061 views)
  32. Yesterday's_Enterprise (4943 views)
  33. Bound (4868 views)
  34. United (4758 views)
  35. Azati_Prime_(episode) (4604 views)
  36. Court_Martial (4371 views)
  37. Regeneration_(episode) (4361 views)
  38. Sacrifice_of_Angels (4175 views)
Even that system would be prone to systemic bias. ENT episodes are all high in page views for the simple fact that they were on the air (and main page, when the "latest episodes" thing was there) after MA was created. But yeah, no ratings system is necessary. --Broik 03:17, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Copyright and the other language versions of MA

I just started the french version of MA and I want to know how to deal with the copyright rules and the different language versions of MA.

In other terms, do we consider all the language versions as part of one site or are each version considered as separate websites. This question deals with using the content of any version for another.

So, how far, can we use content from english MA (translated of course) ?

  • When using texts (translated) from english version, shall we aknowledge all the authors of the original version and put a link to the MA english Main Page, to the english article concerned, to the History pages (contributors) and the licence term of MA english (in that case some references will figure twice with the Interwiki interconnections)
There are pages that need to be translated exactly from english version (copyright, help pages, policies...). For those, I think there should be no controversy (otherwise there will be probably rebellion in all the other languages versions)
But what about great articles, if someone edit the english version, copy it into the other language database and simply translate the text, what should we do ?
  • When using screenshots or similar images, found in the english MA, shall we indicate in the description page "Source of the image : Memory Alpha english, uploaded by userX".
  • If a fan grants permission to english MA, to use his original artwork, does it also permit another language version to use it (with the appropriate credit for the author of course)
  • For other media (sound for exemple), in order not to upload them into French database, I put a direct link to the english database :
    Thème principal (composé par Jerry Goldsmith) on this page TNG fr

Should I make a reference that this link links into the english database ?

I didn't found details about this in the MA english help. Maybe I didn't look enough but as I'm about to translate all these pages, I'll find it one day. Philoust123 22:33, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Many of the Dutch pages are just translations of the English ones, and the Swedish ones... Well, I don't know what's going on there, but the German ones seem to be original from what I've seen. Anyway, the point is that, as they say on Risa, "All that is ours, is yours" (I think that's how it goes). It's all one site, and in the case of copyright permission, giving permission to "Memory Alpha" would presumably mean "Memory Alpha English, German, French, Swedish, Dutch, Polish, Spanish, and Igpay Atinlay." --Broik 22:42, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Finally, though I don't speak a word French, I'm eager to have a new place to play with Morn. Somebody please activate the interwiki links. As for the original question, Memory Alpha is Memory Alpha. By setting the interwiki link any author can compare the other language editions and see the original contributors there -- Kobi - (Talk) 23:04, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I wish I could help with the new French version of MA (Saw it a few days ago, before it had a valid link on the main page), but my knowledge of French isn't enough for me to speak it fluently. However, if there is the odd thing I can contribute somehow, I'll try to help ;) - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 00:55, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
The same goes for me, although I don't know much French outside of what I learned during Moulin Rouge and Casablanca. :-P But I would suggest (I know it's tedious) making episode pages a top priority - even if they're blank templates. Once you lay the foundation down, other people will build on it. Good luck! :-) 01:05, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think it is a Good Thing (tm) to create automatically the episode pages (for example) with only a skeleton. As a user, when I click on a (blue) link, I expect to be directed to a page with _content_ (at least a summary). For the interwiki linking, is this sufficient to be an administrator or does it need more "powers" to do it? -- Rcog 04:02, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)


Hey everyone. Continuing the small discsussion from March 2005, I'd like to push forward the idea of a Memory Alpha mailinglist. One list for all languages should fit our needs at the moment, for international related problem we could write english, otherwise svedish, dutch, german, frensh, polish, or a mix of all with a little spice of klingon. The problem is that I tend to lose track when I'm offline for a few days. So I missed the start of our new sister project, the french MA. This mailinglist could announce such news and MA-related problems such as vandalism or technical problems. — Florian - talk 13:44, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Isn't that where the Memory Alpha:Announcements page is for? Truly, I don't think we need a mailinglist. Ottens 13:52, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Well but you only look on the Announcement page if you are online at Memory Alpha. In case of vandalism you need to be alerted via email. I'm very much in favour of a mailinglist -- Kobi - (Talk) 13:57, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Mailing lists are so 90's. :) There's an RSS feed for recent changes, though recent changes have too high a volume to monitor only certain things. Perhaps someone can weigh in on whether it's possible to create more limited feeds, say for Announcements only? --9er 14:08, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)


There's discussion on a couple of user pages on a Nits (or Nitpicks) policy. I think this would be a valid and useful feature to have incorporated in most episode articles and that it should be made official. Consensus/comment is sought. Specifically, Nits should be a third-level category under Background Information. The stuff that's under Background Information now should be placed under the third-level category Notes (unless it's already under something more specific as it is in a few ep articles). So it would look like this:

