m (=Italicization: - typo;)
Line 160: Line 160:
:::Seeing that hyphens are still added to starship classes while apparently, there's consensus here to use the spelling without hyphens - does anyone want to add anything else to this discussion? Otherwise this should be added to the MoS soon... -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 17:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
:::Seeing that hyphens are still added to starship classes while apparently, there's consensus here to use the spelling without hyphens - does anyone want to add anything else to this discussion? Otherwise this should be added to the MoS soon... -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 17:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Should the class names be italicized? I notice that in this discussion they're not, but in may places in the wiki I see that they are. — '''[[User:pd_THOR|<span style="color:#CC0000;">THOR</span>]]''' <sup>[[User_talk:pd_THOR|<span style="color:#FF9933;">''=/\=''</span>]]</sup> 18:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Should the class names be italicized? I notice that in this discussion they're not, but in may places in the wiki I see that they are. — '''[[User:pd_THOR|<span style="color:#CC0000;">THOR</span>]]''' <sup>[[User_talk:pd_THOR|<span style="color:#FF9933;">''=/\=''</span>]]</sup> 18:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:24, March 29, 2006


Article records

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

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

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

Contradictory info

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

  1. In Voyager it says that the Breen use biological based ships like Species 8472, but in DS9 it shows metal ships flying through space.
  2. Damar and Weyoun argue over the climate of the Breen Homeworld, but in a previous episode Dukat states that there is a Cardassian embassy on Breen

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

For #1 i would ask you: is it entirely impossible that the breen have used two different types of ships in their history? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 06:39, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)
If the information is indeed contradictory, both facts should be noted, accompanied by a small note stating the contradiction. No speculation. -- Cid Highwind 11:54, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Do you think contradictory information should be noted under a specific heading such as Summary or Background Information for episodes? Is there a specific place for errors and inconsistencies? - GrilledCheese17 05:45, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
I just thought of another piece of contridicatry info. At one point it is stated that the Dominion is 2000 years old, yet at another it is stated that it is 10,000 years old. Tobyk777 01:49, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps a simple footnote could be included. Then asterisks or superscript numbers can be added to the contradicted info, and then it can be explained in the stated asterisk or superscript number in the footnote. Enzo Aquarius 01:54, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
For example, with a reference to the Dominion, it could be phrased like this:

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

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

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

First contact with the Klingons occured in 2151.*

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

-- (Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 02:01, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC))
Now, your idea is also great Mike, however it's not the most convenient in a large article (Unless it's done as a footnote at the end in italics of course and not in the middle of the article). Enzo Aquarius 02:12, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I don't see why it would be inconvient. I think that this is a great way to sort it out. Tobyk777 06:09, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
It's a good solution. The tricky thing about contradictions that is often forgotten, is that characters can be lying or wrong. Jaf 13:11, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Right, that's why there is the italic writing. ;-) --Memory 18:37, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)
This is hanging around here for a long time, can we form this into a standard for MA:MoS? Maybe adapting the Wikipedia Footnotes? --Memory 18:37, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)
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)

Dealing with vandals

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

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

Vandals on other Memory Alpha's

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

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

Featured articles reading like episode summaries?

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

Star Trek: Enterprise reference site

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


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

==Background Information==


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

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

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

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

"Alternate timelines" section

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

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


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

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

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

German MA moved all articles missing the hyphen to the correct German spelling with it a long time ago (e.g. "Constitution Klasse" to "Constitution-Klasse", the redirect remained). Up to now I thought the "not-hyphened" writing is correct in AE. Is it not? --Memory 23:06, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)
This is still something that needs to be clarified. Even 3 months later, a user is hyphenating nearly every starship and starship class page. --Alan del Beccio 06:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, uses hyphenated spelling in its library section, while Wikipedia (for example Wikipedia:List of naval ship classes in service) seems to use non-hyphenated spelling throughout. I personally prefer the latter style (no hyphens), but I don't know if there are any rules that would make the first one "more correct". -- Cid Highwind 11:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I would prefer to keep the Wikipedia method just to keep things consistent with them and what we've done for the past three years. I am personally going to continue to remove hyphens in class names whenever I come across them, unless we decide to make a formal vote on moving the class names to hyphenated titles. -- SmokeDetector47( TALK ) 22:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Seeing that hyphens are still added to starship classes while apparently, there's consensus here to use the spelling without hyphens - does anyone want to add anything else to this discussion? Otherwise this should be added to the MoS soon... -- Cid Highwind 17:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


Should the class names be italicized? I notice that in this discussion they're not, but in may places in the wiki I see that they are. — THOR =/\= 18:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


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

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

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

Rollback policy

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

Immediate reverts are allowed for the following cases:

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

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

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

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

Navigation addition suggestion

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

Template for MA links

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

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

Policy Reminder - Summary field

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey, look... It's been almost three months again, so before someone gets the idea to archive this, I just thought I'd point out that the edit summary is still being used less than it should. Please, think about the poor summary field - it's not only useful to track Recentchanges, but also to avoid having to compare diffs for hours if you're searching some specific edit in an article history. -- Cid Highwind 17:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Fan fiction

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

Fan productions (moved from reference desk)

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

Not on MA, I'm afraid. Please read our Memory Alpha:Canon policy... -- Cid Highwind 20:50, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

The future of Memory-Alpha.Org

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

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

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

Is it really necessary to make your text so bulky? (I've since tightened it up). Anyway, "Soon"? I don't see that we are anywhere near running out of canon anytime "soon". So without giving an opinion on anything else other than that, I think this conversation is overly premature. Other than that, I don't like this idea at all. Lets get to point "B" before we start heading for point "C". --Alan del Beccio 04:33, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
We "literally" have plenty more to do, so i say no -- the logistics (not to mention the copyright problems) are kind of mind boggling. I'd rather not disrupt the achievement of a canon database (our ultimate goal) by mixing the data with fan fiction and parodies (completely irrelevant, in my opinion).
I like non-canon, if you'd like, see how pages on novels and comics could be expanded -- I think its an important part of Memory Alpha. Perhaps suggest a website directory that we could police and monitor, to link to gaming or creative sites that are outside of our parameters.
I won't allow this site to be turned into a commercial for cheap knockoffs of Star Trek when theres a perfectly good original series, its spinoffs and movies and tied in licensed media like collecible publications. I'm not a fan of much stuff that Joe Schmoe ran off in his garage, or put on his website -- expecially if we are talking about a commercial venture to capitalize on Star Trek. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 04:37, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Check here to see how much still needs to be done! --T smitts 04:43, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
MA definitely won't "run out of canon" soon. There's still much to write about, and even more to "write better" about. Until both has happened, there's no need to discuss the possible inclusion of fan-fiction and other unofficial material. -- Cid Highwind 09:46, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
*lol* Look at this or this, that's work for years... --Porthos 10:08, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, 747 stubs and 183 incomplete articles...out of the current 49,482 articles, that means roughly 6% of the content we have in M/A still needs some sort of attention, and that doesnt even count what hasn't be written yet. --Alan del Beccio 18:14, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
This is why I thought Memory Alpha:Refit of the Week was a great idea, but apparently no one was interested, which is indicative of the larger problem: Most of the easiest stuff has been covered, and people get lazy. Even once we finish cleaning up things like the technobabble no one actually understands or the actor pages where no one's sure what to add, I think there are more encyclopedic (but also more difficult) things to write about, such as Ethics and Politics of the Klingon Empire. Weyoun 18:58, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Hey Alan, dont be so cynical. The reason why Memory Alpha is cool is because everybody contributes.
  • How am I being cynical, unsigned user, by simply stating the facts? --Alan del Beccio 18:18, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I thought about Memory-Alpha, and if it would run out of material after some time. But we still have LOTS of work to do, not to mention tons of episode reviews (And with Star Trek magazines, new information is always released every month). Then, of course, new books are always coming out, and TONS of books don't have a page here. So there is still lots of work ahead! - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 23:51, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly Against - Not that this vote is really needed ;-) I very much DON'T like this idea. Fan fiction is just ridiculous, I could write a story right now with references out the BAK, and we'd be making ridiculous articles for years. We clearly have more articles to make, and if it runs out, we'll simply find more. I know many episode summaries that could use a lot of work, and if not work, improvement. Among other things, their "references" are ridiculously small. Not to mention the many actors and actresses we have to do. Which are constantly being added to. A movie may be coming out in the coming years. But yes, if all goes well, we'll run out of canon material, which means we'll have to work on the pages for all those novels that could use work, the comic books, and many others. I don't think we need to worry about running out of articles yet, and when we do, I will strongly oppose the includinh of fan fiction and the kinds of speculation that were referred. - AJHalliwell 00:33, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Also Strongly Against - I personally don't read the fan fiction. Although some of it is good, some of it is garbage. I'd hate to come here to read about some topic and have to dig through piles of minutia that's completely irrelevant and non-canon to me. Perhaps an entire second site called "Memory Beta" should be set up with that stuff, so people can read it and others can enjoy MA without having to deal with it.
And even when we run out of articles, there are always ways for improvement. For example, take a look at the Amanda Rogers page (and there's even 4 articles linked to it which aren't done). A one-timer Star Trek appearance/mention, and the article is quite expansive and detailed. A number of character pages could have the same amount of detail (If not more) in the future. Additionally, there will always be something new found or observed, especially with background information (stuff on LCARS displays especially). - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 21:59, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
How about the New Voyages (the professional-quality fan-produced extension of TOS)? Normally I wouldn't suggest non-canon, but since it has the endorsement of Gene Roddenberry's son and the cooperation of original TOS actors (like Walter Koenig) and writers (like D.C. Fontana), maybe data from that series could be added?
EmiOfBrie 23:28, 4 Nov 2005 (CST)
This topic was already discussed previously, and the idea was rejected. Click here to learn more. --From Andoria with Love 05:45, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Fan fiction reference works

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

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

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

Try for non-canon information Keras 23:30, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Addition to policy pages: reproducing book art

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

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

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

I support these clarifications, a few months ago large parts from the fact files were uploaded to MA/de. Regarding user created schematics, de:Benutzer:Shisma was quite productive -- Kobi - (Talk) 17:26, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for not responding to this earlier, but I agree (and already suggested some images for deletion). "Fair use" images used on MA should be restricted to screenshots and cover art. -- Cid Highwind 16:30, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
How about screen-caps that are available from Magazines? I know, if its either an artwork or something that hasn't come from on-screen sources, then its wrong, but what about if the picture is a screen-cap? I've got about 100 issues of Star Trek Monthly which have probably got some pretty useful images from on-screen shots. Are these useable? Zsingaya Talk 13:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Just like Trek articles, it is best to go right to the source material. Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 of the U.S. Code states, in part: "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction . . . , for purposes such as criticism, comment, . . . scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

