James Averys Age Edit

Just saw you locked the James Avery article due to conflict of the age. I just want to provide you this link that displays his date of birth from public records. It verifies the current date of birth we have given for him. [Public Records] Also I don't think it is necessary to lock the page as the user who change the age was the first to do so in a couple of days since the initial confusion began. --BorgKnight (talk) 06:15, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

The news article we link to to cite his death conflicts with the age stated in the article, and if you check that web address, even itself. The page is locked because I expect these edits are likely to continue until this is settled. Also, locking the page is the established protocol for edit warring. - Archduk3 06:36, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

I understand then about the protocol for edit warring. However since we have a link that contradicts the age we have placed on the page shouldn't we add another that verifies his age. As you said to the previous user who edited his age we use Primary Sources for age as well unlike Wikipedia. Should we not add a link to his age that comes from Public Records, a Primary source? --BorgKnight (talk) 06:44, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

If that's what is decided on the talk page, we will. The page only has 65 as his age because it was returned to a pre-conflict state, though I did decide to keep the additions that aren't in conflict so it doesn't look like we are unaware he died. I'm not really supporting one over the other here just yet, I only thought that it was necessary to point out to the anon that unlike Wikipedia we do accept public records, because based on their article's talk page it seems they have gone with 68 mostly because public records can't be used as a source. Since we allow both public records and news articles, we need to decide which is the one we're going to use. Though if we do go with 65, I'm willing to bet the edit war won't really stop unless Wikipedia uses 65 too. - Archduk3 07:09, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

Ya I agree with you there, hopefully it is resolved in some way soon. Something tells me though that the publicist was mistaken as the age she gave doesn't match up with the fact he joined the Navy in '68 just after he left high school. If his birth year was 1945 it would mean he at the least left high school at the age of 22 which would make no sense. --BorgKnight (talk) 07:34, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

Talk Page issue Edit

Sorry about that. I don't know what happened there. I was discussing something about quotes on an article then he removed our whole discussion. Wasn't sure why so I undid it. Not sure what was wrong but its done now. Sorry again. --BorgKnight (talk) 22:14, January 23, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I apologize too. I left my computer on MA and left to do some things and my roommate thought it might be funny, I guess, to erase some of my talk page and stuff like that. Sorry. It won't happen again. --Delta2373 (talk) 22:34, January 23, 2014 (UTC)

Yup. No problem as I said on my talk page. Happens to many. Think nothing of it. :) --BorgKnight (talk) 22:36, January 23, 2014 (UTC)

Martok Reconfirmation TemplateEdit

Just wanted to say thanks for adding the recon template to Martok. An oversight on my part. --| TrekFan Open a channel 04:19, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

NBD, it is a relatively complicated procedure. - Archduk3 04:38, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Haha... --| TrekFan Open a channel 05:27, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Website templates Edit

Hey Duke,

Awhile back, templates for frequently referenced to websites were introduced, on the occasion of the going dark of the DrexFiles. Reasoning behind that was if any of these were ever going "light" again, it was easier to adjust the links. Well, here is one, the Federation Starship Datalink is up again here, so an opportunity has arisen to test the assumption ;). Regards, --Sennim (talk) 15:25, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

Done. As far as I know the new site uses the same structure as the old one, so there shouldn't be any problems. - Archduk3 23:13, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

Not that I can see; Great stuff:)--Sennim (talk) 14:25, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Categories created without approval Edit

Forum:Category pages created on 2014-02-17 without prior discussion - please explain yourself. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 22:58, February 17, 2014 (UTC)


FYI, that "User blog:" page was simply created in the main namespace. There is no blog namespace here. -- sulfur (talk) 00:26, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

I figured as much because of the space after the colon, but the site has been acting intermittently weird for the last couple of weeks, so I couldn't rule it out that blogs may have been flipped on. - Archduk3 04:47, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Leonard McCoy (alternate reality) main image Edit

Leonard McCoy, 2259

How about this one, can we use this image

Snice you didn't like my last image. How about this one, can we use this image.--TyphussJediVader (talk) 04:57, March 3, 2014 (UTC)

