FANDOM


(Tense: Past or Present?: added quote)
m (Database erasure prevention)
Line 665: Line 665:
   
 
:I started a similar discussion at our [http://scn.infopop.cc/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/22310331/m/29210476963 forum], but there was not much response to it. I found out that the database (only written content, not the pictures) is available for download via the link on my userpage (or [[Memory Alpha:Database download|here]]). I started to download the dumps four month ago, repeating it every month. At the moment I'm writing this, the 12/05 backup is downloading to my HD, for all language editions. I might be the only one who is doing this. As far as I know, the daily backups of wikicities are stored at the same serverfarm (Seattle?), on a backup server. So if the place is erased by a hurricane (or Klingons?), there will be left our backups only. --[[User:Memory|Memory]] 20:08, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 
:I started a similar discussion at our [http://scn.infopop.cc/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/22310331/m/29210476963 forum], but there was not much response to it. I found out that the database (only written content, not the pictures) is available for download via the link on my userpage (or [[Memory Alpha:Database download|here]]). I started to download the dumps four month ago, repeating it every month. At the moment I'm writing this, the 12/05 backup is downloading to my HD, for all language editions. I might be the only one who is doing this. As far as I know, the daily backups of wikicities are stored at the same serverfarm (Seattle?), on a backup server. So if the place is erased by a hurricane (or Klingons?), there will be left our backups only. --[[User:Memory|Memory]] 20:08, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  +
::As a reseller for VERITAS/Symantec Backup Exec I would love to sell them some Backup Exec licenses ;-) --[[User:Funkdubious|Funkdubious]] 21:21, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:21, December 31, 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 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:

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


(Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 02:01, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC))

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)
Right, that's why there is the italic writing. ;-) --Memory 18:37, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

This is hanging around here for a long time, can we form this into a standard for MA:MoS? Maybe adapting the Wikipedia Footnotes? --Memory 18:37, 26 Dec 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 (simply called Alpha or Beta Quadrant, 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)

Any comments? -- Cid Highwind 11:17, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Why use an article for this? Just add "Alpha or Beta Quadrant". --Memory 18:41, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Table Design

How can a user here change, or view, the site's code for a table? I know how to see categories - "Category:Whatever" - but is there a way to access tables in the same way? --Defiant Administrator | Talk 22:39, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Hmm? There's Help:Table markup describing what wiki formatting can be used to create tables. Then I recently added Memory Alpha:Manual of Style (tables) (still incomplete and WIP, if you need to know about a table design not yet on that page, add a comment to the talk page). Last but not least, the final appearance of any table is determined by three different stylesheets, [1], [2] and eventually the one you created in your "User:" space... Hope that helped in some way, let me know otherwise. -- Cid Highwind 11:42, 28 Dec 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)

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)

Star Trek: Enterprise reference site

I discovered a helpful site full of trivia and references related to Enterprise written in note form - [3]. I just thought I'd share that with the MA community! --Defiant | Talk 14:08, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Nits

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==
===Notes===
*NOTES ABOUT THE EPISODE

===Nits===
*NITS FROM THE EPISODE

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)

There appears to be little consensus on this. But check out the Nitpicks section on Let That Be Your Last Battlefield (which I didn't add by the way). Would that be better in a Continuity section (between episodes), or only in a non-episode article, like the one for the Galileo? I think not. And there's nothing subjective about this particular nit, though I grant that the border is hazy on the edges. -- 9er 03:50, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Is there really that little consensus? Most of us seem to agree that subjective nitpicks shouldn't have a place on MA. Regarding the LTBYLB-nitpick, which is about a "wrong" registry number on the Starbase 4 shuttle - according to Alan's suggestion, I would put that on either an article about that shuttle (which doesn't exist yet, but could be created here: Starbase 4 shuttle) or the Starbase article itself (if a shuttle article should not be created). It could additionally be appended to the item in the "Background information" list that already states that "Stock footage from "The Galileo Seven" is used for all of the shuttlecraft shots.". -- Cid Highwind 11:30, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Problematic about nitpick sections -- its quickly becoming a showcase for people who don't understand the plots of the episodes, or simply aren't paying close attention, and assuming that there are mistakes.
I've removed a background note on Star Trek: Insurrection dealing with the scene where the senior crew confronts Picard (planning to disobey orders and join the battle on the surface), and all the officers except Geordi and Riker are out of uniform. It seemed obvious to me that the officers in civvies were wearing those clothes because they intended to join the captain, and at the end of the scene he does indeed allow them to come with him. Riker didn't really have that option, he must realize that if Picard leaves the ship, he has a heavy responsibility of command -- i maintain he never had the option of leaving, but having already discovered the plan, the rest were simply being well prepared by changing ahead of time -- i.e. they already knew who was leaving and who was staying.
Also, syndication has cut many TOS episodes down by almost a full 10 minutes, since TV shows in the 1960s were usually 46-48 minutes sans commercials, nowadays, shows are typically around 42 minutes -- these cuts are not studio edits, they are done by other sources -- sometimes at the local level. There is really no excuse for assuming there's any intention of "changing" the story, unless you think that Bob the late night tape editor at W3RF in Sheboygan is an authority on Star Trek.
I'd support a project to try and "Empty out" the Background section of every episode -- and place the episode in more usefyul places (like your Starbase 4 shuttle comment, Cid. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
This is my next project (removal of nits). Can we impliment this into our policy or manual of style, along with point of view and how to write backgrounds? --Alan del Beccio 22:32, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Background information comes from a production POV, yes, and limited goofs are okay such as the note on last week's featured article Paradise that neutrally says "Sisko begins his station log aboard a runabout." That's my take anyway. Johann 22:40, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I think nitpicks have there place here, they really help to expose problems as to hash them out. Most TOS and TNG error's are not that bad, I suspect the problem with Nits is that fans don't like the glaring errors DS9 Voy and Ent have. But Nits are important because without the section people writing articles may include a "So called error" that really works out easily. What I suggest are articles like this TOS Nitpicks Season 1. The structure will be that each Nit has a bullet, and explanations have indented bullets. Some error's even with explanations should be kept on article, but some should be removed the explanation clear. I think this is the middle ground. --TOSrules 22:27, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I think that is absolutely not "middle ground". In fact, you are actually suggesting the opposite direction. While the consensus so far seemed to be to move those comments that are considered valid from a central "episode" page to various relevant "object" pages, your suggestion is to collect even more of those nitpicks on one page. I don't think this helps in any way, because a) we would still end up with "unencyclopedic" nitpicks instead of just valid comments and b) to paraphrase Alan's earlier comment, if it is valid information about something we have an article about, it should appear on that page. -- Cid Highwind 23:41, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
For example: the nitpick that Kirk's eyes move when he is frozen by the Kelvans "paralyzer device" or whatever it is called -- some say this is a mistake, that he shouldn't have been able to. Others maintain that if a device that paralyzes people is used on Trek, but they cvan still move their eyes, that is a result of the device paralyzing you and allowing your eyes to move. Seems to me deciding either way would be speculation -- and that the info would belong best as background information at paralyzer device (i don't think its really called this, but i.e.) -- it would be better placed there than in By Any Other Name since it involves the device more than the episode -- and we've been over why we shouldn't duplicate data, instead we should put it in the most relevant article, and link to that article from the more general article. If you want to make a "nits" section, perhaps it should just be a list of links to a list of actors, devices, planets, ships that have oddities noted about them (and also, i hate the name "nits" -- its undescriptive). -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
So it is more "Encyclopedic" to have the subject defused around the site, then to have one easy to reference area where it all can be found? A Nitpick is a subject of it's own in it's own way. I know you can't find a canon line for that, but neither can you for 47. When Star Trek is talked about, you will get around to the problems, especially on a site like this. At least we'll have an index for the subject. Although it still does leave the issue, what do we allow on the Nitpick Pages. --TOSrules 01:46, 15 Dec 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)

"Alternate timelines" section

I think the title "Alternate timelines" (seen in quite a few character pages) should be changed to something like "Alternate Realities". Information could then be taken from sequences that are not strictly alternate timelines, such as Barash's illusion of the Enterprise-D crew that Riker witnessed in TNG: "Future Imperfect". I'd still appreciate other users' opinion on that before making changes. --Defiant | Talk 14:26, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)

i'd support this. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

Hyphens

2 or 3 years ago -- I read in a wiki guide that was linked from one of our policy pages that we try and avoid hyphens in article titles (and therefore article links) whenever possible, to avoid delimiting searches and other wiki-tech related issues.

