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 writing articles?

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 contradictory 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 occurred 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 occurred Year X

-- (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 inconvenient. 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:STYLE? Maybe adapting the Wikipedia Footnotes? --Memory 18:37, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I don't like the Wikipedia footnotes (and they seem to be controversial even on Wikipedia). Hasn't the i&i style be included in the MoS already? If not it should, of course. -- Cid Highwind 16:43, 11 Jan 2006 (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)

Because simply linking to the two possible locations would lack the explanation that could otherwise be included on the new page. An explanation that could eventually prevent the next-best contributor to simply change the ambiguous location links back to a single one because he thinks he knows where a specific planet is located. If it's just the name that is considered problematic, we could of course use a different one - what about Local space or something...? -- Cid Highwind 16:20, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I think a straightforward "Alpha and Beta Quadrant" article might be enough to clear this up.. possibly a Category:Alpha and Beta Quadrant that would be a top level to sort things that were either from those identified one or the other. -- Captain M.K.B. 04:14, 23 March 2006 (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 episode lists would be helpful, similar to the menu bar on Wikipedia's Trek pages but simplified.--StAkAr Karnak 23:27, 30 Nov 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)

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)

Collaboration of the Week

I think a big problem with MA right now is that while we are all willing a make little changes, nobody really wants to do the major work on something like an episode summary, or major event (ie Earth-Romulan War, and Babel Crisis) I think a partial solution would be to create a Collaboration of Week on the main page. It would be the main focus, and after a week is replace with another major page needing attention. Jaz 02:25, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I think this idea was already brought forth within the past month or two with the name Refit of the Week. The idea had some support at first, but it eventually was dropped. I personally supported the idea and would still support it if the idea came up again. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 02:28, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
I also supported the idea and was disappointed when it was deleted due to lack of interest. Like the duty roster and peer review ideas, it had a lot of steam at first but simmered down and came to a near-halt. The difference is that with the Refit of the Week you (obviously) have to change it weekly and thus need the entire community to back the idea because it can't sustain itself without constant attention. There are various arguments in favor of or in opposition to the idea, but ultimately I think that was why the RotW died.
However, in defense of current efforts, the duty roster is there for people who want to take on the somewhat tedious task of summaries and I think there are a lot of major events that have been featured. Also James T. Kirk has made a huge amount of progress these past few days, even if only because of one person. :) --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 02:56, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I just feel like we have these huge articles on tiny topics that are easy to right about (which isn't a problem), while things like Starfleet are left incomplete. We need to work on them as a collective, and we need to put it on the main page. I'd like it if we could reach some sort of consensus on this over the next few days, and hopefully, for the admin to add it to the main page. Jaz 05:42, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be any opposition to this, I'd like to formally request that the admin add a collaboration or refit of the week to the main page, as well as a talk page to discuss future refits (I would but it is a protected page). Thanks a lot :) Jaz 06:20, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's a whole discussion about the old&failed "Refit of the Week" in the Ten Forward Archive, including its Vfd consensus to delete the page. The "technical" question of simply recreating a page that had deletion consensus aside, I myself don't want to simply repeat an old mistake (let's make new ones...;) ), so perhaps we should find out first why that page failed and how/if we can avoid that the next time. -- Cid Highwind 12:06, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
In addition to the above, I just want to reiterate and explain some of my concerns with the old refit page.
  • Overlap with PNA lists and peer review:We have the various PNA messages (in this case especially pna-incomplete) and related lists to both mark articles and find them for further editing. We also have the peer review page to further enhance articles. I think that another page to find and enhance pages that need work will not miraculously solve all problems that the existing pages don't manage to solve. Starfleet, for example, is marked as incomplete since March 2005, but has no discussion regarding this status on its talk page. Instead of creating another discussion page, wait for that article to become selected, then wait again for others to participate, one could simply add to the article what he/she knows, then start a discussion on Talk:Starfleet to invite others to add known facts, and in a last step, create a peer review for it.
  • Complex voting procedure:The procedure described on the now deleted page was to nominate articles you think need work, then let others vote on articles they think should be made the "Refit of the Week", then choose the one with the most votes to become the new "Refit". Why does it have to be so complicated? I'm either interested&able to contribute to an article (in that case I could just do it instead of voting to do it later), or I'm not (in which case I probably won't even vote). Leaving that voting procedure aside, we'd either end up with a page where people add articles they think need work by someone else (that's exactly the function of pna-incomplete), or with a page where people promise to work on an article if others at least give hints about what to do (that's approximately the function of peer review).
-- Cid Highwind 15:09, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I actually haven't read most of the comments on here yet, but as the person who created the refit page (it was under discussion, as can be seen on the archive page, and I took the liberty of creating the page when someone linked to it) and was a big proponent, I think it's best to let sleeping dogs lie and not be bold in (re-)creating anything similar. Weyoun 21:27, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

(Whoops, a misunderstanding) - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 22:57, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Non-canon performers and staff

There is currently a discussion over at Vfd as to whether or not people who worked on non-canon Star Trek products should be given their own articles. The example here is Courtney Taylor, whose sole Trek credit is voice work in a Star Trek video game. My question is, should those performers and production personnel who only worked on non-canon items such as video games have their own articles? Personally, it seems ridiculous to have articles for people who had nothing to do with the canon universe -- but then again, we do have articles for those who write the novels, which are considered non-canon. So what should be done about this: do we leave the Courtney Taylor article alone and thereby allow articles for video game personnel or do we delete it? That's all I have to say about that -- now have at it!!! :-P --From Andoria with Love 11:48, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

A difficult question. I think the authors of novels definitely have their place in MA, but so might the producers of non-canon works have. It is difficult to judge whether or not they have submitted enough work to receive an own article. I think of people like Larry Niven: ok not a good example, because TAS is canon, but he is normally involved in other projects than Trek, but provided material for the franchise. OTH I don't expect Warren Holland to have an article here, who was the publisher of Star Trek: Communicator (at least publisher of issue #142), either. -- Kobi - (Talk) 13:14, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Vfd

Courtney Taylor 
Actress whose only credit was a voice-over in a non-canon Star Trek video game. Having articles for those who worked in canon productions is one thing, but I don't think we need to start creating those who worked in non-canon items. At the very least, this should be merged with Star Trek: Starfleet Command III. --From Andoria with Love 01:29, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't even think this info should even be included on the Starfleet Command III page. Memory Alpha is about everything related to canon Star Trek, not everything related to things related to canon Star Trek.--Tim Thomason 06:27, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • unsure -- should contributors to non-canon pursuits (writers and editors and illustrators and artists of comics, novels, toys and games) be given credit here? for voiceovers and some types of comic artists i'd at least say some sort of central table could be created (to see which contributors have been in every release, which have recurred or worked for different companies). i think this master list might be a better idea, if other archivists think giving courtney and her peers their own articles. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
  • Keep for now. We certainly need to open a dialogue on whether or not real-life people attached to non-canon yet sanctioned Trek projects deserve their own pages. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 03:01, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, we do have pages for authors and illustrators of Trek books, so I don't know. I think we should just delete this, otherwise we may be giving the okay to create pages for others involved in non-canon merchandise (i.e. individual video game engineers and developers). I think that would be going a bit overboard. Just giving them credit on the game's article should be enough. --From Andoria with Love 04:39, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too many degrees of seperation. If she had worked on an episode of movie, keep it, but this seems so obscure. Jaz 08:52, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • A discussion as to whether to keep or delete this article and others like it is currently being held over at Ten Forward. --From Andoria with Love 11:51, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I suggest a "squishy" standard (that's a technical term): only include the creative forces behind non-canon works to the extent (1) the work itself has an article in Memory Alpha and (2) the individual provided a significant contribution to the work. So, for example, with a book the author could be listed, but the people listed on the dedication page as helping would not. With a game the primary developer/programmer might be listed, but not every artist who contributed. Also with a game, someone who narrated the entire thing might be seen as significant, but someone who just had a few lines here and there might not be. It would be a case by case kinda thing, but I suspect with just a little bit of thought it would sort itself out. Aholland 15:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again, but what about a single page (or three, depending) for voice actors, etc? That would allow the performers to be listed, but not create separate articles for each person. The reason this has come up again is that I've found 4-5 links to performers that are only in video games, but showed up in some other movie with one (or more) ST performers that appeared on screen (TV or movie). Thoughts? -- Sulfur 01:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


Moved from Memory Alpha:Category suggestions.

Since I own the shooting scripts for Season One of Star Trek (plus "Kitumba" from Star Trek: Phase II), and since some of these contain scenes that were deleted/edited, I would be willing to put some time into noting these differences. I'm still shaky on my coding and so forth, and might need a good editor to go behind me to clean things up.