It's already done. - Archduk3 04:59, March 3, 2014 (UTC)

Do you like this image, is it a good main image for the Leonard McCoy (alternate reality) page?.--TyphussJediVader (talk) 05:01, March 3, 2014 (UTC)

Others may have a problem with the face he is making, but I think it captures the character well without having him at an odd angle. - Archduk3 05:04, March 3, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, it is better than the first image i uploaded.--TyphussJediVader (talk) 05:07, March 3, 2014 (UTC)

I also uploaded this image to Memory Beta as well and it looks good there on the same page.--TyphussJediVader (talk) 05:09, March 3, 2014 (UTC)

Template Shading Edit

Hey Archduk3, I have my own wiki, and I have a question about the shading on your templates that use class="grey sortable". By shading, I mean the red title bar that goes from a lighter red to a darker one. I assume you guys have used a CSS code for this effect, and I was wondering if you could share the code with me. I really like the way it goes from light to dark and would love to have that effect for templates on my wiki. Thanks! CaptFredricks (talk) 00:00, March 6, 2014 (UTC)

See MediaWiki:Common.css, its talk page, and this forum discussion, in a descending order of relevance. - Archduk3 00:25, March 6, 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I will do that, thanks!!

CaptFredricks (talk) 18:33, March 6, 2014 (UTC)

New linking template? Edit

Hey Duke,

I was wondering if a new linking template is at its place for Since they became partnered up with TNG-R in 2012 for its promotion, a bucketload of BGinfo, interviews and reviews have been added to their website, ranging from the actual productions to print publications. I find myself, regularly checking out their site and increasingly adding links to it. For your consideration...--Sennim (talk) 11:59, March 6, 2014 (UTC)

Trekcore has always been on the list of external sites we link to often, mostly for screencaps, but the site structure,, has made creating an accessible template difficult. Also, information at Trekcore tends to not have citations or some other means to verify it, which has stopped us from using stuff from there in the past. For example, the page you linked to contains more than one entry on the Vulcan language, but never states where that information comes from. That makes it a good place to start researching the Vulcan language, but not something we should cite, since MA:RESOURCE is states info from fan site must also be citable to an acceptable resource. That said, I'll see what I can do. - Archduk3 14:39, March 6, 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realize its variable structure, which I see it would be difficult, and I'm agreeing to the pre-2012 stuff such as the Vulcan language, but what I was aiming at is the stuff they've added since 2012, which, especially their interviews with staffers, has become acceptable sources. But do not try to bend over backwards on my account, if it is too difficult, it is too difficult, it isn't a matter of life and death;)-- 16:12, March 6, 2014 (UTC) (edit: sorry forgot to sign in --Sennim (talk) 16:15, March 6, 2014 (UTC))

See {{trekcore}}. It isn't as "clean" as some of the other templates, but it will get the job done. I don't really think we're saving that much text by using it, but it will at least make finding and updating links easier if anything changes. Let me know if you find any instances where it doesn't work, since I think I accounted for all the different address permutations that they use, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was at least one out the I didn't check for. - Archduk3 04:20, March 8, 2014 (UTC)

I admit, I haven't give you the right link, the true (2012 onward) stuff I was referring to, was invariably posted on their blog, might be helping you finetuning stuff--Sennim (talk) 00:43, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

The template needs to be able to link to more than just the blog, as seen here, though I should let you know that the intended target for the non-blog link wasn't clear to me once I got there. We do also have a number of other links elsewhere that go to non-blog locations, so it had to be all inclusive. Mainly just let me know if you encounter any problems with it while trying to use it, since this is the only one I think might have issues on our end.
On an unrelated note, if you know of any links to Mike Sussman's site that aren't using {{wbms}}, please convert them, since his site now redirects to his imdb page. - Archduk3 03:28, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

Cool, will keep you informed if I encounter any difficulties...Sussman, as writer, is however outside my (VFX) field of interest, so at the moment I can not be of any help to you at this moment--Sennim (talk) 03:56, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