Its been a while and we've moved servers, so i can't find any policy pages or talk relating to it, but I'm sure that's what i read. This is why we do not hyphenate the title 22nd century or Constitution class.

I ask because there is a new user who needs it explained. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

German MA moved all articles missing the hyphen to the correct German spelling with it a long time ago (e.g. "Constitution Klasse" to "Constitution-Klasse", the redirect remained). Up to now I thought the "not-hyphened" writing is correct in AE. Is it not? --Memory 23:06, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Collaboration

Our policy and introduction(s) are very clear -- if you start an article about a subject, you should expect other archivists to make corrections, because the article doesn't "belong" to any one person -- it belong to the community.. if you write something, and someone changes it, for the love of the Great Bird, just ask that person WHY THEY CHANGED it, instead of starting an argument.

If you want to write an article on a topic that you don't want changed -- that'd probably be a good start for your own blog or website. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

I don't know about the issue of things being "my" article or whatever, but I do think the burden of proof, so to speak, would be on the person who reverts it. To a newb -- and for the record, I myself was unaware of the hyphen thing, although I never noticed the lack of them either -- reverting over something trivial like that would look pretty petty, so I can somewhat understand their position. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 21:59, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Vedek on this one. Vandals aside, reverts should be a last resort. In improv, you learn that you should never negate someone else's contibutions but always add to them. It's not precisely the same situation here, but when I see a new contribution that I don't approve of, I'll try to find some third way that might work for everyone. Facts that are plain wrong are another matter, but I think it should be incumbent on the reverter to show cause, especially if the reverter is reverting to his own edit or an article he's contributed heavily to. --9er 05:38, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I, too, think that it should be the "first reverter" who has to explain his reasons. I surely don't manage to do that every time, but I try to add a comment either on the article or the user talk page whenever I revert an edit that isn't very obvious vandalism. Mike is right, though - if something gets reverted and a reason is missing, it might be a good idea for the initial contributor to start the discussion instead of trying to be stubborn. -- Cid Highwind 06:46, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Woha, I agree with Vedek and 9er o_O That leads me to this:
--Memory 22:18, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Rollback policy

You know, we had some trouble with the practise of reverting lately (see Duty Roster issue too) and this is not the first time something like this happens, so we might need a policy on that. As I did somewhere else I suggest some rules for one of the policy pages (or an own for the subject). These could be:

Immediate reverts are allowed for the following cases:

  • Vandalism / Spam
  • Jokes
  • Apparently non-canon content has been added (if you are not sure that some facts are canonical, just add the template {{pna-inaccurate}} to the top of the article and write a note on the talk page)
  • Test-edits that should be made at the sandbox
  • Categories have been added that were created without discussion

All other cases have to be discussed on the talk page of the article or (if it concerns e.g. templates) on the talk page of the affected user before reverting.

-- I think this could prevent edit wars and/or misunderstandings. --Memory 22:18, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think a policy is really needed. If the information added is of a great quantity as it was with Oberth class and is still questionable, it should be reverted and the info moved to the talk page for discussion. Minor things, however, don't really need to be reverted until discussed. This is just my view, of course. --R.I.P. Vincent Schiavelli From Andoria with Love 22:28, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Navigation addition suggestion

I think it would be very useful to have additional links on the left-hand navigation area. Quick-links to specific series and their epsiode lists would be helpful, similar to the menu bar on Wikipedia's Trek pages but simplified.--StAkAr Karnak 23:27, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Template for MA links

if you want to link someone to our uber-helpful introductions or policy pages, use the template {{ma}} -- for example, {{ma|policy}} will form the link policy, etc. etc., -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:46, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I advise against this as it's simpler and quicker to use redirects such as MA:MoS. :) I only wish there was a unified place listing them, although I'm sure that will come in time. --Broik 02:06, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

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)

There are still too many edits without any edit summary... -- Cid Highwind 11:16, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)

No offense, but I think the admin are just as guilty as anyone of doing this. Not you personally, but in general I think the proportions -- excluding new users, who probably haven't read the manual of style let alone this message -- are about the same. It is important to keep in mind though. --Broik 02:08, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I definitely wasn't excluding admins here... ;) -- Cid Highwind 10:33, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Fan fiction

There have ben numerous instances of "fan fiction" style publications being mentioned here -- some discussions:

Fan productions (moved from reference desk)

Since I have added an article on fanon, do I need to include several Star Trek fan series and fan films? If not, where should I add Star Trek related fanon material?

Not on MA, I'm afraid. Please read our Memory Alpha:Canon policy... -- Cid Highwind 20:50, 22 Aug 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 49,782 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)

Fan fiction reference works

I separated several "bootleg" publications into a separate list on reference works -- is something that ws published without the consent of the Star Trek franchise owners, writers and production staff really have anything to do with Star Trek?

In the past we've deleted or removed links to these(such as USS Enterprise Officer's Manual, considering them outside of MA's scope -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 18:08, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

In MA/de we had just a month of conversation what to do with unlicensed games. We came to an agreement to create de:Fan-Rollenspiele where all the individiual games would be stored, as we already started on de:Fanfiction. So these books should be treated likewise and create fan fiction books (or alike), but keep the redirects. What comes to my mind is that the page might need to subdivided a lot (technical manuals, episode guides, other) just by looking at my own collection. -- Kobi - (Talk) 20:08, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
In accordance with the German edit, created the page fan fiction to serve as top-level in this matter. Fan films has also been created without content, because of problems listed below. Films with Walter Koenig and Eddie Paskey are obviously relevant, but how irrelevant would they have to be to not be listed/be removed from that list. Tough questions.
Frankly, i created it just to keep people from listing garbage "bootleg" tech manuals in reference works -- a lot of those books, besides being illegally (or "semi-legally") published, aren't worth much of the paper they are printed on, however, some were written by young Trek artists, and the fanzine scene is a fascinating scene to research -- but soon we'll have to administrate the removal of explicit slash fiction sources, so expect bumps.
It'll be good to keep such pursuits separate from our main articles on novels, etc, as well as separate from our articles on canon -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 20:57, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Try http://startrek.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page for non-canon information Keras 23:30, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Addition to policy pages: reproducing book art

Just clarifying a point regarding our image use policy, i recommend adding these explanations to some policy pages, just making sure that what i said conversationally matches with other admin's view of the copyright license's application on this matter, and we can entertain suggestions from the community as a whole here. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 02:36, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