My suggestion from the above, merely as a Memory Alpha contributor and not as legal advice, is that we do not use material scanned from the inside of books and magazines, regardless of where the book got it. After all, Memory Alpha sells ad space to Google and as someone pointed out above, the interior contents of a book are what cause people to want to buy it; revealling that on this site could interfere with that process. Both points would cut against fair use under the U.S. Code. So, as Cid said: screen-caps, book covers, and other material only with permission is the safest way to go. But that's just my opinion. Aholland 21:18, 6 March 2006 (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)

Succession Boxes

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

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

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

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

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

Preceded by:
Chief Engineer of Enterprise (NX-01)
Succeeded by:
Commander Kelby
Preceded by:
First Officer of Enterprise (NX-01)
Succeeded by:
Subcommander T'Pol
Preceded by:
Commander Kelby
Chief Engineer of Enterprise (NX-01)
Succeeded by:

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

Preceded by:
Gul Dukat

Gul Dukat

Commanding Officer of Deep Space 9


Succeeded by:
Gul Dukat

Colonel Kira Nerys

Preceded by:

Akorem Laan

Emissary of the Prophets


Succeeded by:
Akorem Laan


Preceded by:

Lieutenant Commander Jadzia Dax

Commanding Officer of the USS Defiant (NX-74205)


Succeeded by:
Lieutenant Commander Jadzia Dax


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

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

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

Tense: Past or Present?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with 9er. We should talk about it as best we know about it, the last time we checked in. I was favoring the post-Nemesis idea, but I like this better. As we learn more about something, it should move up the tense. If we saw the person die (or things regarding their death occured), it should be past tense, like Trip Tucker and Tasha Yar. However, to avoid everything in Enterprise and TOS sounding like ancient history, they should refer to the last we know about them. True, we know that T'Pol is long dead in the later series, but her death is never mentioned (AFAIK), so it would work to refer to her as if the ENT finale just occured. Also, with events in the far future, also past tense. For example, Captain Braxton travelled back in time, not he will travel back in time. However, this only works with biographical articles. For historical articles, the post-Nemesis thing works best. We need to retain one viewpoint for an entire article. For example, if we were describing Earth's history, we wouldn't want to talk about different people from different times like they lived together. Episode summaries are fine in present tense, like a running description. To sum this whole thing up, as Braxton said in "Relativity," "I gave up trying to keep my tenses straight years ago." -Platypus Man | Talk 05:19, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
How will that help either? It doesn't work for biographical references because some characters span more than one series, thus bringing up more confusion over the POV. Are we supposed to refer to Spock in present tense in Unification and past-tense for Amok Time? Imagine having to change the tense of an article every time a new episode or movie came out... Now that I think about it, I just find it professionally unsound to use different tenses for different situations, because not all people will be aware of certain guidelines, causing mass confusion, edits, and reverts with the original editor wondering why people keep changing his tense when he thinks it's a few years after Nemesis. Also, if we go by that Nemesis idea, then we have to refer to events in the future as future tense... i.e. the Enterprise-J, Tox Uthat, etc. I say we just write up a convention that dictates past-tense only. --Madame Arsenic 22:09, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying that we change from present to past; it would stay in the past tense, but from when will we be looking will change. In your Spock example, for his bio, we would refer to the events of both episodes in the past tense, but "Unification" would feel more recent than "Amok Time." For Uhura, however, we would use the past tense from the last we saw or heard of her (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, as best I know) so that her life wouldn't seem ancient. We wouldn't write her history as if she died centuries ago, but like if Undiscovered Country just happened. -Platypus Man | Talk 02:51, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've read all your comments on this and gave it a try to put in words. I made a temp page of it which you can find here, Memory Alpha:Point of view/temp. I myself feel this change needs voting to make it 'official'. Please comment on the article tense. -- Q 20:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm, ok, let's take it. --Memory 21:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that past tense is the only way to logically go. Other thoughts on the draft are on the TEMP page. Aholland 19:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

technical problem

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

Move protections?

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

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

Star Trek reference books

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

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

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)

Non Canon vs. Semi Cannon vs. Apocrypha

Do we distinguish between Apocryphal material (disproved by onscreen evidence) and Non-Canon material (unsupported by on-screen evidence)? For example fans called the Reliant 'Avenger Class' = Apocrypha. Various computer games gave names and registery numbers to ships of this class = non-canon.

Furthermore, what do we with background material that was written and utilized by the production team, but not see on film? Here I'm thinking of the background alien descriptions in ST:TMP and ST:IV.

As far as I know, apocrpyha and non-canon sources are one as the same. As for background info, that can be added to the article, but it mst be seperated from the rest of the text, indented, and italicized. For large amounts of background info, a "Background" section in the article will be necessary. I hope this helps.
In the meantime, I think this question would be better suited for Ten Forward, as the reference desk is for questions pertaining to incidents within the Trek universe. Hope this helps, too. :) --From Andoria with Love 07:28, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Yes the term "apocrypha", by the dictionary definition, means "anything not in canon." However, there is a divide in apocrypha, into two types:
  • licensed works - this means a work licensed by Paramount to use the Star Trek name -- ideally, i feel only licensed comics, novels, collectibles and games should be put into the articles those words link to.
  • unlicensed works - this refers to fan fiction, fan films, fan publishing, etc.. -- these books are unlicensed and unauthorized. Many will say so, such as a critical review or fanzine. Some have been sued or at least stopped production because Paramount forbids companies or persons from earning profit of the copyright to the name and marks of Star Trek. This is an area MA is just starting to examine.
I think its an important distinction to make. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

de-stubbing articles

There seems to be continuing confusion over what constitutes a stub, and what is a pna. In fact, in our zeal to get rid of our "massive stub count", archivists are just going through and removing the stub message from dozens of incomplete articles at a time -- sometimes without adding new content or a "pna" message -- the stub message was added to show that someone thought the article still needed work, in a lot of cases this seems true.

Even if an article subject was only mentioned once, in passing, in a single episode -- there is still the matter of describing the context the article subject appeared or was mentioned in: who mentioned it, what were they talking about, where was this thing? -- these are all missing factors in many article which people have been removing the attention messages from

I thought the stub message was there to gather attention for articles that could use this information added, I'd support either leaving the stub messages in the article, or replacing them with "pna-incomplete"s. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

Can you provide an example of such articles? I've been going through some of the stub articles recently, but I've always attempted to add as much content and context I'm aware of to the page before removing the {{stub}} plate... if there are still things missing, anyone can, of course, add a {{pna}}. Otherwise, I haven't really noticed a large volume of articles being de-stubbed without purpose in the recent changes. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 17:23, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm talking about changes made in recent weeks, so its probably been nothing i've noticed since the holidays -- I didn't want to enter a discussion previously because i wasn't sure it would be well received, and felt an admin presence might be counterproductive -- I did end up re-stubbing or pna-ing a certain number of articles over the past few months, but now that there is increased interest due to the stub template on the recent changes header, i thought i'd float this out and see (again) where we should draw the line between stubs and pnaincompletes -- but emphasize that either way i feel articles could and should be marked when they could be expanded.

One article I noticed today is Rectyne monopod -- an archivist asked why the article was marked as a stub, as it contained all of the technical information about the animal that we know -- its weight. However, I feel the context is greatly improved by listing the fact that Chief O'Brien described a situation where monopods were being herded with painstiks. The article is about three times as long now (even if it is still only a paragraph or two), and I feel this is a good situation for leaving an article marked for expansion (that is, when it lacks context of how the subject appeared, acted, or came up in conversation). -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 18:46, 5 Jan 2006 (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 sollution 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 rediculous 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 wether 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)

Image description texts

When uploading a new image under an old filename, especially if the new image has different content, please check the description texts on the pages that already use this image. For example, an image on Weytahn was described as showing "two ships in orbit", although the image actually showing this was replaced with an image of just the planet some time ago. Thanks. Should this be added to our Memory Alpha:Image use policy? -- Cid Highwind 13:00, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Advertising Banner

I've just come to the stage of sorting out my links page on the RPG I'm working on. I've started putting banner graphics up for a lot of the sites, but Memory Alpha doesn't have one. Does anyone fancy chucking together a suitable graphic that people can use to link back here? It looks better than just having it done with text. --Jace 17:56, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)- Jace

There's a variety of banners on Memory Alpha:Spread the Word. Thanks for linking to MA. :) -- Cid Highwind 18:05, 8 Jan 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)

Misplaced merge suggestions

In the past few weeks, several deletion suggestions appeared on MA:Vfd that were actually misplaced. The most recent one, for example, was Vaadwaur history and it was suggested even in the initial entry that this page should not be deleted, but merged with another page. Merge suggestions, however, do not belong on a page for deletions because, if done correctly, the resulting redirect is kept and the only necessary deletion is a temporary one to do the history merge - and that temporary deletion doesn't need to have consensus. This isn't the fault of the contributors who suggested these merges, of course - it's a fault of MA because we don't have a formal way to suggest page merges yet.

With that in mind, I created a template {{merge with}}, similar to those used on Wikipedia (just simpler, I don't think we need the overhead of 5 or six different templates at the moment). It is used with the name of the target page as a variable and looks like:

It has been suggested that this article should be merged with TARGET PAGE.
You can discuss this suggestion on the talk page.