Damn, put this in the wrong place! Sorry. - Sir Rhosis 21:55, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea and would definitely support it, but I moved this here because I'm not sure where we'd put it exactly. We had an issue with "Memory Alpha LCARS" or something similar where a user was essentially posting unformatted scripts onto MA which in addition to being a copyvio had in the text something along the lines of "these are not for distribution". Basically, I think it's a great idea so long as we're not posting entire scripts and whatnot onto MA. --Broik 22:04, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. No, I'd NEVER post full scripts, just small excerpts of deleted scenes which would fall under fair use in the body of a review (or so I think)--98% of the text would be critiques, opinions, etc. It would be easy to do, I'd simply copy and paste my own script critiques that I have done elsewhere, then wikify them. - Sir Rhosis 22:10, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I'd be very interested in this and once a name is agreed upon this could go under "other topics" since it fits the bill with other pages listed there. Only one word of caution, make sure you keep the critiquing to an NPOV. :-) Trekkers are like Bajorans in terms of opinions, everyone has one and everyone is more than willing to share it (especially if you disagree). Weyoun 22:17, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I agree, I would delete the personal opinions from my originals and present them as de facto changes/differences between what was written and what aired. People over at the TrekBBS have urged me to create my own site dealing with the scripts, but I'm still new to PCS, having used a simple webtv unit until this past year. - Sir Rhosis 22:21, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, we generally don't do "critiques, opinions", but a description of deleted scenes or major last-minute changes sounds intriguing. I think this might be a good addition to the "Background information" section of the episode articles. Perhaps you can just add such information to one of the episode pages and we'll find the best way to keep that information there together? -- Cid Highwind 15:40, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Sounds good, as long as no admins have a problem with it. If I hear no objections, I'll give one a shot in a few days and see how it goes over. - Sir Rhosis 23:13, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Pentarus I, II, III, and IV

We currently have pages (albiet stubs) for Pentarus I, Pentarus II, Pentarus III, and Pentarus IV. I don't believe any have ever been mentioned, but they are all inferred from Pentarus V, which was. Do they need their own pages? Jaz 06:14, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

We typically don't link to (or create articles of) planets that haven't been mentioned directly but could be inferred. Of course, if there's a fifth planet in a system, planets 1-4 are a valid assumption - but if there's nothing to say about them, why have an article. Generally I'd say, unlink planets 1-4 and change them to redirects to the system page - hopefully without this becoming another case for someone to go around and create eleven redirects for every twelfth planet ever mentioned... But before doing so, check the scripts - some of those planets might actually have been mentioned. -- Cid Highwind 11:10, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
The remainder of the episode takes place on Lambda Paz, a moon of Pentarus III, and Pentarus II is mentioned as, along with Pentarus V, being one of two class M planets in the Pentarus system. So the articles on Pentarus I and Pentarus IV seem unnecessary, unless they appeared in the episode in some manner (background art/computer graphic/etc..) not revealed in the two seconds of text-only research i just performed.
I used google to find the script :) -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:14, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
...hopefully without this becoming another case for someone to go around and create eleven redirects for every twelfth planet ever mentioned...
...And apparently, exactly this just happened with Pollux I, II and III. Does anyone have further sources for these? Otherwise, they should be handled as decribed above. -- Cid Highwind 22:54, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Memory Alpha Wikimedia Commons

Is there a "Wikimedia Commons" repository on Memory Alpha as per => Instead of uploading the same image on other language page, you could save bandwith and storage space by this method. Im french and looking forward to this implementation of your server... My 2 cents. Conruyt 17:27, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

The issue was raised before, and I was (or at least would have been) a strong proponent, but the Wikicities people informed us it's currently not possible. If we were an independent organization like Wikimedia, I suppose we could (assuming someone knows how) configure something like this, but we're hosted on Wikicities (for free) and have to work within the limitations of what's possible there. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 17:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. So, we are going to upload "x number of" images. Multiply this number by "each languages hosted on this server" if people is looking forward having the same look & feel than the english pages. I find this ridiculous!. I'm sorry to say so. Conruyt 19:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
No need to apologize - I feel the same way, but unless you have a location where Memory Alpha could be hosted in such a way as to allow for a commons, I'm afraid things will stay the way they are. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 19:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Please don't think things need to stay the way they are. Wikia is hoping to soon find funding for development related tasks like creating a new Commons for Memory Alpha, so what wasn't possible in the past, can certainly be considered for the future. I've added this to bug:221 so it doesn't get forgotten about. Angela (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

What about another feature for MA? => a "Printer Friendly" button/link on each page (with copyrights bottom lines of course)? Angela, thx to add a bug in bugzilla. yup, seems that when I print, it is ok. Sorry. Conruyt 10:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Great to know the high-and-mighty are still keeping an eye on us little people. :) Wikicities is great, and I really don't think we ever will move so long as the company is around. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 06:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Layout committee / TOC design suggestion

I'm putting this here to make more people aware of the project I started: Memory Alpha:User projects/Layout committee, and especially to invite comments on the first topic discussed there, which is the design of article TOCs. Please visit and comment, if you're interested... -- Cid Highwind 20:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Categories with 200+ Entries

Would it be possible to allow categories to have more than the standard 200 on each page. It would be much easier to browse, and I don't think slowness is tha much of an issue any more, things seem to be loading much faster in the past month of so (perhaps related to our upgrade?). Jaz talk | novels 03:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have put a table of Content on those categories in the french-MA. (thanks Kobi for explaining how to do it :) - Philoust123 11:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
See here to copy it : fr:Catégorie:Personnel de Starfleet - Philoust123 13:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there a ship gallery?

Is there a page with galleries of different ships? I looked but didn't find one so assuming I didn't miss it and it just doesn't exist I think this would be a great thing to have at least for the Federation and ideally for any major race with multiple ships. I am not as familiar with ship classes as some people so it can make searching for ships easier if they can see the ships. I don't want to fill the wiki with a bunch of nonsense images or articles but I think one image per ship class would be sufficient and useful. If anyone likes this idea I'd be more than happy to undertake the project (and would welcome assistance). Thoughts?--DannyBoy7783 19:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's this page: Federation_starships, which lists all the ships in Starfleet. I'll have a look and see if there's something similar for the Klingon ships and Romulan ones. Zsingaya Talk 20:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Just checked, and there's a page for each major race: Federation starships, Klingon starships, Romulan starships, Ferengi starships, Vulcan starships, Cardassian starships, Borg starships. Zsingaya Talk 20:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I just checked the Memory Alpha:Image use policy page, and from that page, I don't believe we can justify having lots of images of all the ships on one page. This is a quote from that page: "Remember that Memory Alpha is not an image gallery!" I hope this is helpful. Zsingaya Talk 20:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I could be mistaken but I think what that means is that it isn't a place for people to host their own files. I know that Wookieepedia, for example, lets users upload "vanity images" for their user page. I think that is the intent of that quote, to prevent abuse of the free webspace available. Also, a ships of Star Trek gallery I think is very useful and a legitimate endeavor, rather than some frivolous collection of images. I think it is nice for people not familiar with class names to tell what a ship is without having to open the page. I use Firefox so it isn't a big deal to open a new tab but I think users of IE could find that a bit annoying. If no one else is interested that's fine but I thought I'd bring it up just in case.--DannyBoy7783 23:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be some sort of effort to create one section dedicated to all images of certain categories, such as Category:Memory Alpha images (individuals) and Category:Memory Alpha images (TNG novel covers) (see the complete list here). So perhaps a new category can be created for starships with a properly configured bot (or a real dedicated human). - Intricated 01:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Try going to this page: [1]. It has pictures of Star Trek ships (and other sci-fi stuff) and you can compare their relative size to one another. --Pennyandrusty 00:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

An idea

I just made an Community Core values, that could be a policy

Honesty: To consistantly speak your opinion on talk pages.

Respect: To value other users, your userpage, and all that involves Star Trek.

Responsibility: To be accountable for your edits, other users, and the community of Memory-alpha.

Compassion: To show care and kindness for other users.

Courage: To get through difficult discussions with confidence and determanation

Justice: To consider the perspective or other users, and to be consistantly fair on talk pages using each end of the discussion.