From Image talk:Ds9ops.jpg:
  • How is that (a reference works illustration) more of a copyright violation than a screencap, cover of a book, etc? Roar 21:42, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • A screencap is a scene from an episode -- you can see the episode for free on syndication. As long as you don't reproduce long video or audio clips, a still frame' isn't infringing the episode creator's right to sell or broadcast their product.
      • (however, despite a fair use of their image, using the still frame for a commercial (for profit) purpose is illegal, because they retain the copyright -- we have a non-commercial license -- we do not sell information or images for money)
    • A cover of a book is used to sell the book -- you can review it any time through a bookseller -- by reproducing it you aren't infringing the book creators' right to sell their product
    • A book's interior text and artwork should only be available to someone who has paid for the book -- copying or republishing artwork for free without permission infringes the rights of the artist and publisher to continue to sell the product. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 00:36, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'm speaking from my own point of view here, but it feels wrong to reproduce any or all of the illustrations made for various Star Trek texts that are copyrighted and in publication across the globe -- things like this are why our copyright license has to be so specific -- also, since this is a wiki, people should be finding ways to create their own accurate diagrams and illustrations, not resubmitting those of others. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

I support these clarifications, a few months ago large parts from the fact files were uploaded to MA/de. Regarding user created schematics, de:Benutzer:Shisma was quite productive -- Kobi - (Talk) 17:26, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Vandals on other Memory Alpha's

Tonight we once again had vandalism on the English MA, like most of the contributors here it's my task to revert the changes they make. The problem on our Dutch MA is that we don't have a lot Admins, and they are all from The Netherlands or in the neighbourhood. Recently we had a discussion on whether or not we should ask for help on the English MA for Admins to keep an eye on the Dutch MA on times that we're asleep. (eg. Admins from the America's or Asia, if there are any). So I'm asking you to join us on the Dutch MA, just to keep an eye on vandalism --Eelco 00:06, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC) (Admin on the Dutch MA)

  • I would if I could but I cant. my admin priv does not extent beyond the english borders. --Alan del Beccio 00:17, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Too many stubs

I just checked the Category:Memory Alpha stubs and was a little shocked to see that it lists about 800 pages marked as "stubs". This is more than 5% of our articles! If you have some minutes to spare, please check that list and see if you can enhance one or two of those articles to at least "incomplete article" status (then replace {{stub}} with {{pna-incomplete}}). I know I will try to make that part of my "daily work"... -- Cid Highwind 23:41, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

As a test/suggestion, I added a new line to the links on the "Recent changes" page, listing five stub articles similar to our wanted pages list. Please comment/discuss here, let's see if this is useful or should be reverted. -- Cid Highwind 10:28, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I think it's useful, but perhaps the "more" should link to the Category: Memory Alpha stubs instead of Memory Alpha: Find or fix a stub so that people can see which articles are stubs? Just a thought...anyway, good idea! --Starchild 23:31, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Of course, thanks. -- Cid Highwind 12:42, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Manual of style?

Is there any style guide being suggested for MA? There seems to be some dispute about how to format dates, bio guidelines, and other details. I also run into a lot of incorrect grammar, sexist usage terms, and other errors which I think should be addressed. Wikipedia has a good style guide which I'd modeling after.--This user is not Jesus 09:44, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

manual of style -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
In addition to the link to our existing MoS, I'd appreciate if you would bring up any specific problems and concerns on the relevant MoS talk pages. I'm sure there are still many details to be addressed, because clarifying the MoS hasn't been top priority in the past. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 16:59, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

New Pages page is hard to read

Does anyone know why the New Pages page has a yellow background, instead of the same background as the rest of the site? Or is it only me? It's very hard to read... Renegade54 17:23, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I can see it as well... :) I guess the problem is that this site uses three different levels of layout formatting - there's the sitewide CSS, the user CSS on top of that, and there has to be some original Wikipedia-style formatting hidden somewhere. I will see if I can find the class that needs to be changed... -- Cid Highwind 17:30, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
The problem lies with the class "not_patrolled" - I just ran a test, marking an article on there as patrolled, and the colouring cleared. Now, to track down the relevant code line... -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:39, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I found as well - and fixed in the Monobook.css by letting that class "inherit" the background color of its parent. Please check. I think the whole CSS is in need of some clean-up work... :) -- Cid Highwind 17:46, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Ahhh, much better... thanks for the quick response! :) Renegade54 17:51, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

No problem. :)
For future reference, the following CSS file is included before the main Monobook.css: main.css -- Cid Highwind 18:08, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Duty Roster issue

Obviously, we're not mature enough to discuss this like adults. Here's the deal: People vote to make the Duty Roster an official part of MA, then Cid or Memory (I forgot who) suggests making it a User Projects page instead, and before we can discuss the matter, Memory goes ahead and makes a User Projects page because "nobody opposed it". That's fine and dandy, except we voted to make it Memory Alpha:Duty Roster, which means it is not a user project. When I tried to discuss the matter, Memory reverted my edits rather than discuss them. I would appreciate some intervention from admins, as there is apparently some misunderstanding about what is and is not appropriate. Weyoun 19:03, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

(I may regret stepping in here, but you know.) Making the Duty Roster an official part of MA had the floor in the discussion. The User Projects idea was offered as an alternative, but it wasn't what was being voted on, and that's why it had no one opposing. For example, deleting all Voyager episodes also had no one opposing. --9er 19:11, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