==Background Information==


Opinions? --9er 14:28, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I still oppose the idea of a "nitpick" section. In my opinion, nitpicks tend to be subjective and "unencyclopedic". On one of the user talk pages, the TATV-nitpick that was removed was brought up again, and I think that this is a good example. That nitpick was about the apparently missing security guards when Enterprise was boarded in that episode. My question: So what? There surely are precedents for guards arriving too late or not at all, there are dozens of other good reasons for that, and the scene doesn't violate continuity in any way. If we allow all subjective nitpicks, we're opening a big can of worms.
However, I don't have any problems with a "continuity" section (like on These Are the Voyages...) to compare different episodes and also note objective discrepancies between them. -- Cid Highwind 15:44, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I am undecided for this. I have no problem with a nitpick section, but it could get out of hand, however, if done right it could keep the formal nature of MA. For example, check out "The Naked Now". In the Background section, there is a slight nitpick, but it is kept formal. However, if done incorrectly, nitpick sections would have to be moderated a lot. Now, for a Continuity section, I support that. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 15:50, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Having had time to think about this, I agree with Cid that nitpicks do tend to be subjective and therefore should be limited to describing only the apparent violations of continuity (i.e. Romulan cloaking devices in the 22nd century or the like). Therefore, I think an actual nitpicks section is not needed, but a continuity section sounds like a great idea. But, if we do describe discrepancies, we must also describe references to continuity that are correct. The section in the article for "These Are the Voyages..." is a good example of what should be done (kudos to Defiant and anyone else who worked on that). Before, I was complaining about the removal of the nitpick I had added (the one mentioned by Cid, about the lack of security in the episode) because I didn't fully understand why it was removed. Now that I do, however, I believe I agree with the decision to remove it. I also believe the "Naked Now" nitpick pointed out by Enzo falls under the same category - it, too, seems a big subjective, even though it, like the lack of security in TATV, is an oddity... maybe that's just me, though. Anyway, in sum, I think nitpicks should be placed within the context of continuity, that they should be formal and not based on a personal viewpoint, and that they should be listed along with references which do keep continuity intact. Knowhatimean? --From Andoria with Love 04:52, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Rather than postings a "nits" section on the episode page, why not just reference the errors on the specific article that makes specific reference to the person or object that is in error in that pages respective background section? Personally, that is what I dislike about "background" section on episode pages. Unless there is something that has to do with the production of the episode, the rest should go on to individual article pages. I've noticed a lot of useful information for article pages that is simply stashed on the episode page that isn't being used to enhance the page that contains the information the so-called "background" info is explaining. --Alan del Beccio 18:26, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Episode link titles

Just curious: Any reason why the episode link isn't the S#E00 format? Then you don't have to distinquish Caretaker from Caretaker_(episode) (which would be Voyager: Caretaker), and Emissary from Emissary_(episode) (which would be Deep Space 9: Emissary). (And does anybody find it ironic that they're both season pilots?)--Funkdubious 04:28, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Because "Emissary" is the title, and "DS9_S1E01" is just a cryptic abbreviation. If I want to link a specific episode, I can just use its title - and even if I'm missing a necessary qualifier, the link will still at least lead to a disambiguation page which has some connection to the episode page. This is simple - using an abbreviation where I would have to look up the correct one every time I want to link an episode is not. -- Cid Highwind 15:02, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

After thinking about this a little more, how about prefixing VOY/TNG/DS9/etc to the episode name... solves both problems. The only reason I'm bringing this up is because of the namespace collisions that will continue to grow. Caretaker/Voyager: Caretaker, Emissary/Voyager: Emissary, and thats just the Voyager series. Anyways, what do y'all think?--Fundubious 18:18, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Ain't growing now. And no two episodes have the same title. --9er 18:26, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)
We would still need a piped link every time we want to link to one of the 600+ episodes - now, we need a piped link for about 20 (probably, haven't counted them). This number isn't going to grow much, either, because all or most episode articles exist, there won't be any new episodes in the near future and most "collisions" have probably been dealt with already. -- Cid Highwind 19:26, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)
There are actually 53 episodes with the qualifier "(episode)" on them, from "Miri (episode)" to "Terra Prime (episode)" there are a few like "Arena" or "Conspiracy" or "Contagion" that may one day need to be moved, but I find that easier than what you're proposing. If, one day, five-to-ten years from now, an episode from Star Trek: Series VI uses up the same name then maybe we can have an "The Cage (SVI episode)" and "The Cage (TOS episode)." There are some similar names like "Emissary" and "The Emissary", or "The Muse" and "Muse," but it seems the producers have made it easier on us.--Tim Thomason 16:10, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Here's another instance: Maneuvers whereas even the article top has a "disambiguation" notice, that could be easily fixed by having a "VOY_" prefix. Just trying to prove my point ;-) --Funkdubious 00:17, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