I hope some of you agree with me. Whopper 04:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe this is necessary. Besides the fact that all these "values" are covered in our rules, I find it somewhat childish -- no offense. Ottens 21:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the motivations, but I, too, do not believe this to be needed or desirable. Aholland 21:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Main character surnames links

I was wondering if it would be better to move articles like Sisko to a disambiguation page and redirect it to Benjamin Sisko for example. It would make navigation much easier. -- Tacking Into the Wind 19:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds okay. What does everyone else think? -- Tough Little Ship 00:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if its the greatest idea -- i'd rather encourage people to link to the correct article. I don't want to rain on your parade, so I'm willing to vote neutral and entertain a few other archivists to weigh in with their viewpoints.
BTW, if you want to move a page, use the "move" feature to move the page's entire history to a new location. Copying and pasting the entire contents of a page and copying them to a new page doesn't move the page history along with it. Plus, copying and pasting is disallowable in cases where it leaves two duplicates of the same page. -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 01:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I, too, don't like this idea. Now, if someone links to Sisko, whether he wants to link to Benjamin, Jake or someone else from the family, he links to a special disambiguation page. An editor can use the "What links here" feature of that page and will find a list of links, most of which will need to be changed to something else. If we now go and make Sisko a redirect, this won't stop people from using the Sisko link if, in fact, they want to link to someone "not-Benjamin" - only that now, they don't use a link to a special page for exactly that purpose, but a link to a wrong article. -- Cid Highwind 11:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Note: This has also been discussed here, where I had a different opinion but was convinced otherwise... ;) Maybe this discussion should be moved there. -- Cid Highwind 11:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Links to Amazon

A user has been adding links directly to from articles on this site so people can purchase DVDs of Trek episodes. (See, for example, TOS: "Elaan of Troyius") Is this in keeping with Memory Alpha policy? Aholland 11:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather see those "ASIN" links on the articles of the actual media instead of on each episode article - and in that regard, I don't know if we really need a section "DVD Media information" at all - but with the new template, an ASIN link from the media article itself shouldn't be a problem, I think. -- Cid Highwind 11:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem is, no episodes link to which DVDs that episode was on. If I clicked on "The Devil in the Dark" and there was no reference link at all, how would I be able to find the two DVD collections its has been released on (or for that matter, the two VHS releases?). The novels pages have a "reference" field where the ISBN can be linked -- maybe each episode should link to whichever DVD article(s) are relevant, and place the purchasing information there. And should we start VHS articles for each individual tape? Either way, i think that episodes do need a media information link. -- Captain M.K. Bartel 14:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
That's true, but I still think that there shouldn't be a direct off-site link to "some" releases but not others. Having a list of all releases of any specific episode on the episode article still seems like the best alternative to me - perhaps in the form of another standardized sidebar template in the background section of any episode article; otherwise as a new section, but one not specifically restricted to DVD releases.
In that case, this list should contain links to media articles here on MA, which then can contain ISBNs, ASINs or whatever - this doesn't necessarily mean that we have to create separate articles for each VHS tape, though. Perhaps an article TNG VHS Collection (or whatever the "official" name might be) which contains a table listing all individual tapes with contained episodes and ISBN/ASIN number?
If we start listing those numbers on the episode article directly, we'd just end up with an unmaintainable mess of duplicate information... -- Cid Highwind 15:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I support creating a list of VHS ISBNs/ASINs and linking it to each episode article -- a unified storehouse of the ordering info, rather than disseminating it to individual pages. This would also be valuable to unify the info should we ever decide to abort/alter the ASIN template/system to direct to another site -- only a few pages would need to be changed rather than all 700+ eps/movies...
Each episode has only been released on video one or two times, and i don't think new releases are forthcoming, so this wouldn't be a huge problem to maintain either -- Captain M.K. Bartel 15:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
We should still have one article per "product" (so to speak), and not just one huge list for all VHS releases of one series. One "product", in this case, would be the whole range of 2-episodes-per-VHS releases for each of the series. Other "products" could be specific releases - I remember seeing something like a "Q Box" or "Borg Box" with all Q/Borg episodes on VHS, for example. These different products shouldn't be listed on one page, but get their individual articles.
As a suggestion, I created a sidebar template that I added to the top of this section... -- Cid Highwind 16:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
merged discussion

Nice form -- i was was in a "show preview" of some episodes to see if i could accomplish something similar (great minds, and all that...)

For TOS episodes, AFAIK, they were released in the following formats:

  • Columbia House VHS (2 to 4 episodes per tape)
  • Paramount VHS (1 episode to a tape)
  • Paramount series DVDs (2 episodes per set?)
  • Paramount season DVDs : TOS Season 1 DVD, etc..
  • Paramount "fan collectives" : part of a multi series collection

So all the VHS releases would be linked to as TOS VHS? (rd to Star Trek: The Original Series (VHS)...)

and then we'd probably need a link to unwritten articles about the earlier DVD releases for the individual break downs (TOS DVD, rd to Star Trek: The Original Series (DVD) ?) -- Captain M.K. Bartel 15:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little unsure how to name each article if we are breaking them down that far -- for example "Tomorrow is Yesterday" should link to TOS Season 1 DVD and Star Trek: Fan Collective - Time Travel, but what should we name the DVD article and VHS articles. It was released along with Devil in the Dark on one 2-episode tape by Columbia House, then released by itself on a single tape be Paramount, and also on a DVD with another episode from the first TOS DVD release. Is that three new articles we should make?
Out of curiousity, does MA get a percentage when Amazon makes a sale through us? I know many other sites use this? It may be an avenue to explore to cover any costs that may arrise. Jaz talk | novels 06:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
MA-fr : There's an english contributor whose only contributions on MA-fr consists in adding ISBN [2] or links to amazon [3] and nothing more, letting me complete the informations on new articles :(. Personaly, I won't let links to Amazon in the articles each time there is something to sell on american, german or all the amazon sites around the world. I only let the ISBN and ASIN codes, eliminating those links. Even if there's no functionalities for ASIN like ISBN, the codes are enough because it can be used for search via google, ... and the first site to appear in that case is often Amazon. We are not a commercial wiki working for Amazon. - Philoust123 12:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Philoust123. I would go further, though, and remove all Amazon links. It's not like these items are hidden from view or impossible to find at any of a number of websites, brick-and-mortar stores, or catalogs. By having all the Amazon links it certainly has the appearance that Memory Alpha is somehow endorsing And why stop at Amazon? Why not link to products at,, Trekcore, and too? Unless we're getting paid by Amazon for advertising specific items to a very specific demographic market, it just seems wrong. Aholland 20:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Ahhhh, but we do get paid by Amazon for any referrals to them from this site. The links to Amazon have our site URL in them, and we're apparently a registered Amazon affiliate. -- Renegade54 23:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Then I take it all back. Link away! Aholland 00:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Name change

I'm sure the creators of this database worked hard to find the right name for this project. However, Memory Alpha just isn't very memorable to me. Wikipedia, or Wookieepedia (the Star Wars version), just rolls off of the tongue.

May I suggest the name Trekkiepedia? I'm aware of the conotation that "Trekkie" has to some people, but the name just seems more catchy.

"Memory Alpha" is named in honor of that great research libary seen in TOS: "The Lights of Zetar". See Memory Alpha for more. I rather like the name, myself! Aholland 19:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I like Trekkiepedia over Memory Alpha, but I doubt people would want to change it after so long. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 21:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
God, no. "Trekkiepedia" just sounds fanboyish and generic IMO, whereas "Memory Alpha" sounds more like a serious brand name (as far as that's possible for a Trek fan site ;) ). Besides, from a marketing standpoint, changing a name that is as well-known as Memory Alpha has become would be ridiculous. -- Cid Highwind 13:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I prefer "Trekkipedia" to "Trekkiepedia." But "Memory Alpha" always makes me think of "Moonbase Alpha" on 'Space 1999' - I had no idea where the name came from until I read Aholland's comment above. Or how about a name with the ultimate computer, M-5, in it? -- Stekev 18:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, most people (myself included for a long time) have no idea why our name is so cryptic. But to "die-hard" Trekkies TOS fans I guess it's an ideal title. ;) --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 18:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Memory Alpha is too perfectly matching a reference to change it. Cid's right, "Trekkiepedia" sounds generic. Also, I would be opposed to anything with "wiki" in the title. The fact that Memory Alpha is not a well known reference makes it even better. --Bp 18:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
In no way, I would change the title for Trekkipedia, which is in no way original (Wikipedia, Wookipedia, , whereas Memory Alpha is a subtil and adequate reference to the Trek universe - Philoust123 18:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


What does everyone think about "portals" - should we start to create these for Memory Alpha?

To explain things, Wikipedia uses portals to further arrange its content. They got rid of a lengthy "Encyclopedia" table on the main page completely, and instead created a portal page for every major topic ("Arts", "Science", etc.) - only those (eight) portals are linked on the main page prominently, which frees up much space and allows visitors to dive into one of the topics easily.

Further portals can be created for "minor topics" and are listed on a project page. All portal pages are identified by having a "Portal:" prefix and typically act as "main pages" for their topic - no content, but links to related categories, subportals, individual articles and so on...

I'd like to see something like this here as well, at least to get rid of some of the content of our crowded main page. Any opinions? -- Cid Highwind 10:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I also thought of making use of them (when revising the MA/de frontpage). Further topics could be actors and for each series ... let's not restrict these to in-POV only. However I have no -- Kobi - (Talk) 11:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought about the following five "main" portals to be placed on the main page:

  • People
  • Society and Culture
  • Around the Universe
  • Science and Technology
  • Star Trek

The first four are taken directly from section headers of the existing "Encyclopedia" listing, while "Star Trek" would be a combination of the sections "Episodes and Movies", "Other Media" and "Trek and Culture", basically combining everything that is about Star Trek from a production or franchise POV. Of course, these suggestions could still be refined.

Further subportals, once those few main portals are up and running, could for example be "Starships" (about everything related to starships), "Klingon" (about the Klingon species, its culture etc.), "Star Trek:The Next Generation" (a portal for everything related to that series), ... -- Cid Highwind 19:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Space Marines

Does Starfleet employ any kind of special operations away teams?