That about sums it up, but Memory insists on adding the Duty Roster to the user projects page and implementing his point of view (see recent changese). I don't want to get into a revert war, so I'm going to let the matter go until people can voice their opinions. Weyoun 19:17, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at FACs - they are removed after seven days if no one opposes during this time. It's the same here: two supported MA:User projects, no opposing votes, the "Duty Roster" has become an official user project, like Vedek and the rest wants. Shall we wait two months with these things just for Weyoun? --Memory 19:28, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Aren't the FACs also rejected if they don't get five votes within those seven days? :o/ I haven't followed this issue, but I know two things, you need to agree on something and you need to stop polluting the recent changes. Ben Sisqo 19:31, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they are, and let me put this another way Memory: The people who voted had never heard of the User Projects idea, so how can you say they wanted it to become one? Weyoun 19:35, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I voted for making the roster an official part of MA. If the User Project thing is mutually exclusive of that, then my vote is in opposition to the User Project thing, almost by definition. That's your logic. But my problem is the rider-on-an-omnibus-bill way the User Projects was approved. I didn't realize it was up for votes. I was voting on the topic the thread was started for, not the thing someone introduced in the middle of it. --9er 19:38, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Because it is already one. How do you want to call it instead? "Archivists project"? And by the way: if you read the discussion exactly, you can see that Cid's suggestion (which has been voted on) was "I believe that it should be placed on a page in "Memory Alpha:" namespace if it is useful for more than just the few users already working on it." (and later "create a project page listing everything that needs work: one section for stubs, one section for PNAs and (new), one section for specialized user-defined projects where everyone who wants to start a project"). That doesn't mean that the page itself has to be moved. And at the moment, it is placed on a "MA:" page (the user projects). At Dec. 6. I asked "Any objections?", and there were no opposing votes for one week, so the issue seemed to be solved. (In fact, Logan and Vedek supported it too.) --Memory 19:56, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Some comments here are distorting the issue - from the beginning, moving the inofficial Episode page to an official "Duty Roster" was only one of several possible actions. Trust me, I know, because I started the discussion. During the course of the discussion, even more suggestions were brought up, in the end including Move, Remove Link, Create Template/Category, Create User Projects page, perhaps even some more. I repeat, at no point was the discussion solely about moving or not moving the page. In the end, not only Memory and myself were in support of the more general "User projects" page, also Vedek Dukat approved (after all, the creator of the "Duty Roster" page) - so I can see no problem with the creation of Memory Alpha:User projects and including Dukat's user page there. Perhaps we should simply ask Dukat if this is "good enough" for him.
If not, there are still unresolved issues to be discussed before a Memory Alpha:Duty Roster should be created. -- Cid Highwind 19:58, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
As evidenced from this discussion thread's existence, there are obviously unresolved issues before Memory Alpha:User projects can be created either, but that didn't stop Memory from doing it. ;) And please do not misrepresent my opinion; I said it was interesting and did not indicate my support or opposition to the user projects idea. But if it's a choice between Memory Alpha:User projects and Memory Alpha:Duty Roster -- an either/or situation, as it's apparently become -- I choose the latter. Cid, the vote in which people put support in bold letters was about creating Memory Alpha:Duty Roster, and as such, I have a feeling we're going to get a lot more comments along the lines of 9er's opinion. The fact is, you and Memory are the only ones who "voted" for it to be under Memory Alpha:User projects. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 20:27, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Cid, the problem is that you and Memory either threw out the votes for Memory Alpha: Duty Roster and counted two votes for Memory Alpha: User Projects as consensus, or unofficially converted the former to the latter. These are no-nos in the consensus process. All that aside, obviously there's no consensus on this if different people believed they were voting for different things. --9er 20:29, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
That's not correct: Cid suggested to discuss it instead of further voting, and the issue was not to create "Memory Alpha:Duty Roster" (that was the idea of Weyoun) then to have a way to link to the project via an official page. Then Cid (not me) made the suggestion of a more general page (that lists Vedek's page), and I supported it. In fact, these votes and the votes from the discussion before count for the same (as Vedek said himself). Then I asked if someone opposes to proceed with this, and no one did. That means that this is a naming issue now, if you want to move "MA:User projects" to "MA:Duty Roster" I have no problem with it. --Memory 20:49, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
(written before reading Memory's last comment)
Less accusations, please... :) Let me set some things straight: Re:Issues with MA:UP The only issue with this seems to be whether or not to include the "Duty Roster". We can remove that page, if it hasn't happened already. Re:Opinion misrepresentation Not a misrepresentation, but apparently I misunderstood your comment: "I don't really care one way or another how we handle the current Duty Roster". Sorry, won't happen again. Re:Throwing out votes I didn't throw out any votes, but commented twice on the fact that this voting process was ill-defined from the beginning (and probably unnecessary as well). A voting process was started without any definition of its goal (necessary votes etc.), about one of many suggestions discussed before, and several comments were counted as "implicit support" for that suggestion.
As a final comment on this issue, I still think that a general place for user projects is much better in the long run than having "an official page for episode summaries". What if the next user has a good idea? Do we start to create dozens of official pages? Do we add all of them to our already crowded welcome message? The projects page is a much cleaner approach, and I haven't heard any good arguments against it yet - I might be wrong, but it seems as if the "Duty Roster" has become a too personal issue for some of its participants. Perhaps we can wait for some neutral comments. -- Cid Highwind 20:55, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
So, Memory, you're saying yes, we did both throw away the earlier votes and then count them towards something that wasn't yet mentioned when they were cast. I'm dubious on the process there. --9er 21:00, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Well I agree the process was not sufficiently defined. That hardly argues for the unopposed creation of the User Projects page though.--9er 21:05, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Nothing was thrown away. The idea was to make Vedek's project more official via a MA page, and that has happened. MA:UP is only an expansion of this idea, nothing else. Or do you really want to have another user creating "Memory Alpha:Duty Roster 2" and then another user his "Memory Alpha:Duty Roster 3" and and... (and all of them singly linked from the welcome message) ? --Memory 21:41, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Hey, mind if I join in the discussion? :) Okay, first, when I voted, I did so in support of Vedek's duty roster becoming an official part of Memory Alpha, although, I admit, I was a little curious as to how it would come about. I did see Cid's suggestions, they just didn't click in my head... I just wanted to give my opinion on Vedek's Duty Roster. However, having now read the conversation above, I was all set to stand by my earlier vote, until I read Cid's most recent comment -- and he's right. If others wish to create a project, what do we do? Create official pages for each and every one of them we think are a good idea? Seems a bit much to me. Of course, we could make Dukat's Duty Roster an official project and still keep the User projects page. I don't know... I only work here. But I will say this much... nothing can justify the revert war I saw took place in the recent changes page. See "rev", "rev", "rev" all the time, I thought a vandal was at work... so image my surprise when the culprits were Memory and Weyoun. I'm not putting blame for starting the war on one or the other, but it should have been fully discussed before any moves or reverts took place.
By the way, in the future, shouldn't that type of voting be done in a more "official" area... Ten Forward perhaps? Just a suggestion... --From Andoria with Love 21:16, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I moved it to TF after the voting has started. That was on Dec. 5. Today Cid moved it to Memory Alpha talk:User projects. Unfortunately Weyoun simply removed it from there instead of continuing the discussion there, so I thought at the first moment that it is vandalism too. --Memory 21:41, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
You should know better, though, considering the topic at hand was the duty roster. :P That's what he did; he moved it, not removed it. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 22:07, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
And he blanked the page (and reverted Cid's rev from 09:28). That looked a bit suspicious ;-) --Memory 22:30, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Archivists should not be blanking any talk pages on Memory Alpha, or reverting comments that are not their own.
If Cid performed an action (I haven't read the relevant discussions, but i've noticed the pagemoves), it should be discussed, not reverted. If Cid moved the article somewhere today for the reason of discussing whether the move should be performed (as i thought i might have seen in he pagemove's summary field), then the article should not be moved again until the discussion has commenced.
If its to discuss the proper location of the article, I don't understand why we should not simply wait for a discussion (possibly a wait of a few days) before the page moves again. Issues like this (the proper naming, categorization and tree/link organization of a maintenance page, outside the article namespace) have a few facets to examine (will these projects be named uniformly? will links to them be added to policy or protected pages?). Once a few archivists have made suggestions, then an admin can choose the best link to a project that could be added to a policy/protected page, so that those who browse our maintenance structure can find it. Moving the talk pages around repeatedly are kind of making it difficult, its kind of why i haven't gotten to read the discussion -- its hard to keep up with where it is right now.. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 03:40, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Well, since no one opposed making it an official part of Memory Alpha after a week, I've gone ahead and moved it to its rightful place. :-P Weyoun 19:41, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

You still didn't get it. It already is an official user project (because every of our projects is logically an user project). This is what has been voted for, not the name "Memory Alpha:Duty Roster". It seems that you didn't understand the naming argument: if someone want's to start his own project, he shall be responsible for it, and that is indicated by the fact that it is hosted on a page of a dedicated user (call it a "semi-admin" for the project). This will be Vedek Dukat in this case. Without this, the whole thing is not more than a normal maintenance category, and in this case the page "Memory Alpha:Duty Roster" (as list) is a candidate for deletion because we have a template for this and we can easily create an automatic category for some types of incomplete pages. That's the way this is organized at MA (and WP too). If you want to do something different, there has to be somebody who is the official leader of this, and that is indicated by the "User" namespace. So think a moment about this. (I don't move it back now, but later...) --Memory 21:01, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Er, could we put things under a "Project:" namespace instead? I really don't like the idea of having the Duty Roster as a "project" with the "User:" namespace, but I could go for it being included as a user project if it had a new namespace. For the record, yes, if it's a choice betwee MA:Duty Roster and MA:User projects (as in one or the other? I don't get why that was) I choose the former. --Broik 20:35, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
MA:User projects /= MA:Duty Roster. MA:UP is (shall be) a list of projects like "MA:DR", but the MA namespace is lacking what I explained above. Ok, we can name it "Project:Episode Duty Roster", but I don't like the idea of creating new namespaces when it isn't really necessary. --Memory 21:01, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Weyoun, for what it's worth, I did voice my concerns about that, as did others. I would appreciate if you would no longer move the duty roster to a MA: namespace page while we're still discussing things. I will move it back, protect the MA:DR page and let some other admin, preferably more than one. There are also still open issues regarding the use of "shortcut links", so please discuss those as well instead of simply moving pages again. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 11:38, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Well, shortcuts are another story, but on the subject of the page's name... I like the idea of a Project namespace. I actually had the same idea before Broik mentioned it, but Shran pointed out that it might confuse inexperienced users who think it's something like Project Genesis if we have Project:Episode Duty Roster. Opinions? --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 08:07, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Ok, you know I don't like it to let this go on for month, so if you want to move it to "Project:Episode Duty Roster" do it. --Memory 02:29, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Moving it there wouldn't automatically create that namespace, just add a page in main article namespace - which is not a good idea in my opinion. -- Cid Highwind 04:05, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
How would one create a "Project" namespace officially then? I always thought the only difference between, say, Weyoun and User:Weyoun (at least as far as the database goes) was searching for "User:" in the article title. I agree with Memory in any case, this has gone on for way too long already. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 20:23, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I also agree to Episode Duty Roster if the namespace is a problem. --Memory 20:39, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if that whole thing really warrants creating a whole new namespace (I don't think the number of active projects at any time will be that high), but this would be something necessarily going through User:Harry Doddema. I guess it should still be discussed, though. Episode Duty Roster would still be a non-article page in article namespace. As a possible compromise, what about subpages of Memory Alpha:User projects, for example Memory Alpha:User projects/Episode duty roster? -- Cid Highwind 20:49, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Site background