All we need in addition to that is a guideline - I will put a suggestion on Memory Alpha:Merge. I think we can keep this simple for the moment and see if it works, then make it more formal later in case it doesn't work. -- Cid Highwind 14:14, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Server trouble

Memory Alpha seems to be having technical difficulties since its server went down a few days ago. Among the problems I have encountered are:

  • Longer loading time
  • Loading errors (inability to load pages, necessitating need to go back and re-do)
  • Constantly being taken to the "show preview" page despite selecting "save page"

Does anybody else have these (or other) problems, or is it just me? My computer's had a little trouble today, so I don't know for show. If it is a server problem, hopefully someone can fix it soon. --From Andoria with Love 05:07, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I've been having these for the past few days. Also, a lot of times IE tells me that a page is "Done, with errors" and has the yellow exclamation point instead of the blue logo. Anyone know the problem?Jaz 05:23, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad I'm not alone, at least. It would have had to question my virus/spyware detector's capabilities and dug deeper to find the problem. I use Mozilla Firefox when viewing MA, so I don't know about the "done, with errors" message. (I am checking it now, and so far I haven't had that problem.) Evidently, some bug entered the system that was either the cause or a result of the server crash a few days ago. I think it needs to be brought to someone's attention. The next time anybody has an error message while attempting to load a page, there should be an e-mail address on it telling you who to contact (some guy whose name starts with a "J", I think.) Contact that guy, and let him know the problem (although they probably already know). --From Andoria with Love 05:43, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

...Has anyone taken a look at the wanted pages page lately? Seems a little... empty. --From Andoria with Love 06:28, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

We also lost the notice at the bottom about how many times pages have been accessed. And I think your guys' problem is that you're using IE in the first place... :) No, actually I don't know what's going on, but I've noticed the stuff you're talking about, except for the "done with errors" part, which I haven't seen anything of in Firefox or Opera. So who knows, maybe part of the problem really is that you're using IE. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 09:06, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Yesterday MA don't let me log in. *grr* --Memory 12:34, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Reports about server issues can generally be found on the following page. There were issues, but those seem to be mostly fixed now: -- Cid Highwind 15:37, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Additionally. I just was told that some of the more resource-intensive pages were disabled for the moment to increase general performance. This includes some of the pages in "Special:" namespace like the "wanted pages" page. This will eventually be fixed. -- Cid Highwind 15:49, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, the special pages have been fixed (not the visitor counts on the bottom though).--Tim Thomason 12:43, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but the visitor counts are not accurate. To speed up access to your wiki, we use squid caching, which means unregistered users see a cached page, which doesn't update the count. Angela (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Performer's credit

Before I go and edit the articles, I need to know -- does a performer's name get placed in the text of a main character's article if the actor's name is already in a table? An argument has recently risen on my talk page concerning referencing a performer in parentheses when their name is already place on the table. The thing is, the table is only supposed to supplement the text, not replace it. This is proven by the fact that all other bits of info in the table -- date/place of birth and relatives -- are also placed inside the article. Currently, there are some main character articles (James T. Kirk, Benjamin Sisko) that have the name only in the table, and some (Hoshi Sato, Travis Mayweather) that have it in both the table and the article. Anyways, I need to know which is correct/preferred before I go and add names to the articles. --From Andoria with Love 03:25, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Both, I'd say. As you stated, the table should be an additional summary of the most important information, not a replacement. -- Cid Highwind 09:28, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that we need both if the page is relatively short and has a sidebar. --Memory 22:57, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I don't think size of the article matters much; in fact, short article probably don't really need a sidebar at all, since those types of articles generally don't have a lot of info on them anyway. Anyways, I agree with Cid, but I would still like input from a few more archivists before editing the articles. --From Andoria with Love 03:52, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Ok, "short" means something like Tuvix, which is short compared to William T. Riker. --Memory 20:45, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)


There has apparently been some discourse on whether or not "administratorship" is being given out as prizes to worthy users. Without getting too much involved in that discussion, perhaps our lack of any "award"-giving, community-involved procedure is to blame. I think we should open up a discussion on some kind of "archivist of the month" or even some kind of Star Trekky barnstars system (I know that's been tried before, but I don't think it's been proposed). I'm open up to any suggestions, and believe this might help limit the admin nominations (we just had one like last week, but, oh... wait...) and also might help make the often stated to be "close-knit" community bigger. Any opinion, suggestion, insult, or whatever is welcome and appreciated.--Tim Thomason 23:53, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting idea, Broik tried something like that out with a "Barnstar of Persistence" with a picture of Janeway talking to a tiny version of The Doctor, the award being for "takig care of all the little things the rest of us take for granted". And the picture was from the episode "Persistence of Vision" too, so I have to take credit for the irony since it way my idea. :P --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 05:00, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Nice idea, but how to organize? A "simple" Barnstar that everyone can award anyone? Something more official (an user project?) with nominations and voting? --Memory 13:59, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
The original example can be found at User talk:Bgtribble. I am of the same mind as Memory on this one. Makon 14:27, 16 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)

MediaWiki 1.5 Comments


OK, so we were upgraded to MediaWiki 1.5. I wanted to make a few comments, and I thought this to be the best place. Not that this will probably change anything, but I wanted to talk about it.

  1. Broken links are a darker shade of red. Don't like it.
  2. The search is has the Wikicities logo on it. I know it's not really any different, but I like the old one without a logo better.
  3. The Google search has got to go. What's the point? Also, it looks bad with the dark background.
  4. The red exclamation points on the recent changes page. What's up with that? Nevermind, they're gone now.
  5. A few technical problems, like an odd looking list on (at least my) watchlist and an "[undefined]" link at the bottom of some TOCs, like the one on this page (but technical problems are to be expected an will be fixed).
  6. The dealy on the top of image pages. Is that really needed?
  7. It wont let me keep the space at the beginning of my signature like it used to. Now I have to manually put a space between my text and the ~~~~. (Added 13:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC))

Now you know what I think. Comments? -Platypus Man | Talk 05:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The darker shade for the links don't bother me. And I think the Google search engine is a great, handy thing to have; it makes it easier to search for Trek-related items and possible copyvios without opening another page. However, the outline for the Google logo could be done better.
The red exclamation points are still on the rc page, and are very distracting, although I guess we can live with that.
As for the Wikicities logo, it should either be replaced with an MA logo or removed altogether.
There are several technical problems still to be worked out, specifically with links in the MediaWiki templates. Also, the white background on the Yahoo! ad bar to the right needs to return to its original black color.
And that's all I gotta say 'bout that. --From Andoria with Love 05:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I have different things to address: on my laptop the google ads on the right side are overlapping the text. In the TOCs the header is big and yellow, undefined was already mentioned above. The red exclamation marks are white for me, so I think it is a css thing. Yesterday in fr the navigation was missing, though it seems fixed now. -- Kobi - (Talk) 08:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding those ads, I had to switch to IE to see them because I've had them blocked on Firefox for longer than I've been here. I agree that they would/did look better with a black background. Of course, the best solution is to not see them...-Platypus Man | Talk 13:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I will try to look into some of the CSS issues later today - please still post them and others as you find them. There seems to be an issue with HTML code in messages in the Mediawiki: namespace, for example. No idea if this is a temporary issue or if we'll have to find ways to use Wikicode only there. The Google search can be useful from time to time, because the internal search sometimes doesn't find what you want it to find. The image used at the moment is ugly, though, that's correct. -- Cid Highwind 14:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Anyone experiencing the "Ads overlapping the right side of the page" bug should hit "ctrl-F5" (or however you force a refresh on your particular browser or OS) to purge the old style from your cache, the ads load fine after this. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Mike, you saved my computer from an atroce murder (by me). Since the upgrade, I took twice the time to look and edit the pages with this Google overlapping. There is still a problem with images : there are now headers (Image, historic, link) before the image, then there are technical infos about the image ["Ten_Forward_(bar).jpg (43Ko, type MIME: image/jpeg)"] just before the legend, which make image article completely stupid. It is possible that it only occurs with the french preferences of navigation. - Philoust123 14:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that the image legend "dealy" has a wikimedia/wikicities style artifact giving it a light background (a lot of "light background" areas have been showing up, these could be corrected on some of our style setting so they look less intrusive). If a consensus exists, possibly alter the color format for some of the other changes (like the darker red links). If these changes are truly possible, i'd suggest not only darkening the light backgrounds, but somehow centering or de-accentuating the MIME type data so it can be more easily discerned from the image description. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The Google logo currently being used is [2], which is dithered for a white (or light) background. Try replacing it with [3], which is dithered for a black (or dark) background. -- Renegade54 15:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The black background for the Google logo looks a lot better. Can somebody make the changes? Also, to Mike, I support any changes which make the site look better, although I am indiferent to the brightness of the links (at the moment, anyway :P). --From Andoria with Love 16:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Has anybody noticed that instead of an arrow we now have "&larr" when reviewing an article's changes? :P -- 16:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
That's because "&larr" is the HTML code to insert the symbol "→". The new version of the software doesn't support such HTML tags, so any like these would have to be fixed.
 :P indeed -- there's no need to stick out your tongue -- although i feel like doing that whenever i have to remind people not to use HTML tags on MA ;). -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 16:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'm a bit confused... HTML tags seem to work just fine on the pages. For example, here are the tags for the left and right arrows: ← → They seem to work just fine, as do all the other tags on all the pages. So... why aren't the ones in the MediaWiki space working? (And why are we not supposed to use them here?) -- Renegade54 16:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they work fine -- on some pages, such as the main article space. They do not work across certain types of code variations (for example the site coding contained in the MediaWiki namespace -- they don't work there because those codes are being saved on one page, but displayed by the wiki code on special pages). They probably don't work well when a normal article page is processed or queried by our special pages or search features -- which is exactly why our policy states that in all cases, HTML should not be used when there is a wiki code or another way to insert a character, table or etc., it should be used. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 17:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the diffs issue, there are pages Mediawiki:Previousdiff and Mediawiki:Nextdiff, but the wording used there is different from the one used on diffs. Maybe what we see there is hardcoded somewhere, where the content of those Mediawiki: pages should be used instead? -- Cid Highwind 17:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I didn't change anything yet, but had the chance to ask Jason on the wikicities chat about the problem I mentioned above. The "diff" issue seems to be fixed now, so whatever the problem was with the existing Mediawiki: pages not actually being used, it seems to be fixed now. Please check again all pages you had HTML issues with and remove/add them from/to the list below. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 16:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
TOC heading issue. I don't see that here, and already left a note on Kobi's talk page. Does anyone else that? If so, please post here so that I can see if it might have something to do with custom CSS files. -- Cid Highwind 16:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Custom signature issue. I don't know about that, but it might be some sort of new feature instead of a bug. Workaround: Try to start your custom signature with something else; for example, add the double dash typically used to your signature. -- Cid Highwind 16:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Google image. I removed the image temporarily, but in the long run, something else has to be done. I already asked about the possibilities to change these boxes somehow. -- Cid Highwind 23:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the custom signature thing should be an issue really - I can see where it would remove an extra space at the beginning, kind of like leading zeros in a number. Just put the space in. :)

As for Google, Shran was right about it being useful, but 90% of us probably have that box already, whether it's the search box for modern browsers or Google Toolbar for IE. Either way, having that box is really about Wikicities getting money from ads you click when your search originates there.