The Earth Starfleet (predecessor to the more familiar Federation Starfleet) was known to work in concert with a human military organization which had teams called MACOs, essentially career soldiers trained to be deployed on Earth and aboard Earth space vessels.
While the Federation Starfleet itself was never mentioned to have any soldiering jobs outside of its normal security forces, numerous officers over the years have been shown wearing special combat uniforms (in "Nor the Battle to the Strong" and "The Siege of AR-558"), a combat division specialty colored uniform (in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier) as well as being referred to by military ranks (like Colonel West in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country).
This might not answer the topic, as they never said clearly whether they were "marines" or not, but there certainly are soldiers in the 23rd and 24th century Starfleets. -- Captain M.K.B. 05:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Previous / Next

I'd like to be able to switch through pages about planets, species and such by hitting previous or next. Similar to the way years are done. It seems like it would be better then going back to a list somewhere all the time. Is this possible? Jaf 14:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Non-canon names as redirects

A large problem we have in browsing is the large amount of unnamed characters. Many of these characters have been given non-canon names over the years. While I do not want to move them to those pages, I think it would be a good idea to make some of the more popular pages into re-directs in order to make searching and browsing easier. Jaz talk | novels 03:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That seems a logical proposal. We shouldn't prevent people from getting information just because they don't know the "proper" name of something. I'm not that familiar with redirects, but if I understand it right it would seem to be a fairly transparent thing to readers and get them where they need to be. Aholland 04:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirects provide a completely transparent browsing experience unless the reader bothers to click on the link in the small grey line after they use the redirect that says:
(Redirected from non-canon title here)
Example: USS Enterprise-D. I like the idea, but I'm not sure if such redirects would violate current MA canon policy. Someone more knowledgeable than I care to chime in? - Intricated 04:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
For what it is worth, my opinion is that this type of link would not violate the canon policy. The policy deals with the sources of information that can be used in the body of or as a basis for naming an article. This redirect suggestion is more of an administrative approach to guiding readers from a "non-canon" identification to a "canon" one. As such it seems to support canon data entirely. There would be a problem if there was information beyond the redirect in an article with a non-canon identification, but I think a redirect is both clever and a way to help people who only know the non-canon name for something or someone. Aholland 17:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and start making the redirects. Jaz talk | novels 20:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Having non-canon names redirect to the appropriate page does not violate canon policy, or at least it has never been questioned before. The only concern I have is that a link to a specific sub-heading within a page, i.e. to the "unnamed" character whose name you have typed into the box, is not possible. It then becomes confusing because you may not know to look for "Burly Klingon" instead of whatever name the non-canon source gave. I suppose there's no getting around that though. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 20:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way to make redirects link to subheadings? I know you can do it with normal linking by using the #, example: Tailheads. I also know this does not work in redirects from previous attempts, but perhaps there is an equivalent? Jaf 21:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Jaf
No, it's not, which is what the Vedek was saying. Anchors (having a # followed by the heading) are not possible on MediaWiki redirects due to technical issues. But I don't see a problem with these redirects, which avoid confusion and also keep new people from creating the pages. --Broik 21:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

New deletion template

In an effort to ease new users into our views on canon, i suggest that if anyone creates an obviously deletable non-canon article (like "Reginald Barclay (mirror)" or "USS Stargazer (NCC-2893-A)"), that we add a template ({{deletionapocrypha}} to give them the heads up that article titles are canon-only. -- Captain M.K.B. 04:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Other MA versions

(de) German version

Statistics : 5500 articles since May 2004

  • Nothing for the moment

(eo) Esperanto edition

Statistics : 5 articles since September 2005
I don't mean to hurt the feelings of whoever initiated it, but I really don't believe we should have an Esperanto edition. As I stated somewhere above, many non-native English speakers prefer reading MA in English over their own language, and I just can't see any benefit in adding another layer of complexity to the project when we have two editions (Swedish, Polish) which are already in a state of disrepair. Wouldn't we be better off without the Esperanto one? --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 21:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be (little but) activity on it actually. As long as people are interested in, I don't see any problem with it - Philoust123 10:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I created a very, very basic page on the Esperanto wiki, but I was experimenting with the language while reading a tutorial. I agree entirely with the Vedek's assessment. If I was going to learn a language for the sake of Memory Alpha, it would be Spanish, which I learned in high school. Weyoun 19:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

(es) Spanish version

Statistics : 5300 articles since ?
In case you missed its casual introduction into the MA family, we now have a Spanish edition, and I'd like to make a few notes on it in case this causes confusion:

  • What is now MA/es was originally "Trekkipedia" (a better name for MA, IMHO, but that's another issue) which is why formatting may be different from what you're used to. For example, most articles don't begin with a bolded declaration of the topic, and citations are much less frequent at present. This will change as time goes on, so feel free to adjust things accordingly.
  • You will probably have to re-register, as the user base (at present) is not pooled with that of Wikia and by extension Memory Alpha.
  • Performers and production staff formerly had articles using last name, first name; if you come across any of these articles, please move them to first name last name format.
  • Titles are something I need to discuss with the admin, because Star Trek is known as "Viaje a las estrellas" in Spanish and I'm not sure how much translating will be done in that respect.

Any other questions, feel free to contact me or the admin on there. Thanks! --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 07:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't speak a single word of spanish, so I'm just putting this here - was the former "Trekkiepedia" published under a compatible Creative Commons License, so that the content could be reused, or how do they work around that? -- Cid Highwind 07:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't speak spanish either, though it is sometimes rather simple to guess what one article means in english (or German). In order to get the interwikis set up: Vedek can you please set interwikis there, where the spanish page title is not the same as the english one? -- Kobi - [[{{ns:3}}:Kobi|(''{{ns:1}}'')]] 12:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Licensing: Umm, it didn't -have- a license, so I think they're just adopting MA's CC license. It was formerly hosted on a server in Argentina, so I have no idea what that means in "legalese", but es:Ocupación de Bajor is a translation-in-progress of one of our absolute best articles.
Interwiki: Sure, I'll make sure the links stay up to date, although it gets to be a bigger and bigger pain as we open more and more editions of Memory Alpha. But that's a good thing, so I don't mind. ;) --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 22:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, my name is Omar, from Argentina, and one of the creators of the original "Trekkipedia". I not fluent in English, but I sure what the "Trekkipedia" was 100% compatible with the CC Licence. LL&P --ElAuriano 16:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

(fr) French version

Statistics : 1100 articles since November 2005

  • Nothing for the moment (hoping it will stay so :) - Philoust123 10:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

(nl) Dutch version

Statistics : 3600 articles since April 2004

  • Nothing for the moment

(pl) Polish version

Statistics : 6 articles since ? 2005
How can we contact any of the admins? (They left no email address and Wikia doesn't have one either). [...] -- Kobi - [[{{ns:3}}:Kobi|(''{{ns:1}}'')]] 12:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Update has 30 articles now and pl:User:Dax is active in creating new articles, however pl:Robin Lefler looks very much like an apocryph article, shouldn't the canon policy count for all language editions? -- Kobi 10:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I just read about Memory Alpha's canon policy in FAQ, and you have right, Kobi. I knew that ST New Frontier isn't a canon and I shouldn't add those non-canon information. I will make some corrections in those articles, but I have one question: if I put those articles (unchanged) into Novels category instead Characters category, is that will be OK? -- Dax

Current style is to put a very minor note about "apocryph" appearence of characters into the background section of an article (example: Spock#Apocrypha). You can of course copy the New Frontier parts of the articles to a page similar to Star Trek: New Frontier characters or on the novel page itself if it is not a novel series (example: Ghosts (Marvel)#Characters). -- Kobi 12:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

(sv) Swedish version

Statistics : 1200 articles since November 2003
Since there are no replies about my concerns on Memory Alpha talk:Start a new edition in another language I have to post this more public it seems: What will happen to the Esperanto, Polish, and Swedish versions? How can we contact any of the admins? (They left no email address and Wikia doesn't have one either). Currently MA/sv is a spam fest for vandals and no admin around. -- Kobi - [[{{ns:3}}:Kobi|(''{{ns:1}}'')]] 12:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why we even have an Esperanto edition... Enough people (several German-speaking members and at least one who speaks Swedish, to my knowledge) prefer the English edition over their own languages, so I can't understand why anyone would want to read it. I could be wrong though.
The Swedish edition at least has content, so the only thing I can think of is to have some English-language admin keep an eye on it until someone else comes along and picks up the project. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 22:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I check them from time to time as well. Perhaps sysop rights should be granted to all English admin for the other MAs. That way they could block obvious spammers and vandals, even if they dont speak the language (page blanking and spam looks the same in every language). Jaz talk 04:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think every english admin should have the sysop rights, but rather 1 or 2 who check these wikis every 2-3 days, because many of them won't care about these wikis and there's no need for 20 admin on each versions (people who have questions don't know who to contact in that case). Furthermore, the other languages admin should inform about their presence (saying for example they watch the recent changes "once each week every saturday"...) and absence (holiday, administration stop...). I think a special page should be created for this like "Memory Alpha:other MA versions discussions" (rather than the Ten Forward) to discuss these specific problems. Concerning MA-fr, I watch the changes generally every days (at least every 2 days), I also granted Kobi the admin rights. If I haven't any disponibilities for a while, I will inform you, don't worry :). - Philoust123 12:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I contacted Wikia once about that, and the answer basically was that "orphaned wikis" typically don't get closed. Instead, they eventually will be put up "for adoption". It might be best if that was done by the MA-community, but I'm personally not going to adopt a swedish wiki... I'm sure there's a way for one or several of the existing admins here to become an admin there as well, if necessary.
What's more important than that is the fact that apparently, it is possible for anyone to create a new MA/xx project via Wikia without consulting with the rest of the MA-community. I guess there's no way around that, considering that Wikia "pays the bill" so to speak... -- Cid Highwind 10:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

(tl) Klingon?