Erm... does everyone else have a white background when viewing MA, or is it just my computer? --From Andoria with Love 03:03, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I've got part of the normal background, but it's white on the sides. So no, not just you. --Starchild 03:08, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I just wanted to make sure. Thanks. :) The white against black is pretty distracting, though, so I hope they fix it soon. --From Andoria with Love 03:17, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I like the old version better. This theme is stupid.--141.157.14.187 04:06, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
What on earth has happened? The background outside the tables (which is what I think Starchild meant by part of the normal background) is white. Whatever has been done, please undo it. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 04:13, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Yea, that's what I meant. I wonder if Cid's edits to the Media Wiki: Monobook.css did something odd? --Starchild 04:31, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Shran changed it back and it didn't do anything, so I'm at a loss for words. I forgot the name of the image file that's used for the background, so I dunno. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 04:33, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Well, at least now I know it wasn't just my computer screwing up. What's up with the white background?--Mike Nobody =/\= 05:02, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this helps, but I just want to point out that the German Memory Alpha (here) is not affected by this? Meaning it's just our's. The problem is... if it's not monobook, what could it be? Like I said, don't know if that helps any. --From Andoria with Love 06:46, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is. The German, French, Dutch, and Swedish versions are all looking normal. I checked memory-alpha.org/en/graphics/background_monobook.gif and I see the same dot (That I guess is repeated and represents the background) that I do at /de/graphics... or even at memory-alpha.org/graphics..., so I have no idea what the problem could be, but it seems to be centralized at the English Memory Alpha.--Tim Thomason 06:55, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I edited the main Monobook.css, but not any parts that have to do with background color. For what it is worth, I'm not seeing it, either. White background can happen if the MA CSS files don't load properly at all, because in laymans terms, the "Wikipedia-white" is some sort of default behind it. I can revert my changes, but I doubt that would change anything. Can someone provide a screenshot? Perhaps try to force a reload of the existing CSS by loading this page: [4]... -- Cid Highwind 09:01, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I saw the same effect after logging out, so apparently something in my custom CSS prevented that bug from showing up. Reverting the CSS and reloading the file helped, so please try that yourself, now. I'm still not sure what exactly caused the problem, though. -- Cid Highwind 09:50, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
It looks like (on my IE browser, at least) you fixed it, Cid. Good job!--Tim Thomason 09:53, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Everything seems to be back to normal now. Thanks, Cid! Of course, we still don't know what caused the problem... which means it will likely remain one of those great mysteries in life. You know, like the Bermuda Triangle... or the location of Jimmy Hoffa's body... or why "Threshold" was written. But, at least its fixed now. :) --From Andoria with Love 17:42, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Succession Boxes

I propose that we introduce (re-introduce?) the Wikipedia-style succession boxes on appropriate pages. I realize that this would be a fairly large "can of worms," but I always thought it looked nice on articles, and I'm sure will only add to some articles. Of course, these succession boxes should only be used when appropriate (obviously, one name preceding or succeeding). Here's an example of what a finished succession box would look like for James T. Kirk:


Preceded by:
Captain Christopher Pike
Commanding Officer of the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)
2265-2270
Succeeded by:
Captain Willard Decker
Preceded by:
unknown
Chief of Starfleet Operations
2270-2273
Succeeded by:
eventually Admiral Richard James
Preceded by:
Captain Willard Decker
Commanding Officer of the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)
2273-2278
Succeeded by:
Captain Spock


Please discuss any opinions on whether or not this is a good idea.--Tim Thomason 08:17, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I personally think it is not a good idea because, compared to Wikipedia, there are only very few examples where we do know predecessor/successor, most of which even were just temporary. Even in the example above, there are two unknowns, and two lines are related to a temporary change (Decker). Such a table might make sense on Wikipedia, where positions often are related to dozens of persons, and someone might be interested to, for example, read about all 15 captains of ship X. Something like this doesn't really happen here. I think that standard text combined with lists at the positions' article and perhaps some of the existing templates (we have "Enterprise Captains" or something like that, right?) is more than enough for our needs. -- Cid Highwind 12:01, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Cid. --Memory 22:01, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I tried a long response once, but my computer/browser messed things up, so I'll try again. First, I think it was a good idea. I included Kirk to specifically show an "unknown" and "eventually" field. I'm pretty sure that would be his full succession box if this were to be accepted (I realize there might be a problem with the kinda non-canon 3rd 5 year mission). I created succession boxes for about 30 characters, in trying to see how viable this idea was, so I don't think that should be a problem. Here's an example of someone (Charles Tucker III) without any "unknown" or "eventually" fields:

Preceded by:
None
Chief Engineer of Enterprise (NX-01)
2151-2154
Succeeded by:
Commander Kelby
Preceded by:
None
First Officer of Enterprise (NX-01)
2151
Succeeded by:
Subcommander T'Pol
Preceded by:
Commander Kelby
Chief Engineer of Enterprise (NX-01)
2154-2161
Succeeded by:
None


Also, temporary shouldn't be a problem if you look from an in-universe POV. From that POV, Decker was in command for 2 and a half years, and was preparing for a new mission. He picked out a crew, and was a genuine Commanding Officer of the Enterprise, deserving mission in the succession boxes in my opinion. Counter that with William Riker. He was field promoted by Admiral J.P. Hanson, because Jean-Luc Picard was "out of commission." Riker was only "acting Captain" and stepped down as soon as Picard was de-Borgged. On Picard's succession boxes I would exclude Riker (but I would include Edward Jellico, but that's debatable). Anyways, It is quite easy to "work around" temporary assignments by combining all of the positions into one, for example, Benjamin Sisko:

Preceded by:
Gul Dukat

Gul Dukat

Commanding Officer of Deep Space 9
2369-2373

2374-2375

Succeeded by:
Gul Dukat

Colonel Kira Nerys

Preceded by:
None

Akorem Laan

Emissary of the Prophets
2369-2372

2372-2375

Succeeded by:
Akorem Laan

None

Preceded by:
None

Lieutenant Commander Jadzia Dax

Commanding Officer of the USS Defiant (NX-74205)
2371-2374

2374-2375

Succeeded by:
Lieutenant Commander Jadzia Dax

None


That's just an example, I still think it would look okay without combination. We should deal with those on an individual level anyway. I created the "Enterprise captains" template, and if these were accepted, I would have nominated that template for deletion.--Tim Thomason 06:11, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