For some reason the "Search This Wiki" picture is there but not, like I get a box with the text, like it's downloading the image but never gets there. Once we get past all these other issues, we should discuss some cosmetic changes, because I don't know if it's the upgrade or I'm just noticing, but the dark blue color for visited links is really hard on the eyes with our current background (that's probably a discussion for the "layout committee" page though). --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 21:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the dark blue the same as before? I think only the red for dead links changed and is darker now (what I don't like too). Concerning the WC and Google logos: just remove them, they waste space at the left side. Replace them with a small sized font saying "Internal search" and "Google search". --Memory 21:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the first picture is still missing. Problem with the original image was the fact that it was not located somewhere where we could simply upload another one. I made the Wikicities guys aware of that, and the image apparently was removed from there, although the sidebar code still points to it. I guess this is one of the minor issues currently on their list, and will get fixed soon.
Regarding the link color, both should be exactly as before, but I'll look into that again. I guess that really is a case of "just noticing", because dark blue on dark grey always looked a little suspicious to me... ;) I'm also not a big fan of glaring red on dark grey, so we definitely should add link color to our list. -- Cid Highwind 21:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Red link color. You were right, I was wrong... I checked the exact color of our redlinks, and it was one not defined in any of the standard CSS files. Apparently, there's another file since the update that contains nothing but the definition of a slightly darker red for those links: see here. I don't have any idea why this might be useful in any way... but it's there (for the moment). -- Cid Highwind 22:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Addition: It's there because one of the developers decided it would be a good idea to use hardcoded color values in one of the program files running this site. This is a known bug, so maybe it'll get fixed some day. Meanwhile, the only possibility to get rid of that color is to create a user stylesheet "User:YOUR-USERNAME/monobook.css" and add to that page the following:
/* Fix for generated user stylesheet */, #quickbar { color: #BA0000; }
This will override any color settings in the sitewide stylesheets. -- Cid Highwind 11:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Search images: Still an ugly hack (perhaps even more than the first one), but now we at least have images that actually work until someone comes up with a better solution... ;) -- Cid Highwind 22:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

List of design issues

Note: Please continue the discussion above, but feel free to list each issue here as well. I (or perhaps, someone else who wants to) will strike out each issue as it is fixed. -- Cid Highwind 16:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  1. Color of exclamation marks.
  2. light background on image legend (please specify); related: suggestion to center legend
  3. Ad bar overlapping content (still happens here after forced reload) A problem with my custom css, apparently.
  4. the unresolved New Pages page is hard to read issue (probably old news, but still an issue) Shanok 18:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Fixed again, css class was renamed.
  5. "Odd looking" watchlist (please replace this with a more specific description) I assume this referred to the broken message on top, because it looks normal to me. If it refers to something else, please add it again with a more specific description.
  6. "undefined" after TOC Whatever that was, it no longer exists.
  7. size of table header and numeration: image (though in german, it is the same here) -- Kobi - (Talk) 17:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Broken links are a darker shade of red.Checked and updated CSS, should be fixed. Let me know if not.
  9. Wikicities and Google logos. Remove or replace. See also Image talk:Search_logo.png
  10. *I've replaced the Google logo by the black background one as suggested above. If you remove the CSS hack you'll see it. What do you want me to do about the Wikicities logo? -- Tim Starling 01:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. :*For the Wikicities logo, I say we remove it completely like it was before the upgrade or change it to a specific Memory Alpha logo, but I would prefer the first one. -Platypus Man | Talk 20:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Ad bar background color.
  13. the space before a custom signature will not stay permanent as it did before. -Platypus Man | Talk 20:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Cid Highwind already suggested that, but it didn't work then. For some reason, it does now, though. Thanks! -Platypus Man | Talk 20:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Change the other languages version of MA after all new designs have been approved - Philoust123 16:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Visitor count at page bottom -- Rcog 16:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

HTML code

Note:List pages that show HTML code here, so that the appropriate templates and Mediawiki: pages can get fixed

  1. The Searching and matching page (the MediaWiki page for this can be found here; one of the codes was fixed, but there may be a better way for that)
  2. The protected page warning (this can be found here; I have corrected this for the time being, but there may be a better way to fix it)
  3. The arrows for going to previous and next pages when searching through an article's changes (I have no bloody idea where the page for this is). --From Andoria with Love 17:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. The Watchlist. -Platypus Man | Talk 20:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Memory_Alpha:Short_articles - Intricated 18:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Apparently the page above is obsolete (re: Special:Shortpages). Forget the formatting. - Intricated 18:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Blue Dots

Does anyone else notice that the blue dots next to external links often cover parts of the text? Admin/Wikicities people, is it possible to fix this? Jaz 06:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the "pointing out" arrow? That never happened to me. Is this a new bug / can you provide a screenshot / which browser/version are you using? -- Cid Highwind 11:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I think Jaz is speaking of the globes in external links: instead of appearing after the text, they are now right-aligned to the text and appear above the text. [4] -- Kobi - (Talk) 12:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Strange, I don't even see these icons... Anyway, a "padding" instruction seemed to be missing, which I now included. Can you check if that solved the problem? -- Cid Highwind 12:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Cid, I'm using Mozilla Firefox, becuase IE gave me about a hundred times more bugs (pages load w/ errors, or not at all). Jaz
As much as I enjoy using Firefox, I think we should resolve such issues instead of just switching browsers. Not that I'm complaining, but seeing how the majority of Internet users still do use IE, we should figure out what's wrong and fix it to avoid giving a bad impression. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 06:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Is it intentionally that the Wikipedia and interwiki links have blue dots now? -- Kobi - (Talk) 13:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
In the CSS file, this bluedot/globe thingy is used to mark all links that contain an URL starting with either http or gopher - which basically translates to "external link", because internal links use a relative URL instead. Apparently, Opera doesn't interpret these instructions correctly, so I'm personally not seeing any icons (there are also supposed to be icons for https, mailto, ftp and others). What do you guys say, should these icons be removed completely, changed to something else, or what? -- Cid Highwind 18:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


I know I am not an admin, so I probably am missing something. Anyway... :)

Why don't we protect all the help pages (e.g. policies or how to use wiki markup), because these are very commonly referenced and could be a large magnet to vandals. That way, only very experienced admins could edit them (and I don't think they require much editing).

I just had this Idea when I was viewing Recent changes and I saw that Shran protected the main help page because of a lot of vandalism. Just an idea. --Galaxy001 04:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

And a very good idea, IMO. I honestly don't know why the help pages have not been protected (I may have read something about it, but I can't remember). I assume it's to allow anyone the opportunity to make slight alterations or whatever, but any non-admin wishing to make any changes can simply request them in the help's talk page. --From Andoria with Love 16:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Like the suggestion that we protect pages from being moved, this idea isn't (or at least shouldn't be) necessary. Page protection should be used like the DEFCON system: the level of implementation should only be raised when there's a threat posed. Putting MA on permanent lockdown would be more like Bush's Homeland Security Advisory System - all it really accomplishes is worrying people. :) --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 17:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I definitely agree with the Vedek here. Protecting a small subset of pages will only redirect the vandalism to those pages that are not protected in the long run. Protecting individual pages (temporarily) after they were vandalized several times seems to be the better option. -- Cid Highwind 17:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, of course. It was just a suggestion (not mine of course, but a suggestion nonetheless). For the record, though, I don't think it was ever suggested to put MA on lockdown, it was only suggested we protect all policy and help pages, since our current spammer seems to be more attracted to those at the moment. But I guess he'll probably quit on his own one he realizes he's wasting his time. --From Andoria with Love 06:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Goofs, Bloopers, and Continuity

I have an idea for a new page; something along the lines of "goofs", "bloopers" or "continuity errors". It would be from production POV and would not be a dumping ground for theories on ENT, or anything like that. The goofs I mean, are ones like where parts of the set are visible, or something blatantly contrictory is said, within the same episode. I don't want this to turn into a critique, or nitpick area, just a place where very obvious production screw ups can be documented. Jaz 22:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Something like Denise Crosby waves goodbye? I think this belongs on the episode pages, like it is done on "Symbiosis". --Memory 00:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course, information would remain on the pages of the episodes they relate to, and link to this new page, to build the web. Jaz 01:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Memory. This info can be added to the Background section of episodes. --Galaxy001 06:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should make a distinction between background information (like trivia information) and mistakes made by directors, producers and the cast. I actually found this wiki because I was thinking about creating a wiki for mistake information in ST because the IMDB doesn't have it for specific episodes. To make a bold move, I have started this new format in the article for the episode Samaritan Snare. The title Mistakes is used for a section and then subsections are named as for the type of mistake that they cover. For instance Continuities. --Suso 05:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Has this been approved yet? If so, I've got a picture from TNG: "Home Soil", where in one part, as Riker is entering one of the turbolifts, you can see one of the legs of a light-stand poking out from behind the door. Zsingaya Talk 19:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hide "wikicities" nav?

Shran just told me that Angela and Tim suggested to remove the wikicities box from the navigation sidebar on the left. What is everyone's opinion on this? I personally don't really need it, but on the other hand, it isn't too distracting, either. -- Cid Highwind 14:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, they suggested we not move it, simply hide it. I, too, don't have a problem with this. --From Andoria with Love 15:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't have a problem with it at where it is positioned now. The leftside is fine by me. -- Q 19:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think everyone got a 19", and I vote for hiding it, or at least putting the more useful boxes above it (also think that one search box would be enough) Rcog 16:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


Does anyone know why our wikistats (found at ) haven't been updated in 2 months. The page says it should be updated daily. Jaz 05:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Jason is working on this. Sorry that I don't have any useful information on when it will be fixed, but it is on the "high priority" list. Angela (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Patrolled edit

Anyone missing the "patrolled"-feature? No? Whatsthis? ok.... just like I thought. Nobody needed it so "they" (read wikicities) shut it off. — Florian - talk 18:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think we've used that function because, frankly, it would be more trouble than it's worth here. It's a nice feature for other Wikis but not one I really care about. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 18:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
It's only really useful, I think, on a wiki much bigger than Memory Alpha, which there aren't that many on Wikicities. I noticed the missing explanation marks on a couple of wikicities earlier, and thought it was a nice improvement.--Tim Thomason 18:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I kind of miss them already. They were usefull to mark IP edits as valid -- Kobi - (Talk) 18:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I didn't use them because, with anyone being able to mark articles as patrolled and no way of knowing who did it, this feature was rather useless IMO. I'm glad it's gone, but I think there were talks about making this an optional feature. If there's a need for it, we could always request to have that available again. -- Cid Highwind 19:23, 25 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)

Pholleter class starship

The Pholleter class has 2 matter/anti-matter drives (1 in the secondary hull and 1 in the saucer section) and the saucer section has warp drive capabilities for emergency escape. Those warp nacels are housed inside the saucer until needed and are located beside the navagational marker becons.

  • What does this have to do with anything? --Alan del Beccio 02:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Whoever posted this was probably testing or did not read about what to post on Ten Forward. I don't know... --Galaxy001 00:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Is this canon? If so, should it be made into it's own page? I've tried searching for a page with this info, but I haven't found anything. --docdude316 20:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Rest assured, it is not canon. Jaz talk | novels 01:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Novel Duty Roster??