I suggest we create a user project to translate MA into Klingon and convert the Esperanto wiki to that language. Wouldn't it be more sensible for a Star Trek site to have Klingon? Weyoun 21:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

A possible "MA/Klingon" should use the fake language code for the Klingon language (tl/tlh), not misuse the Esperanto one. Anyway, I don't see much potential for that... -- Cid Highwind 21:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Language index

OK, first of all, I'm new to this Wiki stuff, so excuse me if this question/suggestion doesn't meet any formatting standarts or is in the completely wrong place, but here it goes anyway: Right now the address automatically redirects every visitor to the English language edition of the site and while I know Star Trek has its foundation in the anglophon (Is that the correct word?) areas and countries and that most of its fans come from there and that this edition has the most content of them all I find this situation to be a bit unfair towards the other language editions. I propose the implementation of a kind of language index page like Wikipedia has to allow new visitors to discover other language editions of the site more easily and maybe even put a link there which allows people to start a new edition.
I in no way mean to step on anyone's toes, I just wanted to bring this to your attention. Additionally, I have also posted this same question/suggestion in the German and French editions of Ten Forward to see what the people there think of the idea.--Bell'Orso 22:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It should at least be more prominent on the EN Main Page. At least the German, Spanish, and French versions as they are the biggest. But English is 3x as big as DE or ES, and 9-10x as big as FR so its far more likely to find an article at EN. Of course, making it more obvious that there are other languages might help them grow.
On another note, the stylesheets at ES and FR are still broken from the upgrade. They need to be copied from the DE or EN wikis by an admin. Cid Highwind said something a while ago about re-doing the skin so that it didn't replace monobook but I don't what the progress is on that at the moment. --Bp 22:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I added links to other versions of MA more prominently to my Main Page suggestion. I deliberately did not add the "Start a new edition" to that listing, because I think we have enough inactive languages already... Regarding the stylesheet comment - yes, I'm still trying to get that started, but no reply from Jason yet. -- Cid Highwind 08:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, right now it IS much more likely to find an article in English than in any other language. That is precisely WHY I am suggesting to feature the other existing languages more prominently. Maybe you're right that adding a link to start a new language edition would not be such a bright idea, but I still think we should have the address point to a language index.--Bell'Orso 08:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I said not for the moment on the french MA because english version is the most complete and most viewed version. In that case, the english visitor (in majority) will click 2 times to access MA-en (Main Page / Index => Main Page), whereas the french visitor will click 2 times as before to access MA-fr (Main Page => Accueil MA-fr / Index => Accueil MA-fr). Furthermore, most users can use the favorite links to place his prefered version rather than the simple - Philoust123 12:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I know that those people who already know about the other language editions won't see much of a difference, but I think it would help those people who don't visit here every day to become interested in joining and helping more easily when they see what languages are already present.--Bell'Orso 16:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Please update the main page

.... I can't stand Michael Dorn as Willie Hawkins any longer! thanks ;) --Dossi 19:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Who updates the trivia/how would one go about doing it? Weyoun 21:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
At this time, the Did You Know trivia section is updated manually via the template. This is also discussion on having it being updated by a bot in the future. - Intricated 22:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

New Ten Forward System Proposal

Hello, yesterday Florian K mentioned in our German Ten Forward with the new software is a new plugin available which is designed to take all information from one category and list it dynamically on one page. This is co-incidantally named the forum-plugin and as such used in Uncyclopedia's Village Dump.

With the new system every topic will receive its own article in the Forum: namespace and appear as such on the recent changes and file list in the entry page of Ten Forward. As you can see the plugin that manages this system does also read the last change and author from the topic and sorts the list by date. (Example of usage can be seen in the Sandbox.)

In MA/de we decided to use this new system as well and started to transfor our Ten Forward. However there are still technical restrictions because there is just the fake namespace Forum: (they are considered main namespace articles only). We thought that it would only be logical to introduce the same system in the other language editions as well.

Please note what you think of this proposal, one thing mentioned by defchris for example was that the namespace "Forum" doesn't sound very trekkish and should be "OPS" or "Ten Forward" instead. -- Kobi 09:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. A "Ten_Forward:" namespace sounds best, in my opinion. The appearance on the sandbox is really sleek looking, so I don't forsee any problems.--Tim Thomason 09:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

To those interested: MA/de has received the Forum: namespace last night. I hope there will be some comments on this feature here as well .. -- Kobi 09:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Still seems to be a nice feature, I don't see any problems with it. The namespace should be "Forum:" though, anything else might become too trekkish easily. -- Cid Highwind 10:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Good idea, this page is getting ridiculously long. It's been a while now and there aren't any objections so.... lets do it. --Bp 22:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

MA thanked

I thought it might interest the folks here to know that Memory Alpha was thanked in the new Enterprise novel Last Full Measure as a source for information on the Xindi crisis and the MACO characters. As someone who contributed quite a bit to the ENT Season 3 articles (and created a number of those MACO articles!) this made me a happy camper. -- Steve 03:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This is quite an acomplishment, and as a community, we should all be proud. Jaz talk 03:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Commercial Use of Memory Alpha Content

Hey folks, it's been a while, hasn't it? I've been keeping a low profile because of a need to spend a lot of time on my job and other things lately... but I wanted to post this e-mail that I received barely twenty minutes ago. I'm not sure that there's a lot we can do about it at this point, but I thought that the community should be aware of the interest.

From: Kim Cunningham
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 3:46 PM
To: removed
Subject: G4 Media - Use of Memory-alpha information - Star Trek 2.0
Dear Harry & Dan: I am contacting you on behalf of G4 Media, Inc., a cable network located in Los Angeles specializing in videogame-related programming. We are currently launching an interactive show called "Star Trek 2.0" and would like to be able to cite materials from your website as the source of information to be used therein. We would be willing to include a message which states "from" at the end of a fact in each instance where we used your material.
Please advise whether we have your consent.
Your earliest reply is appreciated as our launch is imminent.
Thank you for your assistance.
Kim Cunningham
Legal & Business Affairs
G4 Media, Inc.
address removed

Suffice to say, this would be an incredibly awesome way to get the word out about Memory Alpha... except for that little niggling bit of legalese called the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License. This is based solely on my own personal and untrained understanding of the license, but I don't believe that there's any way to give carte blanche access to Memory Alpha's content. I don't think any of us could have foreseen Memory Alpha getting this kind of big attention two and a half years ago! Still, discussion is probably warranted. Thoughts? ☺ – Dan Carlson | [[User talk:MinutiaeMan|Talk]] 23:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Having the URL flash across their screen even once could atract countless new contributers. This is another (see above) enormous honour to Memory Alpha, and we should go through any means we can to find a legal way to do this. Also, they probably have there own legal experts, so I would get in contact with them to see if this can be done under the CCL. They would really just be citing us as a source, I don't see how commercial that is. Jaz talk 17:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, we have a type of "license-loop" going on in the relation between our site, using copyrighted material with a non-commercial disclaimer to attest to our "fair-use" of the material, being contacted by a licensed agent of the owners of the material we are using. Meaning they already have the right to use a lot of the material in our database. Thereby, any "commercial" use of material stored on MA but owned by the franchise already would be their purview. I say we take the credit, and maybe examine our license to see if the fact that the info is being commercially reused by the owners of said commercial material might make it an exception. -- Captain M.K.B. 01:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to get it out of the way, I am providing commentary here as an archivist and not in any way providing legal advice - seek legal counsel as necessary if a legal opinion is sought. Having said that, the CCL appears to be the license under which people like me (the "Licensor") gives Memory Alpha (the "You") rights to my work. MA can do stuff with it. One thing it can do is to publicly display the re-written material (the "Derivative Work"). Those who view the material are offered the same license restrictions from me (which, presumably, they may or may not exercise). One such restriction is not to use the work for commercial advantage. So even if MA isn't paid, theoretically G4 Media would be using the text for commercial advantage, thereby potentially violating the license from the original writer (the Licensor). So my initial read is it can't be done without G4, at least, violating the license. A legitimate response back to G4, though, could be "G4 is welcome to reproduce excerpts from Memory Alpha, provided that in each instance Memory Alpha's URL is credited as being the source, and provided such is done in accordance with the Creative Commons License located [give link]." G4's attorneys can then determine whether they have a problem (e.g., whether it could it be "fair use" on their part), and Memory Alpha has done its bit to preserve the license. G4 may conclude it is too much of a headache, but I don't think we can simply say "sure, use it as you will" without violating the CCL. But having said that, whoever is actually in charge of Memory Alpha can seek a legal opinion or simply do as I suggest and throw it to G4 to figure out how to act in accordance with the license. (As an aside, the CCL is a very poorly written license - I don't know why it was selected if the choice was voluntary. And I'm not sure how Memory Alpha today is getting money from Amazon and Google without being in violation of it; but that's a question for another day.) Aholland 18:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, there really is no way to solve this "by discussion". As Aholland correctly pointed out, all content that is published here is published under a specific license (and for a reason!), and anyone who wants to reproduce this content has to comply with that license. Whether G4 wants to do that, and if it even is a form of "reproducing our original content" if they basically just state that "the answer to this question was looked up on Memory Alpha" is something the guys at G4 should decide for themselves. I'd say, Dan, reply to them as Aholland suggested, and let's see what they will do with that answer. -- Cid Highwind 07:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
We are not making money with MA. The Google ads are run by Wikicities, and pay the hosting costs. There is no Amazon income that I'm aware of (unless Dan is writing his comments from his new luxury yacht? :D) -- Harry t 15:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW and IIRC, the CCL was chosen for exactly this reason - being able to publish, rewrite and reuse original content (similar to the GFDL), while at the same time not allowing commercial use (as the GFDL does) of something that we do not have the right to use commercially - the Star Trek franchise. -- Cid Highwind 07:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear from you, Dan. From what I've seen in CCL-BY-NC, we can offer above described access only if G4 will use this for non-commercial use. That's tricky. Will they estimate the share of income for this news bit and donate it to... whatever... Anyway, I'm sure when we are used on a commercial basis, sooner or later Paramount will show up and I don't want to see that. We are NC and share NC. Fans can copy us non-commercial. G4 might wants us as consultants and I'm almost sure, our community would be proud and compliant to work under another licence (GFDL?) in a closed corner, apart from Memory Alpha articles. — Florian - talk 17:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Based on my understanding of the license, my interpretation is essentially the same as Aholland's — that G4 can't use MA's content under the CC-BY-NC license, unless it's possible to say it's fair use somehow. I'm in the middle of composing a letter just to that effect. (read it here) And as I say to Kim, we'd love to let them use our stuff, but only within the license terms. Effectively, it's up to their legal department, I think.