One thing I don't see addressed yet is the fact that a navigation table like this just doesn't make as much sense here as on Wikipedia. There, one might start of the first person having that title/position/... and then use the template to navigate through all of them. Often, there are dozens of articles linked that way (for example, US presidents starting with Wikipedia:George Washington). Because of the fictional nature of this project, a navigation help like this isn't as useful here. Besides, this information is most often already listed on the article about the position itself. -- Cid Highwind 14:57, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I'll spare you any more "examples." First of all, on Wikipedia they often link to articles in the middle that contains a list page. In fact the George Washington page contains a list of Presidents just under the succession box for President. I still think this would be quite useful here on Memory Alpha. I've also seen succession boxes used nicely on other similar articles in similar fictional franchise projects.
For example, if you were to look through all of the pages on the Chief Engineers of the USS Enterprise-D, what page would you go to? We could create a page entitled "Chief Engineers of the USS Enterprise-D." We could also create a template and place it on Sarah MacDougal's, Argyle's, Logan's, and La Forge's pages. Even though it is noted on all four of their pages, I'm sure there's a position (perhaps Flight controller) where this template will help create new links.
The point is that I find them to be quite useful, snappy, and a good addition to an articles page. However, since I'm the only one, I guess it could just wait till after a couple months this is archived, and then in a few years, after I become some corporate shill or something somewhere, some teenage/twenty-something will find this in one of the archives, or accidentally post the same idea. Then it might be accepted, filled up most places, and then within a week to a few years, someone else will decide it was a bad idea, harkening Cid's motif, and then delete it again, only to have it pop up once more a few years later (assuming we survive 2012).--Tim Thomason 16:08, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Maybe some form of timeline of functions, on a single page, with respect to who fullfilled them and when ? -- Q 18:59, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

One point I don't like is that this is so ... "dominant". If there is a way to do this simpler (smaller), with less code, I would support it. --Memory 21:57, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Tense: Past or Present?

Okay, I have looked high and low for policies on what tense to use in articles, be it past or present, and have only found a few discussions on the topic which don't really define it as policy. Personally, I thought we were looking at the POV of the 24th century, post-Star Trek: Nemesis, and therefore, all historical articles should be in past tense except for those subjects which are currently still around or active in the 24th century. However, Q has been changing several articles (United Federation of Planets, Andorian, Tholian) to past tense. Is this right? What, exactly, is MA's policy on this? And if there isn't one, could we perhaps create one? --From Andoria with Love 11:37, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Personally, I like what Michael Warren suggested in an archived Ten Forward discussion:
The perspective of Memory Alpha is that of the late 24th century - ie, several years past Star Trek: Nemesis, so that all events that have happened in the regular Trek timeline have already happened. ... The only exception to the past tense rule should be things that aren't a time-specific reference, ie, saying "Phasers are directed-energy weapons..." or "Archer IV is a planet...", and similar.

That's what I thought we were doing all along. Am I right here? --From Andoria with Love 11:46, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Consensus the last times we discussed this topic seemed to be to use past tense throughout exactly because the in-universe part of the encyclopedia is written from an in-universe POV (meaning that everything has to have happened already). In my opinion, to createe a consistent style, this should include everything and not be restricted to events having happened before some arbitrary date in the late 24th century. I suggest to use past tense for all in-universe articles and whatever tense seems appropriate for meta articles. -- Cid Highwind 11:51, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I personally use the following. All articles should be in past tense except the episode summaries who also might be in present tense. (some argued because they are running episodes and therefore did not needed to be past tense, which is fine by me) This means, to me atleast, that the reader is looking back from a far away future back to the StarTrek universe and is reading about the history of it. Because of the lack of a 'real tense policy' I use this as reference on which I base my edits. (hence why I changed the tense on the above mentioned articles) So as far as I am concerned "Archer IV is a planet..." should be "Archer IV was a planet...", because who says that in the years after StarTrek, the timeframe of the reader, it didn't explode or existed anymore ? The same goes for the phasers. Please correct me if I am wrong. -- Q 13:07, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're wrong (because I have no idea), but I was under the impression that we were looking at it from the POV of a few years after Nemesis, not far in the future. It would be nice to have some clarification on this, which is why I believe a tense policy should be enacted... once we find out what the policy will be, of course. :-P --From Andoria with Love 13:20, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

The usage of tense within MA always confused me, partially because of the lack of a good tense description, and still does, so I adapt as I go along. I didn't even known about the 'few years after Nemssis POV, go figure. I will refrain from changing tense in articles for the time being and see what this discussion brings -- Q 13:34, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • A few years after Nemisis is what I was working from, I was wondering why the species articles were being made past tense. Jaf 15:10, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)Jaf
I think "a few years after Nemesis" is a good rule of thumb, but shouldn't be made official policy. What if there's some future series or movie set after Nemesis - do we rewrite all articles that now use present tense? What about events that "we" know of because of time travel? Do we use future tense in those cases? I think the most logical approach would be to use "far future" as our POV, which means past tense for all in-universe articles. Of course, articles about "timeless" things (for example, theories&principles) could be written in present tense, althought I don't know if that wouldn't make it confusing for readers? -- Cid Highwind 15:39, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

After some searching I found this, Memory Alpha:Point of view. I must admit it this not clarify the tense to use, atleast not to me. -- Q 15:49, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

The idea of making everything past tense is appealing to me, for the sake of simplicity. However, the "a few years after Nemesis" idea seems prevelant, as in William Riker and others that speak in the present tense when introducing the topic. Cid's point is a good one, and I agree that "far future" is the best policy to avoid inconsistencies. Q is also right about episode summaries, all of which are in present tense from what I've seen. --Broik 17:44, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
My take, FWIW: All events should be described in past tense, from the vantage point of some arbitrary amount of time after the event itself. Future events should be described in past tense too, from the vantage point of an arbitrary amount of time after the knowledge of the future events was gained in the past (e.g., "in this future timeline, Janeway had become an admiral".)
All people should be described in past tense, even those who might be expected to live way past our arbitrary amount of time (e.g., Q, the Metron, or the Prophets).
All objects should be in past tense, but classes of objects should be described in present tense, because the class still exists even if no instances of it still exist. E.g., "Starships are" but "the U.S.S. Enterprise was".
Locations, including planets and cities, should always be described in present tense, because there's an expectation of permanence there, and it's a little jarring to hear "Earth was..." The exception of course is for those places that are known to no longer exist. E.g. "Vulcan is" but "the Genesis planet was".
Political entities should always be in past tense, e.g. "the UFP was" and "the USA was", because these are more in the realm of people, where there's no expectation of permanence, than in the realm of locations, though it will be fuzzy at the edges.
Episode summaries are ok in present tense, as these are a special type of article and it seems to work just fine.
Have at it. --9er 18:10, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I agree to adding a determined time-POV to Memory Alpha:Point of view, but maybe 2380 might be better than far future because writing about all the main characters (of this time) as if they are dead sounds a bit... strange. --Memory 22:22, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Memory, I believe the idea is to have all articles written from a POV an arbitrary number of years after the events took place, no matter when they took place, and not to name a single year and have all articles written from that POV. Doing it the second way, ENT articles would read like ancient history, while VOY eps would read like recent news.
Also, I hadn't noticed that some character articles were written in the present tense. I took a look and the TNG characters seem to be in present tense, but most DS9 character articles are in past tense. I think the TNG character articles are in the wrong POV. --9er 23:04, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