Over the past week of so I've been trying to overhall our novels pages. As most of you know, there is enormous work to be done. Only about 50% have cover pictures, even less have summaries from the back cover, and only about 5% have there own original summary. I wanted to bring up the possibility of a Novel Duty Roster, inspired by the Vedek's Duty Roster of course. If you guys are interested, this could also be applied to our comics pages, which are, with all do respect, appalling, probably since not too many of us have actually read any of them. Jaz 03:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to take care of it? If so, just go ahead... :) -- Cid Highwind 16:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea if you wanna take the next step towards adminship. Although, this would be a bigger project probably and would be less accessible since people have to put actual effort into novels as opposed to sitting through 45 minutes of television, and they can't just fast-forward to the point they need to look stuff up. Either way I say go for it - like I said when I started with the original duty roster, in the absolute worst-case scenario it can essentially be your personal to-do list. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 18:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Good luck, I've begun to make it for comics, and a single comic takes me at leat 6 hours. Here is one exemple (in french) Malibu DS9 #1-2 - Stowaway. I'm sorry, but I can't translate it into the english MA because I'm very busy beeing the only admin on french MA. It took me a long time to make the article for the french MA and I don't want to translate a translation. - Philoust123 20:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Good idea! This is something that would definetly help MA, especially because the novel pages seem to be the least worked-on. --Starchild |<Talk> 00:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I would be interested in helping out with formating and cover pictures (I've already made a few changes in that department). I could help out with summaries on a few novels but I haven't read that many so It'd be hard for me to take on a lot of responsibility in that area. I could also take on some of the responsibility of creating the duty roster. I wonder if there is a list of all the trek novels somewhere. I know we're missing pages for some of them, and I'd gladly get to work adding those pages. docdude316 01:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I've created a subpage of my userpage at User:Jaz/Novels. It's going to take me a couple of days to get it up and running, since I'm in exams right now, but I will inform the community when it is ready. Jaz 02:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC). Please submit suggestion for improvement of the talk page (or just do it yourself, that often works best). Jaz 04:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Nice work --Memory 23:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

More sounds!

I was wondering other people's opinion on this idea. Should we add sound effects to pages (e.g. a transporter sound effect on the transporter page), like the main title sound files we added on the star trek series pages? I was wondering because I already uploaded a phaser sound file and I wanted to know other people's opinion on this. --Galaxy001 03:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I'm also a little worried about it taking up to much space. Also, I wonder if people would really care all that much about sound effects. Theme music is intimately tied to the show, but sound effects, although recognizable, are not nearly as special to people.docdude316 20:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know MA's server situation and expenses, but the site is often sluggish on my end already, without the bells and whistles (ahem). I don't see much informational value in sound clips, and it might just attract junk traffic from collectors building their own libraries. In the future, if MA can afford the bandwidth without a hit on performance, it might be feasible. --Aurelius Kirk 20:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Is there any way to ask the makers of MA? If they have user names, we could just add an idea to there discussion pages. Just an idea. I don't want to give them too much trouble. --Galaxy001 00:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
A lot of people turn the speakers off while browsing the internet because some pages spam around with sound effects, often far too loud. So I don't think we should start this here, it's too annoying in the mass. --Memory 23:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I would be okay with this if its something you click on, but not automatic, that's really annoying. Jaz talk | novels 03:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
That is what I was thinking of. See the Phaser page and click on the sound effect link. --Galaxy001 22:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify: Memory Alpha is hosted by Wikia (Wikicities) and therefore technically does not have a server or bandwidth restriction as far as I know. That's not to say we should upload any file, but we don't have to worry about additional charges or something (it's free anyway).

Having sound files can be useful, and it has been done on some pages (Borg, Tribunal, The Wire are the only ones I remember seeing media links on). There's no way to make them automatic on MediaWiki so that's not even a consideration if anyone's worry about it. The only real catch is that the files have to be in OGG format. But adding a few sounds here and there could be nice and even prove helpful. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 00:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

FASA game manuals

Does anyone happen to have any of the books for the FASA role-playing games? Most of the pages in that section don't have entries, I have the tattered remains (pages 18-44 in good condition, and other pages from the back and fron torn up, but no covers) of a book, that appears to be the master set of rules for the game, but I'm not sure what it's actually called. I could create a page if I could identify the book i have >_> ... The Anaconda 22:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I have a few of the hard reference FASA game books (The Federation, Star Trek IV Sourcebook, etc). I wanted to get my novel work finished before I started going through those voluminous game books.--Julianbaischir 15:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, the novels, card games, role-playing games, etc are one of our weak points (a la Star Trek: The Magazine). This is part of why why we don't (yet) cover a lot of Trek-related concepts: there's just too much to be done as it is. :) But remember: Ask not what your Wiki can do for you; ask what you can do for your Wiki. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 00:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
      • lol well i could do for the wiki if i knew where i was doing for the wiki The Anaconda 04:47, 9 February 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)

Who changes?

Sorry if this is really obvious, but I have a question... :)

Who changes the Article Of The Week template when it is time to change it? If any user, then can I do that? Just wondering... --Galaxy001 01:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who wants, with the consensus of the community. Jaz talk | novels 02:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

SVG Support

hi, why MA does not support SVG-files and will this change soon? --Shisma 18:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why, and what would we need them for? I've never heard of the format, but 90% of what we use for images comes from screencaps, which are best viewed in JPEG format. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 20:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
i have produce a lot of shematics for MA/de(here). i must save it into png, with limited resolution and transparency. in svg the file would be smaler and thoroughly scaleble. i think this database should provied more than only screencaps. :) --Shisma 10:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Voyager crew

See Talk:USS Voyager personnel - Philoust123 17:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

U.S.S. Equinox

The Equinox episodes of Voyager are by far by favourite, but I was wondering; what happened to the crew?

There were very few of them by the time they got transported to Voyager and stripped of rank but I was curious if any of them went on to serve as part of the Voyager crew. After all, it's only logical that they would do, with limited numbers of crewmen and the many challenges they would face.

Did the crew appear in any other episodes, or were Equinox I and II there only appearances?

I'm also curious as to where Voyager's medical team came from. The Doctor in the earlier episodes hated having no team, and with Tom (and initially Kes) as his only assistant! But sometimes during emergencies people were helping out, carrying the injured or trying to save them. Were they medics? Crewmen helping? Or just extras on a one episode bases?

Sorry if this is the wrong section. :P

Yah, this is the wrong section, but I'll answer anyway.  :) The Equinox crew, as far as I know, did not have any more parts in Voyager. And the medical team, well, what's with that? They are probably crewmen helping....
Star Trek does have some inconsistances, but it is still good.  :) --Galaxy001 00:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Only a few were transfered but never shown up again, like many other Voyager crewmembers. All what is known about them is that they are still living in 2376. What happens after that is only speculation (novels, comics surely use those characters). I don't see why people helping in sickbay is inconsistent. Starfleet officers have certainly been trained for first aid assistance. Using an hypospray seem not so difficult after all. Furthermore, the situation of the Voyager may have forced the doctor to form crewmembers to some critical situations, even if they don't have any medical background. This discussion shold be transfered to Talk:USS Voyager personnel.
There seem to be a number of non-Medical Starfleet personnel who are qualified to render aid -- for example, Tom Paris was assigned to sickbay whenever the Doctor was absent.
In a more obscure sense, a medical team doesnt seem like an impossibility -- after all, some personnel in TOS were shown being rotated from department to department and changing uniform associations frequently: Leslie switched from a red ops uniform to sickbay sciences blue uniforms when he assisted as an orderly. Kyle also wore science blues, even when working on the transporter. Its obvious that these guys must work regularly at a few different locations onship if they rotate their uniform divisions frequently (Voyager has precedents like this, after all Seska wore science blue before taking transporter duty, when she switched to ops gold. The doctor switched to command red and back to science blue, Baxter switched from command red to ops gold during security rotations)
There were probably a team of crewman that would be unable to render complex medical aid unles working under a competent medico like Kes, Paris or the Doctor, but still were "on call" keeping their science uniforms handy (unless they were cross trained scientists!). -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 17:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comic Book Entries

I was just about to start adding a few Trek comics when I noticed that there's only a giant list for each series. Could the comice have single entries for each issue like the novels and books do?--Julianbaischir 00:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems like we would just end up with a couple hundred more wanted pages. I think it's better like this, since comics have a lot less content than a novel or episode. Jaz talk | novels 03:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a compromise is in order? Maybe I could put together the extensive entries on the Non-canon Trek Wiki and continue with the brief summaries here. Perhaps a link could be established once the non-canon wiki stuff is ready. I'm just throwing out ideas here. Do any of them stick? (De here, forgot to log in)-- 12:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Wookieepedia seems to do well with individual pages for the comics. Putting too much on one page can be overwhelming sometimes. What harm is there if someone wants to undertake a project of adding them assuming they are worthwile pages with links and a plot synopsis and such?--DannyBoy7783 04:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think comics should be treated with the same respect as books. I agree with single pages for each. Jaf 05:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Jaf

I'd support that. -- Captain M.K.B. 06:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
This would definitely be appropriate, but per Jaz's original comment, I'm not sure how complete this will ever get (look at the current state of the novels, even after Jaz's duty roster). But it sounds like it would be worth giving it a try. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 06:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the noob question but... there a template for requesting images be added to an article? I'm trying to track down pages in need of images but so far all I found was the image request page which is fairly short. Sorry for being new but thanks for the help.--DannyBoy7783 04:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Go to Image:No image yet.jpg, and it has a section for all pages that have the "No image yet" on it. Hope that helps. And being new isn't a problem, everyone has to be new at some point :) ~Starchild |<Talk> 04:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
True, but I know how exasperating it can be for some people. If you sound apologetic people are more likely to overlook you noobness. :) Thanks for the help Starchild.--DannyBoy7783 04:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
It's no problem, and if you need anymore help feel free to drop a note on my talk page ~Starchild |<Talk> 04:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Or try Memory Alpha:Requested pictures and ask if someone has that particular picture, from that particular episode, for you. -- Q 18:48, 9 February 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: [5], 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)

New approach to disambig pages

moved to Memory Alpha talk:Disambiguation.