Other notes: For Aholland's concern about the CCL, read Why Memory Alpha doesn't use the GFDL for a little commentary that I wrote a while back. Also, Memory Alpha itself (specifically, Harry and I as the primary founders and admins) get zero commercial benefit from this, no funds whatsoever. The Google ads are simply spliced in by Wikia, our hosts, and that's clearly permitted under the CCL. As for Amazon funds... I have absolutely no idea what's up with those. I've never checked that at all, and I don't know if anyone's used it at all. It's a leftover from the days when MA was hosted independently. I'll make a note to check that out. – Dan Carlson | [[User talk:MinutiaeMan|Talk]] 17:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the short history on why the CCL was chosen! Having read the draft letter, I would strongly urge that any letter sent not contain suggestions of MA doing anything other than 100% in accordance with the license. (The bits about "bending" the license, for example.) The thing is, the license is not subject to a wiki-style opinon poll; it is whatever a court is willing to enforce. So I think it best to leave it to the G4 lawyers rather than the MA community to determine what's permissible. My suggestion (for what it is worth) would be to open pretty much as you did, but then not make any conclusions as to how they can use it. Just say "The unique nature of Memory Alpha is such that no one person 'owns' the work product, nor can anyone grant rights to it beyond the CCL. However, as with any reader, G4 is welcome to use the information in Memory Alpha in accordance with the CCL. We would ask, though, that our URL be given appropriate credit when used." And just kinda leave it at that. Make G4 reach whatever conclusion they want so that MA, Dan, Harry, and the Wikia people, don't get caught up in a legal fight with someone who's nose gets bent out of shape because their name wasn't used or something. Again, just a suggestion - and it is a very nice honor to be asked. Aholland 19:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Non-commercial organizations are still allowed to advertise -- we do in google (paid for by wikia I believe). Perhaps we could say we are advertising with G4 and our payment is letting them use facts from our site. Also, just as a side note to our success, I was checking some stats at Alexia, and 4 times in the past 6 months our page rating has exceeded that of! Jaz talk 22:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I just emailed the CCL people ask them their opinions on this. Jaz talk 06:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

As said above, we shouldn't desperately try to find some loopholes in the CCL that allows someone else to use our content in a way other than what our license describes. The idea that someone using content is actually taking that as some form of payment for advertising is shaky at best - and based on the idea that "MA" even is able and allowed to give away that content, which it is not. Also, I think we shouldn't go around and contact various people - why not just let Dan and Harry handle that? -- Cid Highwind 08:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any conflict here. They want to cite us as a source for information, not republish our content, which means copyright infringement souldn't be an issue. I can't think of any use they'd make of our info that violates our license. (Even if they were going to, say, republish our content the way does with Wikipedia, the "human-readable" version of the license says "Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder" - which is what they are doing by asking us.) --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 09:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if all they are going to do is to state that "according to Memory Alpha, the answer is (insert half a sentence of information here)", then you are probably correct. If they use more than that, for example by displaying or reading text directly taken from our articles, then they have to do that according to our license. And while "waiving" is possible, it is only possible for the copyright holders - which are the individuals that wrote a specific article, but not "Memory Alpha" as a whole. -- Cid Highwind 10:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I think Renegade hit the nail on the head about how they intend to use our content. But for the record, don't we release our work to Memory Alpha when we submit it? I always thought we were "giving" it to the project, which would make it (although I don't know who exactly "it" is - Dan and Harry, I suppose) the copyright holder. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 15:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

From looking at their web site, I'm guessing what they're wanting to do is use information on MA in some of their games/contests, such as for trivia questions, etc. Obviously, this is only supposition, but if that's the case, just citing us as the source for "authoritative" information, I don't see a problem - but then, again, I'm no lawyer. :) -- Renegade54 15:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

To address Vedek's comment above, the "owner" of the work placed on MA is the person who places it on MA. The owner is granting a license to reuse it, combine it, etc., but ownership does not transfer. Hence, no one person or entity owns or can freely grants rights in or to the work outside the license. Theoretically, then, if someone were to take your work and publish it for profit somewhere you could sue them and prevail as they would have violated your copyright (in the U.S.) and the terms of the license. I, still, suggest that whoever responds to them just tell G4 they can use MA as they wish, so long as it is in conformance with the license - same as any other reader. Aholland 16:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up, and yeah, that's probably the best course of action. Something told me when I first read this that the "permission" they were seeking had as much to do with getting the word out about Star Trek 2.0 as covering the legal aspect of it... ;) --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 17:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I did get a response today. Here it is.

Hey Josh,
We are currently working on trying to clarify the definition of noncommercial & have prepared draft guidelines (which I have attached for your reference). As you can see, according to the guidelines, use by a for-profit company constitutes a commercial use & is prohibited under an NC license on the rationale that all actions by a for-profit company are ultimately for profit. However, if your community of contributors feel that use by a for-profit company is a noncommercial use, then you can probably allow it.
You should probably also consider whether the use that the company wishes to make of the material at your wiki implicates the CC license at all. CC licenses do not restrict fair use and only apply in relation to an exercise of a copyright right. As we explain in our database FAQ, facts are often considered to be free of copyright: The Copyright Office also explains what is not covered by copyright: circs/circ1.html.
All the best,
Mia Garlick
General Counsel
543 Howard St., 5th Floor
San Francisco CA 94105-3013
United States
Tel: 415-946-3073
Fax: 415-946-3001

I think if they are only using one or two lines at a time, that constitutes fair use. We use much more than that in what we call fair use quotes from scripts, or even audio from episodes. Jaz talk 00:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Time and History Issues

Has anyone else been noticing issues with timestamps and page history? All day, when I make an edit, it has been going to the wrong place in the list, and many time stamps appear to be off. Jaz 03:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Me too! Excess chronotons, perhaps? :) Aholland 03:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not sure what that's all about. It might be a result of the server crash earlier today. Hope it's fixed soon. --From Andoria with Love 03:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I've run into that as well. Something else I've noticed is that frequently I'm not seeing changes in a page unless I force a refresh via a shift-reload. That would seem to be related to the server page cache in some way. -- Renegade54 12:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio welcome template

I'd like to create a new type of welcome template. We have an increasing number of new archivist who have completely good intentions, but are unaware of our rules, and copy and past from other sites (usually wikipedia). None of our welcomes really fit for this. I propose we create an additional template that welcomes the user in a friendly way and explains why their copyvio edit(s) have been removed. Jaz talk 04:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've thought about this a bit, and I really don't see any reason for such a template. I think just posting the normal welcome message and then afterwards alerting them to our copyright policies should suffice. --From Andoria with Love 19:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Parser functions

"Parser functions" have been implemented and put to use on Wikipedia. Basically, these parser functions a little programming constructs that allow pages to be displayed in different ways based on the value of some parameters.

For example, a sidebar template could be constructed so that lines for "unknown" values are automatically hidden, instead of either having to create several templates with different parameters, or having to live with a sidebar that has "unknown" written all over it.