As a casual user of MA, let me add that I think this is the most significant problem with the entire project. Comparing MA to other comperable projects, the clear lack of consistency in POV exposes this reference to be, frankly, a work of amateurs. And debating at which year to set the POV will only exacerbate the problem. What will MA do when another Star Trek incarnation moves the timeline past whatever arbitrary year we set the POV? And setting up extremely complex rules like "planets are always in present tense" will only lead to inconsistency and continued confusion. The only way to solve this problem is to redefine the entire philosophy. Then, this new philosophy on POV should be written into the introduction, the guidelines for posting, and everywhere else prominent. It seems to me that the new philosophy should be this. All articles should be written in the past tense. All of them. Picard was not is the Captain of the Enterprise-E. Earth was not is the location of Starfleet Command. And so on. This POV is one of detached omnipresense, and is the most appropriate for a reference work like MA. Please, take this existential issue more seriously. --68.74.12.137 04:30, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I agree with 9er. We should talk about it as best we know about it, the last time we checked in. I was favoring the post-Nemesis idea, but I like this better. As we learn more about something, it should move up the tense. If we saw the person die (or things regarding their death occured), it should be past tense, like Trip Tucker and Tasha Yar. However, to avoid everything in Enterprise and TOS sounding like ancient history, they should refer to the last we know about them. True, we know that T'Pol is long dead in the later series, but her death is never mentioned (AFAIK), so it would work to refer to her as if the ENT finale just occured. Also, with events in the far future, also past tense. For example, Captain Braxton travelled back in time, not he will travel back in time. However, this only works with biographical articles. For historical articles, the post-Nemesis thing works best. We need to retain one viewpoint for an entire article. For example, if we were describing Earth's history, we wouldn't want to talk about different people from different times like they lived together. Episode summaries are fine in present tense, like a running description. To sum this whole thing up, as Braxton said in "Relativity," "I gave up trying to keep my tenses straight years ago." -Platypus Man | Talk 05:19, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Shortcut links

I'm not going to get into the issues surrounding the existing redirect, as that's not my battle, but I'd like to discuss the idea of redirects using the MA namespace. This, as someone pointed out on the VfD page, is an accepted practice and not considered superfluous or pointless (quite the contrary, they save time). So I'd like to propose shortcuts using the MA namespace and modeled after Wikipedia's "WP" redirects, complete with the helpful boxes informing people that they can use these shortcuts. An example would be MA:TF for Memory Alpha:Ten Forward. This seems like a logical (and hopefully uncontroversial) idea. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 08:16, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

You have my support for this. --Memory 22:09, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Here here. Roar 23:48, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)
This was the proper way to go about the discussion, very admin-like Vedek; now keep it up for a month or two and you'll be on a roll. But seriously, it makes perfect sense and will work out fine so long as we designate the shortcuts uniformly (e.g. we don't want people creating superfluous or redundant shortcuts for every single page within the Memory Alpha namespace). Wikipedia:WP:WP does this quite nicely. --Broik 17:30, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and make a couple of these shortcuts to start out: MA:R for redirects (ironically), MA:MoS for the Manual of Style and MA:CYS for Cite Your Sources. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 21:25, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Creating those seems to have consensus, but let's not go wild and create all of them at once - many might never be necessary. I suggest to create those shortcuts when they are first used (and, please, not move around and use them in the next five minutes just for the sake of creating them, which might be a case of WP:POINT). However, I disagree with the MA:R shortcut for a page Help:Redirect. "MA:" should only be used for articles in the "Memory Alpha:" namespace. Either the "Help:" page needs to be moved or the shortcut removed. Is there a definition of the difference between Help: and MA: pages somewhere - that escapes me at the moment. -- Cid Highwind 22:25, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Help: vs. MA:

It seems as if the "Help:" namespace is supposed to explain available features whereas MA: should be used to define project-specific rules&restrictions regarding these features. In that case, the Redirect article should be in MA: namespace because it is written as a guideline - I will move the page. Perhaps other pages need to be moved (or their content split up) as well... -- Cid Highwind 11:47, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Moved from VfD

Memory Alpha:DR and MA:DR
Unneeded redirects; I find it highly unlikely people are going to be looking for "DR", nor is "DR" popular enough for the everyday user to come along and know what it means (besides "doctor", of course). Also, the latter link is in the wrong format, since we don't have an "MA" here (for example, we have "template", "image", and "Memory Alpha"; "MA" doesn't constitute anything). Besides that, I just don't think the Duty Roster needs a redirect. --From Andoria with Love 06:08, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Memory Alpha:DR and keep MA:DR. Captain Mike was talking about how redirecting across namespaces is forbidden or something and claimed that the {{ma}} justified the former's existence, but I think he missed the boat. The point of this and similar redirects would be for convenience not only in typing for messages here but also going to the link (e.g. you type it into the search bar) and in edit summaries. Special:Contributions/Pd THOR has a couple of examples of how he probably has "MA:CYS" set in monobook.js, but it could be a viable way to inform people of why you reverted their edits (not in this case, of course, but for other such "MA:" redirects). There are other reasons I could list and hypothetical cases I could suggest, but you get the idea. Examples of such redirects: Wikipedia:WP:PNA (pages needing attention), StarWars:SW:MOS (manual of style), and Uncyclopedia:UN:WAR (flame war guidelines). I realize I'm rambling because I'm tired, but I think I've made my point.
For the record, no, I'm not insanely passionate about this idea and I'm not going to debate the issue when (not if) someone refutes my claims. I just think people on MA tend to be short sighted sometimes. :-) Weyoun 07:02, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I don't know anything about the monobook.js file; I just use a piped link when I put that (MA:CYS) in an edit summary so that it isn't as extraordinarily long as the whole link would be otherwise. Um ... as for the votes ... I abstain on account of uninformedness.  ;^) — THOR =/\= 08:25, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Delete MA:DR -- there's no good reason to start creating redirects starting with "MA:" -- they will read to the wiki software as belonging to the "main article" namespace, but are intended to represent the project's "Memory Alpha:" namespace.
I have tried to offer alternatives to Weyoun, but he waited barely a day to start an edit war and star moving and recreating pages that were previously deleted.
Its not a discussion if you ignore everything but you own coments Weyoun. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
Which is what you did by moving it in the first place. :-) But as I said, this isn't an important enough issue to debate. If you insist on keeping it as "Memory Alpha:DR", which defeats the entire point, then delete both. By the way Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Shortcut shows the logic of the original redirect... Weyoun 17:05, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep MA:DR. It simplifies things (you only have to type that instead of the full address...) and is helpful. Much like the Favourite Son redirect, the question is not why have it but why delete it. I also agree with Weyoun that we should delete Mike's rather silly (no offense) suggestion, although an adit war isn't the way to go about it. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 16:52, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • First, I'd like to suggest postponing this discussion until we decided if we even want to have a page called Memory Alpha:Duty Roster. This is still open for discussion, and if we don't have the page, we don't need either of the redirects. Generally, I'd prefer not to have non-article pages in article space, and prefer Mike's suggestion of using the {{ma}} template if an abbreviation is necessary - that is, delete MA:DR. -- Cid Highwind 17:10, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. That defeats the point, as you can't use templates in search boxes, article summaries, etc. What is the point of "Memory Alpha:DR" -- if you're going to have a shortcut, it should be short, not convoluted. But Cid is probably right about postponing the vote pending further discussion. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 17:23, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep MA:DR, delete Memory Alpha:DR and expand shortcut idea to include all major pages, the way normal Wikis do (as demonstrated above with the Wikipedia, Wookieepedia, Uncyclopedia links). --Broik 17:55, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the long one and keep the short one. This is a normal practice that makes sense. I'm an admin on Wikipedia & I use the WP: shortcuts regularly. They're really useful... I don't get why you'd wanna make a special template to do the exact same thing. --PRueda29 20:09, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC) — invalid vote, user is not long enough registered according to our regulations (sorry) --Memory 21:15, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • The naming is still under discussion, but as I wrote at Ten Forward I think this project should stay where it is, so both redirects should be deleted (wrong namespace), but the idea of having such shortcuts is good. --Memory 21:15, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Since the subject is under discussion, I moved the deletion conversation here. So... on with the arguing! --From Andoria with Love 11:59, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Not really, since (a) Cid and Memory'a opposition prevented it from being called Memory Alpha:Duty Roster in the first place, which means both of these should be deleted because they are inaccurate and (b) there is a consensus to use redirects with the "MA:" namespace. --Broik 02:13, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