USS Al-Batani

The artilce states that this ship was named after wikipedia:al-Battani. Note the double t. Is this a mistake made by the creators of Star Trek or by Memory Alpha? Cheers, 03:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Considering it's translated from Arabic, it doesn't make much of a difference, and the latin version (Albatenius) commonly uses one T. We use it because that is how it has appeared in scripts and the encyclopedia. Jaz talk | novels 03:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the information in this comment could be moved to talk:USS Al-Batani so future archivists interested in the Arabic could research the matter. -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 03:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Phil Farrand

Hi, I was looking for an article about Phil Farrand, the guy who wrote the Nitpicker's Guide to The Next Generation, etc.. I was curious to see why there hasn't been anything else published, but I haven't been able to find anything. --myselfalso 02:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

We just haven't gotten around to it yet. You can write one up if you like. ;) --From Andoria with Love 03:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I would, but I don't know much about him myself --Myselfalso 04:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Classical references in all Star Trek Canon

Hello--does anyone know of a book or article that systematically gathers up and clarifies the many classical names, reference, themes, and allusions in Star Trek? The longer I live the more I realize how much the writers especially of TOS must have been steeped in the classics and even biblical literature--just the names alone: Pollux, Sargon, Thalassa, Sarpedion, Plato's Stepchildren, The Appal, Who Mourns for Adonis...Bread and Circuses. It's a prodigous list. Any ideas? N.C.

There might be a way to compile a lot of that here if it was done in the right way. Jaf 05:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Jaf
Tyger has been talking about exploring the connection between Shakespeare and Star Trek. A page exploring other such ideas could also be appropriate. I don't know of any places off the top of my head, but my contact info is on my user page - get ahold of me there or on IRC (as Vedek_Dukat) if you'd like to discuss this more. Maybe we could start a project for this. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 06:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Cross references to episodes with a similar topic?

As we all know there are episodes that share a similar topic. Sometimes a connection between those is established by a common keyword (e.g. "pon farr"). On the other hand there are similarites that are rather loose (e.g. "death of a close friend" or "criticism of religion"). My idea is to include a new section in the episode articles just for this ("If you like this episode, you might also be interested in..."). I mean, that's what makes hypertext really interesting. What do you think? Lal 23:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think someone else suggested categorizing the episodes based on plot type and the idea was rejected. Perhaps you could come up with a list of categories you intend to use, as people would perhaps be more open to negotiation. Weyoun 23:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Hm, I see your point. It sure is somewhat hard to categorize episodes by plot type if not impossible. Also I won't try to come up with categories because this will at best lead to in an endless discussion about the categories itself. On the other hand cross references are already being given here and there. So for instance VOY: Renaissance Man refers to VOY: The Raven and TNG: Brothers. This is fine, but my suggestion is to have such links in a separate section rather than in background information -- it really isn't "background information" at all, IMHO. Having a "You might also like this episodes" section would serve two purposes. First you could list more episodes withouth cluttering up the background information. Second a separate section would encourage others to come up with cross references and it would establish them as some kind of standard information. Lal 22:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
If you are talking about specific episode pages, you could always post "Related Episodes" (or "Related Topics") above or below "Links and References", I think I've seen that done before.

Wikipedia links

The Wikipedia links currently have the icon indicating they are external links (as opposed to normal links previously produced when we link using the Wikipedia: namespace instead of a true external link). However, hold your mouse when you click one and it disappears! I use Firefox 1.5 so maybe this is a problem with the browser's updates? I don't think it's ever done this before, but maybe I just never noticed. Weyoun 23:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Strategic Operations officer

Hello everyone, I am a roleplayer in UCIP, Gamm Fleet and a few other places. I am looking for a definative discription of the position of Strategic Operation Officer. Anyone that wishes to help with this can contact me or e-mail me at thank you

Hi, Mr. Stamps. Just check out the page on Strategic operations officer and go from there.--Tim Thomason 22:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Links to different languages Wikipedias

Hi everybody.
I wonder if there is a syntax for linking a word to an article in other language Wikipedia, not English.
I know that [[Wikipedia:es:Lima|Lima]] will take me to the article Lima in Spanish Wikipedia, but it will do by linking, and not
How can I do to create a direct link?
Lima, Wednesday, March 01, 2006.

You can also link it like any other webpage with [http://www.ABC ABC] (ABC), but I don't see the problem with [[Wikipedia:es:Lima|Lima]]
I've just seen you are about creating the spanish version of MA. - Philoust123 13:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Answering Philoust123 in his talk page...


Maybe, this page should be cleaned up a little (including this chapter) because they are so many things unnecessary topics on it. When a newbie ask a question, we should better transfer his question on his talk page rather than let it during weeks here. - Philoust123 21:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that if the answers are here, people with similar questions can get there answers. Also, we move the most important questions to the archive. --Galaxy001 00:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree when there is a question that many could have. But there are also many very specific topic ("Strategic Operations officer" for example) which I think only one or two are interested in. There are actually more than 70 topics and many of them are very explicit : "Sorry for the noob question but..." "An idea" "to whom it may concern"... which make it easy to understand :) If a newbie has the same question, he will certainly read the whole page to make sure that this question is not badly titrated. There are also help questions ("What is the Talk Page"...) and the answer could be found in the help pages (unless you want to put all the informations from help pages here). That's why I suggest to transfer those questions to the author's talk page : it inform him about how to do something and don't take place here. When there is a specific topic which can be debated on an article's talk page, transfer it there and then prevent the author of the question on his talk page. It's a place of general debate not a place to collect all the minor questions. Maybe there are also many issues debated here that could be used to update help pages. - Philoust123 13:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


No events years

Hey, all! Should we delete all the years (such as 2045) that have no events listed to save some space? There are not going to be any pages linking to those if there are no events posted. If later Star Treks talk about those years, we could add them back. Just an idea. Any thoughts?  :) --Galaxy001 05:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I made a list of uneventful years on my userpage once, although it's "outdated" with a bunch of the dates having references now. We can delete them, but they are good for those wishing to go through the timeline (I've done that a couple times). I don't think they take up too much space, and there is probably a number of year articles that will be gaining content still (I just added a lot of dates based on Buck Bokai's playing card).--Tim Thomason 06:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
If we delete them it makes it hard to navigate through the timeline pages. Jaz talk | novels 06:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Mabey so. It would make it a little confusing, so.... Sounds good.  :) --Galaxy001 17:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


I'd like to hear some opinions on adding non-canon info on year pages, because some was recently removed but I can't see a problem with having it. If we have an apocrypha section on the year pages, just like we do everywhere else, it will give at least two benefits IMHO:

  1. We get to see some of the interesting events, character development, etc that happened in the better novels
  2. We will better appreciate the canon firewall when we read some of the more ridiculous ideas (like the Q Continuum being assimilated).

Figured I'd bring it up here in case anyone has something against this idea. And no, I don't want to go adding an Apocrypha section to every year page and add "No events yet" the way blank year pages have. This is just for future reference and so archivists know what's appropriate and what's not. So long as it's appropriately labeled apocrypha, it couldn't hurt, right? --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 04:13, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

BOO!!! Get off the bloody stage!!!! Oh, sorry... :-P Seriously, though, I don't really have a problem with apocrypha sections on year pages, unless there's some policy against it that I haven't heard of yet. Support --From Andoria with Love 04:23, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Its completely against our policy and mandate. Many of us don't even read any non-canon material. I myself have never read a trek-book (and I'm a quite avid reader) or played any star trek video games. I suggest you try the non-canon star trek wiki...Jaz 04:36, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

You just proved my point, so thanks. A lot of people, myself included, don't read the novels and therefore don't know what happens. That's why it would be helpful to include this information. What policy is it against? We have apocrypha on character, event, location, etc pages... I'm surprised you haven't lobbied to remove all the character info from the novel pages if you feel that strongly about it. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 05:06, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I , too, think that this should be avoided. First, I don't know if the apocrypha sections are really "allowed" or if they are just "tolerated". Even then, we generally still make it a point to keep non-canon info only if there's a canon article to surround it (keep the info in one place). Second, I see the year pages not as standard articles, but rather some sort of extended navigation. We add short descriptions of events there that link to longer explanations on the article pages. In the case of information from novels etc., wouldn't it be better to have something like "The novel Title of novel takes place in this year.", or even a section listing all novels just like we have "Episodes" sections instead of describing events separately that could only link to the same source anyway? -- Cid Highwind 09:52, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what happened to spark the conversation; someone added on 2379 that the events of Borg Invasion 3D (Star Trek: The Experience) take place. Listing novels would work and make a lot of sense (perhaps a short sentence or two describing the book, but that's not necessary I guess). --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 09:57, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I just had a look at the relevant revision of that article. I think that, as long as we have an article about that non-canon resource (which means, it has to be an official product, not some fan fiction or film), we should link to that resource from the year page(s) in which the described/depicted events take place. It just should not be placed in the "events" list, but in another section, like the "episodes". Someone remind me, what exactly is the purpose of the "Notes" section again? Wouldn't these references fit there quite nicely? BTW, I also think that an "episode" listing should be below the events, not above it. -- Cid Highwind 11:26, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Agree about moving the canon "events" above the meta (outside POV) "episodes" list.
About apocrypha, its good to know that my work here is... tolerated :P thanks a lot for the gushing praise. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 19:59, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection against adding non-canon Apocrypha to pages that already, canonically exist. In my opinion, this only expands the article in a very helpful and informative matter. Support. Ottens 21:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


There is a problem with the organization of years : see for example 2349 and 2350. One time there are "Events" and "Notes" and sometimes just "Events". I know there are only few pages where "notes" is useful, but we should make them all similar. - Philoust123 21:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

First time seen

Maybe, we should also add in "notes" the first time we see something happen when we don't know the official date of beginning (for example, the change in uniforms, technologies, starship classes... : "2278 was the first time we saw new uniforms and the Delta insign for all Starfleet personnel, they must have changed between 2272 and this year" ; "This is the first time we see the new XXX class of starship, but it could have been developped years before.") in order to enable people who read the whole chronology to understand better the chronology because there are many events that can't be referenced. - Philoust123 21:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Complete year pages

If someone is motivated (I haven't got the time), I suggest to look up at "What links here" for each year because there are many events still missing. - Philoust123 21:16, 4 March 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)

Episode navigation templates

All episodes of TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT have now been updated with their respective navigation templates. The only series I haven't done yet is TOS, and that's because as the TOS episodes currently stand, the nav bar is different than all the other series. The TOS episodes have navigation to both the previous and next episodes, as do the other series, but they also have navigation to the previous- and next-aired episodes as well. My question is... do we want to stick with this difference with the TOS episodes, or do we want them to match the formatting of all other episodes? If we do want the TOS episodes to differ, why? Input, please! -- Renegade54 23:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Are there instances where the "next" episode in any of the other series is other than the next one aired? Aholland 00:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
There are two that I know of in TNG, probably just as few, if any, in TAS/DS9/VOY and ENT.
Perhaps the current form of the TOS two tiered browser could be made into a template for when it applies in TNG, and also be placed on the TNGs in question? -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 00:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
As far as DS9 goes, there were a few (at least two eps per season) that swapped production and airing orders, but they were never swapped back at any point, unlike TOS eps which originally aired one way, then were swapped to the production order for most (if not all) of their reruns, which is what the dual navigation on the TOS page facilitates (for those who don't know, and sorry for the run-on). I think the "stand out" for DS9 would be Improbable Cause, Through the Looking Glass, The Die is Cast, which were produced in that order, but aired 1, 3, 2. The "stand out" for TNG would be most the first few eps of TNG Season 4 and Unification II filmed before Unification I, but obviously aired in the more logical, Pt I-Pt II order. --Alan del Beccio 00:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I can certainly do what Captain Mike suggests, and create a two-tier template for use on the episodes of the other series that have swapped production and airing orders, if everyone agrees. It sounds good to me, and we can do the opposite for the TOS episodes where the production and aired orders are the same, thus negating the need for the two-tiered approach. Does that sound like a plan? -- Renegade54 02:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