I already talked to the Wikia staff, and they would make these functions available on MA if we want to use them. Generally, I think that this is a good idea, but there's some potential for misuse - personally, I think that these functions should be restricted to templates as described above, but not be used on content pages for some of the more esoteric purposes that would be possible. Would anyone object to making that a policy? -- Cid Highwind 10:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea so long as it doesn't get out of control - we want to maintain uniform style. So yes, go ahead and make a policy on it. Jaz talk 18:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess that would be okay. I'm not entirely sure I understand it all, but then I'm an idiot, so... yeah. Anyways, so long as we have measures to prevent misuse, I'd say go for it. --From Andoria with Love 19:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
For what I understand, that would make the (in)famous episode sidebar template possible :-). Don't think that enforcing a correct usage will give much trouble, as long as we have one. -- Rcog 22:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, a short example of these parser functions here. On the suggested starship sidebar template, there's a parameter for the registry number. Right now, when using the template, we have to give the parameter some value, otherwise it would appear as Registry: {{{Registry}}}. So, if the registry is unknown, we have to add that as a string and end up with a sidebar with (probably several) empty fields.

With parser functions, we can check if a parameter was used at all (or alternatively, check if a parameter value was given as "unknown") and in that case omit the whole line in the sidebar.

Possible misuse in this case would be, IMO, to check all parameters in this way. Some values should always be included in a given template, and if they are unknown the template shouldn't be used at all. Another form of misuse would be to use this function to add dozens of parameters to a template that would only be used in very rare special cases.

Other available parser functions could be misused even further. I don't want to go into detail here, but there is, for example, a function that evaluates mathematical expressions (=does calculations) - which, I think, could do more harm than good. -- Cid Highwind 08:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

If there are to much ways to misuse these parser functions you should first ask yourself what the benefits might be when you start using them. Personally I have no idea what advantage these functions would have on the average user. -- Q 19:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess there are many wiki functions the "average user" doesn't care for, or doesn't even know they exist - that doesn't mean that those function can't be an advantage for a "power user", or even the project itself. As for the benefit of this function, let's go back to an existing example:

Have a look at "Template:Sidebar fedship" and its talk page. One point that has been discussed is the launch date, which is known only for very few ships. Without parser functions, we can either include a field for the launch date (which would then be "unknown" for most ships), or not include a field (while omitting the information in those cases where it is known), or create two different templates. With parser functions, we can make that field "optional" - it will only appear on the sidebar if it has a useful content.

Similarly, the "registry" field could be made optional: not only do we not know the registry for many Starfleet starships, we could even use the same template for all ships, including alien starships, if we just removed that field.

On the other hand, one could now have the idea to include everything into that template as an optional field. Some starship sidebars have "armament", some have "crew complement", some have "tonnage", etc. In the end, we would end up with a nearly unmaintainable template that serves no purpose, because it doesn't lead to any standardization - and that's what I would like to prevent. -- Cid Highwind 19:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I am just an "average user" :) Your clarification helped and I can see its advantages aka forcing a uniform look-and-feel (like you said on the talk page). Could a user still add some extra text within the sidebar if he or she wanted to ? (I assume that with this form of sidebar only declared fields are visible, if they are filled that is) -- Q 20:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the sidebar would then have a relatively fixed content. Some fields would be mandatory, some would be optional, but unless we include some sort of "free text field" where a user can determine content and title (which I would call template misuse), there would be no way to include extra text. This is not a restriction of parser functions, however, but typical behaviour of a template - and as Kobi stated on the talk page of that template, we probably don't even want to have all information included in a sidebar. I think a sidebar should only be used for the most basic facts, not for everything that one is just too lazy to properly add to the main text. -- Cid Highwind 07:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Blueprints + Scripts

This night, external links to pages providing "blueprints" were added to several starship and starship class articles. I don't have the time to check them all, but I am not sure we even want to have these links. The blueprints themselves are definitely non-canon, and publishing them on the web might even be a copyright violation. As far as I see, all links were added by either Special:Contributions/ or Special:Contributions/ Any thoughts? - if none, I will remove the links later, when I find the time... -- Cid Highwind 09:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Given that these are existing web resources that are of interest to some, and not being moved into MA, how's about moving the links to an External Link section in each article. That way rather than the implication that they are "right" we will just be pointing to things of note on the web. I agree that these may violate copyright, but the other site has obtained some permissions in some instances I believe. Regardless, our link does not implicate us in the violation - it just might go dead someday if the copyright holder gets upset at the other site. So I'd keep the links, but move them to an appropriate section. (But if they end up being deleted I'm not going to lose sleep over it!) Aholland 13:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In Germany, there have been recent court decisions basically stating that a web site owner can, under specific circumstances, be made responsible for illegal content of external pages he directly links to. I have no idea if the same is true for other jurisdictions, but I thought "better safe than sorry" since the content on those pages has only restricted value for MA anyway... -- Cid Highwind 14:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

On a similar sidenote, User:Bp has added some external script links to some of the DS9 episodes recently, including "The Siege" and "The Circle". What is the MA policy for these? Is it the same as the blueprints, or something difference? Is it covered in one of the policies somewhere? I couldn't find anything obvious in my looking. -- Sulfur 17:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think MA has a policy on how to link or what not to link to. For what it is worth, this is probably not a problem in the U.S. ("A service provider shall not be liable . . . for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material . . . ." Title 17 U.S.C.) A couple of cases have addressed it a little differently, but they involved confidential information and commercial gain by the linking site. I cannot speak to Germany, though, or its reach into MA. Aholland 18:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I had seen a link in "Duet" to the episode script. I find it interesting to read the scripts while I watch, so I added the links to those episodes that were on today. I don't think its a problem at all, I doubt that site cares, its making ad money, and it isn't illegal. All the episodes should have an external link to that site, it's great. IMO. --Bp 19:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

A bunch of links to external sites with blueprints have been added again. Is this permitted behavior for MA, or should they be removed? I don't think the above discussion was clear on that point. Aholland 14:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

anonymous off-by-one edits...

...are annoying and hard to know if they are valid. Here is a list of semi-recent ones:

--Bp 21:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

After looking at these edits closer, they all appear to be valid except the Glenn Morshower one ( i dont know about 24). I'm just paranoid when I see an edit that changes only one number made by an anonymous user wtih only one edit and no comment. I should learn "assume good faith." --Bp 22:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, you should be very suspicious. For the Occupation of Bajor, the article states in background that the consensus is 50 years, not the 40 as it was just changed to. I haven't worked on it, but I'll take the established article over an anonymous user. (Another reason to require registration before being granted edit rights so we can ask about these things!) Aholland 23:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

... and another thing, whats with the eggs?

What is the deal with the egg icon for external links? (see the section right above this one) --Bp 22:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Those just show non-wiki style links, generally outside links really, but anytime a 'person' creates a link (like you did), those show up. As an aside, to show the links rather than [1], you can try [http://the_link/ description with spaces allowed]. -- Sulfur 02:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The question was "why are they eggs?" I should have been more clear. --Bp 03:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not an egg. Its a graphic meant to represent Earth -- the location of the "world-wide-web" that www links lead to. -- Captain M.K.B. 03:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh. --Bp 03:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek Universe vs Star Trek Production

Is there some way to distinguish between Trek Universe articles and Trek Production pages? I recently hit "random page" and got an actor, but thought it was a character for a few seconds. If there was some kind of initial, bold opening distinguishment...? --The Rev 02:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That's probably not a bad idea... I've thought about that at one time myself. Perhaps even some difference in the page colors? I dunno... -- Renegade54 13:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe as simple as a indented, italicized notice (applied via a template) like the following would suffice: This is a Star Trek production-related article. - Intricated 15:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
They have a interesting thing at wookiepedia where they put little icons in the upper right corner of the article to note what era the article is from. (see [9] the icons on the same line as the title) maybe something like this could be used here. and not just for production/universe but for other things maybe. just little visual tags that classify the article better than catagories. --Bp 16:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I like this idea. Jaz talk 04:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I have made an first draft type thing at Template:Real world. --Bp 23:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Some thoughts, especially about the suggested template:
  • The idea itself isn't a new one, search for something like "Meta-template", probably in the TF-archives. These old discussions should be considered, although some opinions might have changed.
  • That said, I like the general design of this one. It's small enough (and placed in a corner, away from the content) to not be too distracting while still being visible for anyone who needs to see it.
  • I'm not convinced of the specific design. I think the box is too small for any meaningful image, that should be replaced with something iconic. I can try to create a fitting graphic later. Also, the template should link to a page that actually explains what "Production POV" means and why it might be important to note that fact on a page.
  • I also think that we should stick to the term "Production POV" that is already in use anywhere else (that means, move and rephrase the template).
  • This layout could also be used for other "non-article" pages, for example disambiguation pages, policies&guidelines, project pages etc., probably each with a different background color and icon. However, I don't like the idea of using this on standard "in-universe" articles, and don't think it should be used for something like article classification (person vs. starship vs. planet ...).
  • Last (and probably least, for the time being), we should make sure that the implementation of this template doesn't conflict with others placed in the top right corner. Template:Shortcut is the only one I can think of at the moment...
-- Cid Highwind 07:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I changed it to look more like the template:meta suggestions/standard-notice and I added the link that you suggested at Template talk:Real world. Agree that in-universe articles should not have a box. It doesn't conflict with template:shortcut. So, all that's left is the Wykoff picture and text "real world". That's a joke. The point was to inform and entertain but, if you think it should just be very straight forward and joke free, that's fine. I like it with the joke personally. --Bp 11:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I changed the border color and style back to the same format that is used for the title underline. I like the fact that these seem to be connected the way they appear now. Regarding the joke - to be honest, I didn't even recognize it as such, and while I don't mind having a joke here or there, I don't think it's wise to have one at such a central location: A joke about POV on a template about POV. It's rather confusing, I guess... -- Cid Highwind 12:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