technical problem

It seems Ripway.com has gotten a bad spamming reputation lately. Although I've used their hosting service for awhile without any problems, Wikipedia, Uncyclopedia, and now Memory-Alpha have it listed in the anti-spamming blocker. I cannot edit my User page. I just got a message that Ripway is the reason. Is there a way to keep their services or does anyone suggest a good free hosting site? I'm using Rapidshare.com for bigger files, but it has the annoying habit of redirecting users to their site to hear MP3s or see videos. I'd rather not use it for some files. Suggestions?--Mike Nobody =/\= 01:21, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Move protections?

Okay, this is just a suggestion... I'm not saying this should happen, I'm just laying it out there for ya'll to discuss. As you may know, we've had trouble with vandals moving pages to inappropriate names (such as our "Yada yada yada On Wheels!" vandal). However, I was looking at the protect stub for one of these pages, and I noticed we have the capability to protect pages from being moved while still permitting them to be edited. So, here's what I propose: we protect all the main character, series, movie, and episode articles from being moved. Think about it: what would they need to be moved to? Jean-Luc Picard will always be Jean-Luc Picard; Star Trek: Voyager will always be Star Trek: Voyager. So why not prevent those pages from being moved, and then us having to move them back when they are moved? This makes sense, doesn't it? Again, it's just a suggestion... --From Andoria with Love 18:08, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I would support this move if the situation became so bad that it was absolutely necessary, but I'd really rather not. It's not that it would look bad (99% of people wouldn't notice once it was in place) or that it's illogical (it makes perfect sense), but much like the Wikicities policy that people should ideally leave their front page unprotected unless vandalism becomes too bad, I think it's the idea. We shouldn't need to do this, and I don't think we will since it only appears to be one person. If we encourage them by doing this, they'll look for something more creatively destructive. So we should do this only as a last resort. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 21:20, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)
This will be an adequate precaution. Although, to "protect" about 100 articles of 15K (still counting) won't help much for real vandalism. I'm looking forward to MediaWiki 1.5-software upgrade. There will be a log for movements plus the ability for sysops to revert these changes quite fast. — Florian - talk 15:25, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Rumors...

I received an email from a fan i correspond with, he said that Paramount Digital Entertainment is becoming a casualty of the Viacom-CBS split and http://www.startrek.com could close down, possibly as early as the 31st.

Anyone wishing to cache it or check facts from there should take note.

Also, someone I talked to raised questions as to the continuation of the Star Trek franchise -- the novels and games continue even though hollywood production shut down, but somebody said they weren't sure whether theyd be reporting to Viacom or CBS for re-acquirung the rights. Dows anyone know anything about this? I'm not sure whether to take it with a grain of salt -- or is Star Trek XI defunct or to be at a new studio? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

I had heard about the possibility of StarTrek.com closing down from TrekToday back in early December (you can find the article here), but I didn't think much of it since all they have to do is find another company to buy and run the site. I'm certain they'll find someone interested in the official Star Trek web site.
As for the other thing, I've heard this and that about Trek's future on film and television being up in the air with all the changes and splits. I'll have to look more into it, though. --From Andoria with Love 15:57, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I can tell you now, with the eleventh film's writer having already moved on to other things with the film supposedly still in early development, things certainly don't look good. You can find more info on this and the Viacom-CBS split here. However, I think Trek will return in some form or fashion... we just don't know who will produce it. --From Andoria with Love 16:02, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

The Klingon Houses

Hello My Name is Lynda Anderson and I am currently playing in an online RPG Called A Call To Duty. It is a Star Trek online chat game. My character is part Klingon and I am trying to develop her background. I need to know the major houses of the Klingon empire and their histories. I also need the minor houses of the Klingon empire an their respective histories.

Where do I go to find such information? If anyone can help me on this I would appreciate it.

Also, since my character has a sister that is also half Klingon, any information on the Klingon Empire, its history, its rituals and other information, I would also appreciate it.

Thanks Lynda Anderson AKA Lt.J'Loni Shrilak Mo'Bri Randolph USS Triton NCC 65817 Chief Engineering Officer

Hi, Lynda! We only deal with strictly canon material and other valid resources here, and information about the Klingon Empire is located at the Klingon Empire page. History on Klingons is located at Klingon history. Canon information on Klingon Houses is located at Great House. We only have information on 11 Klingon houses (both major and minor), despite the fact that their are about 24 members of the Klingon High Council. Good luck with your RPG.--Tim Thomason 15:44, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek reference books

A quick question: should we use info frm Star Trek reference books (Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual, Star Trek: Star Charts, etc...) be used to elaborate more on certain things such as Antimattter Injector for example, and other things, like sectors? Tholian2000 15:58, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Only if the subject was referenced in canon, otherwise the information does not receive an own article, but may be mentioned in on the source's page, as it is done on Spock's World for example. -- Kobi - (Talk) 18:56, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Formatting non-canon separately from canon should follow this example:
The antimatter injector was used aboard Deep Space Nine. (DS9: "Duet")
The antimatter injector's inner workings were depicted in the Star Fleet Technical Manual, where it was mentioned to have an output in 3.7 gigacochranes.
This way the canon data is kept before the episode citation, and all of the rest is italicized and indented. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
Or in the case of extemely or distractingly large chunks of (italic) text we add it to a "Background" subsection. --Alan del Beccio 11:51, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Uploading Pictures

One question that is a good FAQ for new archivists: What is the process for uploadnig new pics to articles; how do you do it?

You can find some information about how to deal with images here , Image use policy. Note: When posting or commenting please sign them by using the ~~~~ characters. -- Q 11:48, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Database erasure prevention

I read in the Wikipedia article on Memory Alpha (here) that:

"Operations [at Memory Alpha] continued smoothly until March 23 [2004], when the site's database was accidentally erased during an upgrade of the MediaWiki software. The only backup available was six weeks out of date; nonetheless, the project moved forward undaunted."

Do we have proper measures in place to prevent this from happening again? --From Andoria with Love 02:20, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Well back then, I gather, Memory Alpha was a separate site just using MediaWiki software. Currently, the site is operated by/with Wikia and Wikicities, and has the support of Wikimedia technicians, so the chances of erasure are extremely lower than they were a year and a half ago.--Tim Thomason 02:37, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Whew! Okay, that's good to hear. Thanks. :) --From Andoria with Love 03:15, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I started a similar discussion at our forum, but there was not much response to it. I found out that the database (only written content, not the pictures) is available for download via the link on my userpage (or here). I started to download the dumps four month ago, repeating it every month. At the moment I'm writing this, the 12/05 backup is downloading to my HD, for all language editions. I might be the only one who is doing this. As far as I know, the daily backups of wikicities are stored at the same serverfarm (Seattle?), on a backup server. So if the place is erased by a hurricane (or Klingons?), there will be left our backups only. --Memory 20:08, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
As a reseller for VERITAS/Symantec Backup Exec I would love to sell them some Backup Exec licenses ;-) --Funkdubious 21:21, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.