According to Alan's explanation, those episodes in other series were "swapped once but never swapped back", so there's only one official episode order outside the studio. I don't know if a new template would really be necessary in this case. Additionally, we would have to create not only a template for those episodes themselves, but also one for the episode before (1 previous, 2 next episodes) and the episode after (2 previous, 1 next). -- Cid Highwind 10:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah guys, the VOY Series page has lost all the episode descriptions, which was the most useful part of it -- 23:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The Voyager series has lost the episode descriptions, and the template doesnt seem to allow for it... I can't imagine why we'd be removing information? (Incidentally, I'm the one that did it) --Funkdubious 00:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Links to Amazon

Template:Sidebar episode releases

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. BartelTng capt 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. BartelTng capt 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. BartelTng capt 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)


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)

Question about deletion

I was thinking, there are quite a few pages on Memory Alpha that hardly have any relation to Star trek other than they appeared in a single episode. An example of this would be the Marley page. Why do we have these? Should these pages be deleted? The thing I am stuck with is that Memory Alpha is not a dictionary. Since Marley only appeared in Devil's Due for a few seconds, why do we have him? Anybody else have any thoughts? --Galaxy001 01:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

We have articles like this in an effort to be complete. Marley was a character in that episode like any other. Where should we draw the line? Should we delete references to characters mentioned but not seen, like Nogura? That would eliminate half our database. I don't really think there any way to qualify them, so including them all seems prudent (a lot of people probably agree with me and like the fact that MA lists minor characters and literary characters that appeared on Trek -- I know that I do).
And last time I checked, dictionaries didn't list people or literary characters. -- Captain M.K.B. 01:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I see what you're saying. I was just curious, that's all. Thanks! :)--Galaxy001 01:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Flora and Fauna

I am looking for information on Klingon Flora and Fauna. I found a good bit of information on the animals, I just do not find much on plants. Can someone here direct me to the plant info here. Or have I just missed it?

Vote of no confidence, hiatus on information removal edits regarding Canon Policy

I'd like to call for an immediate hiatus on edits removing information from article main body text on the basis of "restricted validity" resources clauses added to the canon policy. This is for administrative reasons, to reduce the number of current talk page discussions about removing this data -- they all seem to have the same tone, and I generally think they should be the same discussion.

The Canon Policy needs to be changed. I'm calling a vote of no confidence in the canon policy as it stands and is being quoted by users suggesting the removal of data from articles. I call for a suspension of the policy until a reworked version, that allows for the kind of data archivists on the site are adding.

The kind of data i'm talking about is derived from research. I have drafted a new research policy, also to the approval of a majority consensus of archivists, for helping to cite data that is derived from behind-the-scenes info so that we can verify and include what is verifiable, with limits, and reject that which is unverified, to reduce the number of "uncertain" and "gray area" comments about judging data obtained from numerous sources behind the episodes. I think that when this data pertains to the in-universe POV of the storyline, it should be included as "in-universe" POV article information (for example, if it was designed to appear in an "in-universe" POV perspective, like information on viewscreens, or behind the scenes prints of them that can be verified) -- Captain M.K.B. 04:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've placed some comments on the "Research Policy". At heart, it is a bad idea for the site, unless the desire is to turn it into something other than its stated purpose of an authoritative supplement/substitute for the Star Trek Encyclopedia. I was also unware that policies were to be discussed at Ten Forward rather than the policy page. Or that a single person could direct everyone to stop questioning the validity of citations in articles. I do not support this "confidence" vote in concept, and so will not state my support for existing policies; I will reserve that for the policy pages themselves. But I will say that reverting to the prior canon policy will net you losses in articles you care about, while no new policy that makes sense has yet been proffered. Aholland 04:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I dont really care about articles, but I am just sick and tired of hearing of this 'canon policy' stuff everywhere I go on ma. Whopper 04:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
It's a pain, but it might get us somewhere if everyone stops taking it so personally. I have no problem with a hierarchy of resource as long as the community is involved, we have background sections for a reason. Jaf 04:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Jaf
My one and only suggestion, should there be a consensus against the new policy for whatever reasons, is to go back to the old canon policy and start enforcing that one. Amendments to that policy should then be discussed in detail before being added to the policy. I'm absolutely against allowing even more resources than the new policy allows (and for the umpteenth time, the old one allowed even less), and should this become policy in opposition to what is defined as MA's goal on the main page, I will think twice about staying here. -- Cid Highwind 12:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm voting below and laying low for a bit to see where this all falls out before determining my future participation here as well. Aholland 12:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well there are two sides of the issue 1. a large sum of people will ban the project, and 2. If we do indeed make the right choice, we can get thousands more users. There is a 50/50 % chance we(both sides) can make the right choice, I too, want to see how this goes. 15:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


Comments elsewhere plz
No confidence
  • Whopper 04:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • stop the edit wars, stop the edits -- Kobi - (Talk) 10:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes. Kennelly 11:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • So long as Captain Mike doesn't become the next Palpatine. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 15:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. - Intricated 02:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No Confidence. --Alan del Beccio 06:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- Jaf 04:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Jaf
  • Oppose -- Cid Highwind 12:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- Aholland 12:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- Aurelius Kirk 01:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm abstaining from this vote for the simple reason that I really don't care anymore. The main issue at hand is whether or not we should include production sources (scripts, models, barely-visible or jokey graphics and labels, cut scenes, etc.) as valid resources to use in articles. If we can't, then articles such as USS Chekov and Martin Madden technically shouldn't exist here by themselves, and Livingston will become Unnamed lionfish in Picard's ready room, or something just as absurd. Well, just so long as the latter never happens, I'm fine with whichever way the canon policy goes. I attempted to revise the policy for both readability and to address remaining issues, but it wasn't good enough for the absolute supporters of the current canon policy. Therefore, I remove myself from any further dealings with the canon policy. If this is something that is going to divide the community and force some to leave, then I want no part in it. Alan said just last night, "I remember when we wrote articles [not talk pages].". Similarly, I remember when this encyclopedia was all in fun. I miss those times, and therefore, I'm letting go of this issue once and for all so I can finally enjoy Memory Alpha again as I did before. If the issue of the canon policy is going to be this big, I say we just hang it up here and now. If Memory Alpha's Trek universe articles are supposed to only cover what was seen and heard on-screen and absolutely nothing else at all, then so it should be. Merge articles such as Chekov and Madden and any other of the hundreds of articles created from material cut from scripts, episodes, or movies with their respective episode/movie pages and be done with it. Just don't kill Livingston. --United we stand, divided we fall. From Andoria with Love 18:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically, Livingston is also the "actor's" name, so... :) All kidding aside, I really don't know what to think at this point. I haven't had much time to make any edits lately but I do review the recent changes, VFD, and other pages at least once a day and I agree, I think we've shifted our focus perhaps a bit too much from writing and creating new content to deleting everything and anything the least bit questionable and having to source the entire article down to the last period. (And even more unfortunate, people seem to take such matters a bit too personally.) To be honest, I really took everything stated in Captainmike's research policy for granted. I thought that's how things worked around here; stuff that's absolutely verifiable on-screen is placed in the main body, while things which are apocryphal or from other sources explicitly stated as such and italicized or separated in a "background information" section.

Articles like Martin Madden, USS Hawk, etc. did once bother me as not within the scope of MA. However, I've come to realize that those subjects deserve an article if they were somehow (verifiably) connected to one of the six series or ten movies, and if it is clearly stated that the info comes from a deleted scene or draft of the script or whatever. And still, when some sort of backgroundish-info conflicts with other info (i.e. registry numbers or class of a starship changing) it can still be mentioned in the background as an interesting fact. We are a reference to everything canon Trek, and that includes that type of behind-the-scenes info. We really can't grow if it stops at things mentioned on-screen only. Plus we can delete and move stuff but a new user generally comes back and adds it again anyway. :)

Of course, there are gray areas where drafts of scripts were completely rewritten, eliminating or changing whole characters, but that can be dealt with on a case-to-case basis and I thought we had grown enough as a community where we could work this out together without much of a problem. And obviously, articles for novel, comic, fan fiction, etc. based things are not allowed and can be deleted according to policy.

All that said, I'm somewhat confused and don't think I'm informed enough to make a vote, simply because I don't really think there's much to vote on. I just thought that everything mentioned on this new research policy page is how it's always been. And, I might add, it's worked fine up until now. I'm also worried that we're heading down the path of too much bureaucracy... both Gvsualan and Shran have it right. Legislating every little action and writing meticulous rules will take the fun out of the project. I want to see other thoughts on this, but if it comes down to it, I would most likely support adding something similar to the canon policy just to make it official. -- SmokeDetector47( TALK ) 04:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There's enough bureaucracy on this page to satisfy even the Sheliak! I don't think this is going to be resolved in one day, or even over a number of weeks. Granted, there are many cases when its blatently obvious what's from an on-screen reference, and what's not, but in a small number of cases, its not so obvious. Those cases should be taken individually and discussed. Maybe we could have a page such as "Memory-Alpha: Canon dispute", where people can comment on whether a certain point should be included or not.

The casual user wouldn't even think of looking for policy pages to read anyway, so they'd still go around blissfully unaware of any changes that were made to policies. This would eventually entail one or probably all the admins going around like the police, reminding everyone about policies and the such, until we get no more casual trade at all.

As Shran, SmokeDetector and Alan have all said in one way or another, this is meant to be fun! Surely you guys get enough of following rules and regulations every day, either at work or at school... ZsingayaMaco-corporal 21:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to be offensive, but I think the individuals with OCD need to calm down a bit. What has always made memory alpha great is that you can find out things like: The major Kira character was originally supposed to be Ro Laren; as well easily find out which episodes mentioned the "Treaty of Algeron". I think there is a place for it all. This site is supposed to be about about how much we love everything Star Trek. I'm not saying that we should get rid of all the rules but, too many rules and regulations are taking away from the heart of the site. The current practices are adequate . Besides, nobody (especially not casual users) reads the policy pages anyway. I've used ths site for years and I only just registered an account a couple of months ago. The only time I even glance at the policy pages is when I want to see out what everyone is arguing about.--Illwill 08:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether I should comment on all of this again or just let this continue uninterrupted. Call it "OCD" if that increases your necessary "fun-level", but I just have to comment. I'm leaving the sorting of this discussion to someone else, though...