But you're not... ;) Your suggestion wouldn't "improve" the situation, because we would still end up with an article title that is not the episode title. It would in fact make the situation worse, because you seem to suggest that all episodes should get such a prefix, even those that don't need to be disambiguated. Also, "Title SUFFIX" is better than "PREFIX Title", because it doesn't affect any form of alphabetical sorting. -- Cid Highwind 13:35, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Citing sources

Isn't it odd that MA has such a strict policy about citing which episode information comes from, and yet when it comes to background information, featured articles routinely fail to cite a source? I just noticed that today. For instance, if the producers' motive was one thing or another, or this person did that behind the scenes for whatever reason, shouldn't it also require a source? --Broik 03:41, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I guess people here are content with assuming we've all memorized everything there is to know about Trek and can verify the info in our heads. Oh well, it was just a thought. :P --Broik 11:33, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
No, i feel this is a valid criticism -- and why our articles on Star Trek: The Magazine, Star Trek Communicator, The Making of Star Trek could be greatly expanded -- background info often originates to interviews and memos in these works, as well as several biographical works such as Inside Star Trek or Shatner's Star Trek Memories should be expanded upon -- with the individual author's bias quoted with the citation for the latter biographical cases. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 13:30, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism

Moved to Memory Alpha:Vandalism in progress
Why not simply disallow non-registered members to edit pages? or, require non-registered users' changes to be moderated.--Funkdubious 18:36, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I think that comment should go on the other page. After all, it does say "conversation moved". :P Sloan 02:48, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Another skin for Memory Alpha

I know it might be somewhat overused, but an LCARS-like skin would be cool. Or one similar to

Another thing: white background with black text with a serif'd font for body text is easier to read then the black/dark bg with white/light text... just FYI (its the reason paper is white, years of psychological analysis of these) Its probably why the main Wikipedia is white/black too. The most "space efficient" skin is the default, so kudos to whoever created that one. Is there a way submit a skin? --Funkdubious 23:29, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)

You can create your one via a homebrewed Monobook.css stylesheet. With it you can make changes to the standard skin and so create your own MA look. Keep in mind that paper is something entirely different that a computer screen. You don't want to read black letters on a white background. Before you reach the end of the page you will need snowglasses. -- Q 13:54, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Episode summaries

So I'm seeing two different types of Episode summaries, as I move through the Voyager series: 1) a very terse version of the episode, 2) a very verbose version of the episode, almost blow-by-blow and scene-by-scene.

I've written a couple of summaries already, and I'm leaning towards a middle ground between the terse version, which technically could be the episode description, and the verbose scene-by-scene version, capturing the essence of the episode, like a book report. The great thing about that is hitting the Wiki-style documents that will hit the keywords of the episode, and continue to build our canonical knowledge.

Good, but short summaries:

"Longer"/more in-depth summaries:

...And then theres a few that are really too short:

  • State_of_Flux -what was the Federation technology that damaged the Kazon ship?

I'm curious as to what the community would like to see? --Funkdubious 00:21, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

You should have been here a few weeks ago, because you would have seen that there really is no consensus. The "really short" ones are probably people who just saw the "SUMMARY" filler from the template and put something in there, but anyway... Okay, so the final episodes of DS9 Season 2 and ENT Season 4 have really really long summaries because they were getting featured on account of that, but not everyone likes the uber-long summaries, some want it like Trials and Tribble-ations, but if you want something to model it after, look at Emissary (episode) as I think that was the Great Compromise of Memory Alpha. I personally think the Tribble one is perfect - I don't like the whole act thing... --Vedek Dukat (Talk) 00:26, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Spelling corrections and "massive-edits"

Any way to fix all the misspellings of "recieve" and "recieves" in a massive edit? And I thought I saw some kind of spell checker bot... The rule is "I before E except after C and sounding as an A as in neighbor and weigh" --Funkdubious 02:14, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Article of the Week

I love DS9 just as much as the next Trekker, but doesn't it seem like the Article of the Week has been from DS9 every week? Maybe there are just a disproportionate number of DS9 Featured Articles (I haven't counted), but it makes me wonder if there's not a systemic bias - e.g. the admins are Niners. ;) Sloan 02:52, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I never thought about it til now, but how does MA choose its article of the week anyway? --Broik 03:23, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
That would be Template:ArticleOfTheWeek and Template talk:ArticleOfTheWeek. I'm the one responsible for the DS9-centric articles (at least the last two ones), because there are basically no rules about the AotW and I'm a Niner. You have a point though. --Vedek Dukat (Talk) 04:54, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Episode pages

Conversation moved to User talk:Vedek Dukat/Episodes.

User talk:Vedek Dukat/Episodes

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.