T'Pol's uniforms

I'm planning on making a list of T'Pol's uniforms in each episode of ENT Season 3 and 4. Is that already easy to get on some other site or can it even already be found here? Would it be a valuable contribution? --Defiant 19:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Would it be worthwhile making a list of what T'Pol wears in Seasons 3 and 4? --Defiant 20:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the significance of the different uniforms? What made you want to create the list? --Bp 22:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel there should be a page devoted to it. Add it as pictures to the T'Pol article, but don't clutter it. --The Rev 20:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on making it a page by itself. I thought a good place would be the background information section on the T'Pol page. I've already started noting doing the various clothing used and am about half-way through Season 3, starting "Proving Ground" just now. --Defiant 19:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the clothing she wears is significant in some way, then I think it's ok. Is it about costume changes? Or did the uniform changes because her status changed? Or is this like a stalker marking down what his victim is wearing each night as he wacthes from the bushes. --Bp 02:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

She had more costume changes than any other member of the main cast of Star Trek: Enterprise, largely due to the events of Season 3 when she wore a lot of non-regulation outfits after leaving the Vulcan High Command. The clothes probably give an insight into her character more than in Seasons 1 and 2 as she no longer had to follow regulations and could choose what she wore. I find this interesting, as how does a Vulcan (who always try to use logical decision-making) decide such a preferential thing as what to wear? --Defiant 09:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahh. Good enough for me. Do it. --Bp 10:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

A slight change to the stylesheet

I suggest we make the visited links a lighter shade of blue (and make the unvisitied ones slightly darker if need be, but not too much). The dark blue visited links have always bugged me. I've heard a couple other people mention this before. Opinions? --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 19:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind either way. --Bp 01:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I'm a fan of the dark for visited, and light for unseen. But that's just my impression of things. If it changes to the other way around, it'll take a while to get used to, but those of us used to dark for visited, light elsewise will get used to it. -- Sulfur 02:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well dark for visited is fine if it was a little less dark is what I'm saying. ;) --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 05:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to some color changes, but I see problems in this specific case with either both colors becoming too similar to each other, or the lighter one becoming too similar to the white of the surrounding text. I also haven't seen anyone else mention that before... Perhaps you could experiment with those colors using you personal stylesheet, either as a permanent fix or to suggest a different working set of colors? -- Cid Highwind 12:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm with the Vedek on this one. The dark is kinda hard on the eyes. Jaz talk 04:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Starfleet General Staff

The General Staff was the command body at Starfleet Headquarters that Commander Pavel Chekov identified as ordering Reliant to the Regula Space Laboratory. In addition, when David Marcus further inquired, Chekov stated that the order came directly from Admiral James T. Kirk. This would seem to indicate that Kirk was actually part of the General Staff.

Keeping in mind of course that Chekov was under the mind control of Khan, the entire statement may have been a fabrication. This is unlikely though as knowledge of membership of the General Staff would probably be at least as accessible as knowledge of the membership of the modern day Joint Chiefs of Staff. -User:Acedragon1

Forgive me but, what's your point? --Bp 02:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I think a page or tab should be included for this particular group. Either in the StarFleet section or Federation Section. Thanks. -User:Acedragon1
Interesting. I have been reading the wikipedia article on General staff and it seems that a general staff is a component. There may be more than one, so the one that Kirk was attached to was probably not THE General Staff, just a general staff. Also, it mentions that the Joint Chief's staff, the "Joint staff", of the United States is not a general staff. Also, Starfleet doesn't have Generals, it has Admirals, I'm not sure how that changes terms. I think the writers prolly threw that term in there without knowing how it was used. Do you you know any other place that a general staff was referenced? --Bp 10:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent source for TOS screencaps

I've recently stumbled upon an excellent source for original series screencaps. See Steve's STAR TREK: TOS Site. Ottens 12:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Risa in "Inside Man"

Okay, I know this is a minor bit, but since we've had some discussions lately about citing sources and what can be considered a valid source, I'd like to bring this up here. This started when I wanted to find out, when the Risian logo that is depicted in the Star Trek Star Charts was actually seen on screen in an episode or a movie. As can be read here: File talk:InsideMan-Beach.jpg, the logo was seen in "Inside Man" on a towel, but it was not mentioned in the episode that the planet Troi is relaxing on is Risa. Another variety of the logo, with a horga'hn in the foreground can also be found on the net. Well, I found Geoffrey Mandel's homepage and decided to ask him, were the logo is from and why it looks different (not green but colourful) in the Star Charts. And I was very happy when I got a reply. Here it is:

I designed the Risa logo for "Inside Man," and I think we used in the first season of Enterprise in addition to the beach towels. I didn't do the horga'hn version, but I remember Mike Okuda saying that he thought it should have a horga'hn, so perhaps he added it later. The "official" version is the one in Star Charts, although they couldn't afford to do the beach towels in color.

I replied, because I wanted to be absolutely sure that the beach-planet in "Inside Man" was supposed to be Risa, I also asked for permission to share this information. Here's the second reply:

It was definitely Risa in the script of "Inside Man." I guess the Risa logo could also be a beach club logo, but it was intended as a planetary logo (I recall production designer Richard James asking for something that looked like Club Med). Feel free to pass along this info to anyone who might be interested.

Okay, before I add this info to the various relevant pages, I'd just like to know what others think of this source of information and how to handle these bits of background information.

And again: Thanks alot to Geoffrey Mandel who took the time to answer my orginal inquiry, greatly appreciated! :-) --Jörg 16:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Good research... I guess what I think of using that information can be found on the "Canon Policy" talk page - if you want to read through all that, that is. The short version: For the better part of the last 2.5 year, it was sufficient to just add "background information" as background information (that is, indented/italicized, or in a separate section titled "Background information"). Unless the connection has been made in canon material, there's no need for speculation to be added to the main text of any article. -- Cid Highwind 16:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If absolutely nothing else, I agree with Cid Highwind in that it should be used in the background information. It seems like an interesting reference to make, and one that people might be interested in knowing. -- Sulfur 17:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Help-me template

I would like to create a help-me template (like on wikipedia) for new users. For those of you not familiar, the template is explained to new users on the welcome message. If they have any problems, they just leave the template on their talk-page, and an experienced archivist drops by to help them out. I think it could really go a long way towards making new users feel welcome, but I'm not sure how to set it up. Feedback and assistance would be appreciated. Jaz talk 02:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Podcasts/Star Trek music/ Other

I think there should be an area that lists the Stat Trek podcasts, music, and stuff like that. -- Mpitard (signed by Sulfur, since Mpitard was the last editor)

I think that the place for that would likely fall under parodies or fandom stuff personally. Other than soundtrack albums (obviously). Is there any official podcast? -- Sulfur 00:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC) has a podcast, that would be official? (and thanks for adding my name, I didnt realize I had to do that.)--Matthew 01:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[10](X) are episode commentary (only for ENT). In that way, I think they should only be added in the episode article (background section or a merchandising section along with DVD, VHS and novel release) - Philoust123 12:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I've added the episode commentary podcasts to the Audio commentary page for the various episodes now. Whee. -- Sulfur 12:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody know what these creatures are called?

What are they?

What are the little people in the picture called? --Bp 16:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)#

The species never got a name, but they were seen several times (large and small). Look here. --Jörg 16:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. Great discription. --Bp 17:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Because of the many unknown aliens and characters encountered in the series, I proposed campaign categories at Memory Alpha:Category suggestions#MA Campaigns, in order to make sure that all the unknown characters are listed, but no one gives me an answer about it. - Philoust123 18:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Interface Issues

I don't know if anyone else has this problem, but the Preferences, Login, and all other UI pages have white text on a white background, rendering them unreadable unless the text is selected. Either change the background colors of those tables to what the rest of the site uses, or make the text a dark color.

I haven't noticed any problems. Jaz talk03:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Come to think of it, I haven't either when I use Firefox. IE displays white text on a white background in the Preferences and Login screens. Screenshot, to the right --> <Screenshot of IE problem>
I hope this can be fixed, because I use IE a lot, as do many other Internet users.
The problem still exists on IE. --From Andoria with Love 00:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll look into it later. Sorry for the delay, but I typically don't check the main page talk for these comments... -- Cid Highwind 10:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.