  1. To everyone thinking this is a good idea "because we have enough rules": You do realize that this is not a suggestion to remove a policy, but a suggestion to rephrase one and add another which might otherwise simply be included in the existing ones?
  2. To everyone thinking that removing a policy will stop edit wars, or that something like a "Canon dispute" page for even more discussions is a cool idea: You do realize that only a consistent rule about something will stop endless discussion or edit wars between two different, subjective points of view?
  3. To everyone thinking that "a policy is bad because it is too detailed": You do realize that most people don't even read any policy? Or that most people, who just add "common knowledge" (as in: material clearly from the series), aren't even affected by any sensible form of canon policy simply because they are well within the "white area"? It's only those few who are working near the line, in the "grey area", who might be affected by this. And for those few, the policy doesn't need to be "as short as possible" while outsourcing each individual problem to its own, crowded discussion page - it needs to be all-embracing and consistent.

-- Cid Highwind 17:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I was never in a grey area personally, as I'm not into things like the Okudagram in the background or the name of Picard's goldfish, but what irritates me is the labelling of things as "non-canon but from a valid resource". That just sounds silly to me, because people know Memory Alpha has its own unique canon policy (a la TAS and company), so they expect things included here to be accepted as canon unless it's a novel or other form of apocrypha, not the neologism "coming from a Restricted Validity Resource" or "an invalid resource". The latter was supposed to apply to works like fanon, not novels, which are apocrypha. That's my main beef. That and this whole situation reminds me of an old saying: "The beaurocracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding beaurocracy." --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 18:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Because the above comment (Cid Highwind) appears to be at least partly in resonse to my comments point of view, I have fashioned a bit of a clarification. In response to the first point, I don't think that we need to stop adding or adjusting rules; the clearer they are the better it is for us all. A concise policy is the only way to maintain MA. I just think that sometimes we let small nitpicks as well as individual opinions take away from what's fun about MA. That being said, I think the current spirit behind MA policy should stay the same ie: we should try to include as much relavent info as possible while, excluding speculation. As long as that is maintained, you could clarify policy as much as you like. Like you said, most info added is well within the indisputable canon range so clarification of the actual policy shouldn't have much of an effect on 99.9% of articles. I just would hate to see small facts like that of Major Kira (Mentioned above) disappear. My original comments were meant to make sure everyone remembers what this site has always been about, not to suppport one side or the other. Again, I'm not voting one way or the other, I just think that whatever is decided should try to maintain the current spirit of MA.

  • Thuogh its probably (read hopefully) not neccesary to say this, I hold no ill will towards any user and all of my comments are made in the spirit of improving the site. Live long and prosper --Illwill 18:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding this or not, so just in case, I think you should know that background information (such as Kira's character originally planned to be Ro Laren) is not in danger of being removed. What is in danger of being removed or altered are those articles written or partly written based on things such as production notes, production-made graphics (such as bio-screens, schematics, door labels, etc.), scenes that were filmed but cut from a film or episode, items cut from early drafts of scripts, and, of course, models that were used and seen in the series/movies but not clearly visible (coupled with proof that said model, production info, etc. exists). This means that such articles as Livingston, USS Hawk, USS Chekov, and Martin Madden are in danger of being deleted or altered (possibly to label them as "non-canon"). And... I hope I explained that clearly. I can never really tell. :P --From Andoria with Love 00:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

So it's been not quite a week since the topic of whether or not the current canon policy should be followed was brought up. I've hung back and watched, and from my review of the above it looks like there really isn't a consensus for change or the addition of yet more policies. If that is so, can we please put this behind us and move forward with the current policy, including identification of material that's canon? I would like to begin to contribute again based on the policies in effect at the site. Aholland 19:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's a consensus that, as I said, the beaurocracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding beaurocracy, but no one is quite sure how to fix it. I plan to move forward using the old common-sense approach:
  • "Canon" is material we include in the main article - all of it - including production information.
  • "Apocrypha" is material from licensed publications and other official works.
  • "Valid resource" is anything in either of the above two categories.
  • "Invalid resource" is anything else, e.g. fan fiction.
  • "Restricted validity" (if we must use that term) is the process of screening info from the chronology/encyclopedia to see if it conflicts with established facts.
I'm not sure why that's such a hard distinction to make. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 20:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It is, of course, circular logic to say that "we can only include canon in the main article" and "what is in the main article is canon". :) That is why any policy exists, and why it is crucial: to tell people what can be placed in the main article and how. But my main question is still: are we done with this discussion such that we can return to writing based on existing policies? Aholland 21:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Circular logic should fit in, as the entire excercise in futility already feels like one big circle jerk. Although I'm not sure where you got that argument from, as I was simply stating that if it's included in the article, it's considered canon, i.e. no notes about how it's not canon but we like it anyway. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 06:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion for the new policy (made without using confusing and inaccurate terms like "canon") "What can be placed in an article body: researched information about Star Trek episodes and movies, from the POV of Star Trek. This includes anything immediately observable from an episode or film. This should also include anything pertinent that was designed and created to be filmed, even if it wasn't perceivable during its appearance, as long as it did appear."
This way, the policy helps to define what kind of data we can use -- and makes sure that there is a definite limit to what can be included. We still won't be using details like names and other distinguishing characteristics from uninvolved sources like comics, novels, original reference works, games, collectibles or other fan fiction -- none of them have the "authority" to make up a detail like a registry number or to name any unnamed people.
However, I feel it is our responsibility to include, as "in-POV" article info, things that were specifically designed to appear onscreen, but couldn't be defined from the episode or film itself, unless they were intentionally removed or overtly contradicted.
"this ship is unnamed because the name was removed from the episode because the producers decided Klingons shouldn't have warbirds", or more proven: "According to the Star Trek: Encyclopedia, Bob Justman said not to call the character Spack and removed the name from the script.", or, the contradiction/in-joke -- "Although called "Captain Superdood" in the script of his first appearance, every episode thereafter called him "Homer" in dialogue."
This creates a level of ease in creating and propgating articles, and gives MA an edge on other fan-sites -- we have the manpower and resources to really dig up raw data on whether or not there are registries specifically designed for blurry ships in the background -- whether minor characters were named in makeup department sketches but not the script or dialogue -- we've accepted data like this before, and I think that the way its being researched and used is responsible.
I think the way this information is used is not covered properly in the canon policy, since it is being quoted as allowing removal to background information for things that are verifiably used onscreen (like names assigned to minor species in makeup department designs, registries detailed on starships filmed and seen onscreen, etc). I think that researching what is actually from the studio's own production is important, so that other sources can be excluded.
I believe that the majority consensus on Talk:USS Chekov complies with what i have set forth -- a registry number not seen onscreen, but visible in a photo of the actual studio model, obtained through an interview of the supervisor of the modeling, interviewed by a Memory Alpha admin, should be used as the accurate, "in-POV" registry of that ship.
I believe that this vote, as meaningless as it may be (it didn't have any specific "aim" except for halting continued information removal and circular discussions), shows a majority supported halting the information being removed from an article body to background sections, even with several abstaining. I also believe it supports an admittedly minor change to the canon policy to help us include as valid resources: script, production illustration, set/model/prop artwork that is sometimes, but not always visible onscreen, and further, to help make sure we only allow this inclusion for those things verifiably seen onscreen and created with the intention of being part of the production's POV. I'm sorry for any trouble this may have caused. -- Captain M.K.B. 05:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Three points:
  • (1) Let's move any discussion of proposed changes to the canon policy to the canon policy Discussion page. I will reserve judgement on the suggestion above of "What can be placed in an article body" until it is proposed in terms of exact text to be inserted into the canon policy. The reason is I see a lot of potential unpleasant implications from the words used, but I realize it was an "off the cuff" proposal and so shouldn't be overly analyzed until proposed as part of the canon Discussion page.
  • (2) Scripts, production illustrations not seen clearly, and set/model/prop artwork not seen clearly are permitted resources under the existing canon policy; they are just not "valid resources" (they are "Restricted Validity Resources"). I am going to assume that it was not being proposed to elevate those resources to the same value as scripted dialogue. If so I would strongly object to such a proposal, and that suggestion of including in the main body of an article data further and further away from the shows as presented on screen is the very thing that is causing some of us to reevaluate whether we want to remain affiliated with Memory Alpha at all.
  • (3) I suggest we get back to writing articles using existing policies, including being honest with readers and appropriately including/excluding and labelling information accordingly. If there's an argument regarding the including of data, look to how the policy deals with it, not whether it is desired or not on a personal level. That way we can consistently report on Trek as presented to us as a final product, not how we might have liked it to be shown. Aholland 13:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the bad question, but exactly how do you...

How do you make a Contents thing.

You know:


  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4

I don't know how... sry...

--ARC Trooper 3 22:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

A "Table of Contents" is added automatically if a page contains 3 or more headings. -- Cid Highwind 22:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

ok thx --ARC Trooper 3 02:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

is there going to be any more star trek movies or tv shows

Warp power on Prometheus-class

I have a small question concerning the Prometheus-class starship from the VOY "Message in a Bottle". In normal flight mode, the main propulsion systems are achieved by four nacelles[[in a X-wing configuration, on the aft body of the engineering hull. Now, when the ships split into MVAM, that's two nacelles for each section -- upper-engineering hull (Beta), lower-engineeing hull (Gamma), and even the saucer section (Alpha) has two necelles, one above and below, which come on-line in MVAM (only?). So that's a gran total of six warp nacelles, with three separate warp cores. My question: How many matter-antimatter reactors are there to achieve if all three are apparently warp-capable? --Ambassador Weyoun 10:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Happy birthday William Shatner!

I've recently begun to appreciate Shatner's talent especially in comedy. I had never known he could be such a witty fellow.

Anybody read his book? MSN had a reprint of the first chapter and it was hilarious!

Anyways, Happy Birthday to Mr. Shatner. Live long and prosper --Funkdubious 10:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I was checking out the list of Chief Engineers of the Ships Enterprise. There seems to be a little list at the bottom of the articles of characters who were chief engineers (like this one: , or this one: )

I was wondering if the following characters should not also be included, Leland T. Lynch: and Lieutenant Junior Grade Singh, though he is only an "assitant" chief engineer, whatever that is,

is there a reason they're not on the lists?


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)

Space Marines

Does Starfleet employ any kind of special operations away teams?

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