Talk page...Edit

Can you see mine and deal with that? -- sulfur (talk) 12:33, March 13, 2014 (UTC)

Baton Rouge article Edit

I don't know if you've seen this created by 123lilbrad but it needs deleting. It appears to be a carbon copy from Wikipedia or some other source. --| TrekFan Open a channel 19:57, March 15, 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Tom got it. - Archduk3 20:06, March 15, 2014 (UTC)

Requested image Edit

Hey. You've requested the file File:Medical case, 2364.jpg. I've uploaded it. There is no clearer version as Crusher shakes the case. :) Tom (talk) 23:46, March 15, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep an eye out for it in other episodes, since I'm sure I've seen it more than once, and hopefully it will be steady in a shot somewhere. :) - Archduk3 07:01, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

466 Glider Edit

This information is seen in screencap 79. [1] The caption reads, "NCC/1701*466 Glider", and is located above the warning, "Engine Overheating". I did a search on 466 Glider, and I discovered that there was in World War II a "466th Glider Field Artillery Battalion". I think someone was honoring a relative or friend who fought in that war. [2] Ref: Al Krzesinski (466th Glider Field Artillery Batt. HQ) - Died December 16, 2011. I think, for myself, that the official name for the Takayama-type shuttle is 466 Glider. That's just me, however. :)Throwback (talk) 03:16, April 4, 2014 (UTC)

It seems more probable to me that, since this info is on the same line, or part of, the registry, that shuttle 1 was the 466th shuttle registered to the Enterprise, or on the 466th mission from the Enterprise, and all non-warp shuttles are designated gliders, since they require starships to transport them over long distances. Of course, that's all speculation as well. :) - Archduk3 15:00, April 5, 2014 (UTC)

External links and linking template Edit

Hey Duke,

The linking template isn't quite working properly. When I tried "templating" this link 2002 Rick Sternbach interview, into this: 2002 Rick Sternbach interview(X) at it didn't translate properly, as you can see.

Which, by the way, brings me to a related matter; What is MA's stance on really, truly dead-as-a-doornail external links, i.e. not even preserved in the WayBackMachine. I've noticed that links from the latter half of the 1990's early 2000's are disappearing in an ever increasing rate. Now, most of them are (partially) preserved in WBM, though they too have already started to beg for money, so it remains to be seen how long they last. A slowly increasing number though, have really started to recede into digital oblivion, most recently Ed Miarecki's homepage. As this means it can no longer be accessed for verification by simple folk like me who doesn't has access to the resources of the world's secret intelligence services, or those of Google, is the info derived from those then therefore no longer valid? His site was IIRC on two dozen occasions or so referenced to and cited from. I, for one, sincerely hope not, since my gut tells me that about a quarter to a third of all the production info, in particular, is gleaned from internet sources. Kind Regards--Sennim (talk) 15:00, April 8, 2014 (UTC)

Whenever "=" is in a link in a template, you must surround it with curly braces {{ }}. Then it works. -- sulfur (talk) 15:31, April 8, 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that one is solved, thanks, Sulfur--Sennim (talk) 15:42, April 8, 2014 (UTC)

If there are a substantial number of links, we should template them so they can be found without doing an advanced Google search, like {{DrexFiles}} or {{Eavesdropping}}.
Otherwise, it's best to put the link in the broken link template and keep it, even if the WBM doesn't have a version of the page in the archive, so it's easy to see that the information in question did at one point at least have a citation, even if it can no longer be verified. I don't think the validity of information that is no longer able to be verified has been addressed at the site-wide, or "guideline and policy", level, though some "double red links" may have been discussed on a case by case basis. I know the assumption when a link is added is that it is checked at some point shortly afterward, so I would think that without a guideline or policy on the matter, removing them outright would have to be done case by case on the talk pages, or at least a(n external) site by site basis in a forum post. - Archduk3 23:49, April 8, 2014 (UTC)

Okay, it seems were are likeminded ;) I'll "broken link" Miarecki's homepagelinks where I come across them, and do so for eventual others I come across. In Miarecki's case I can still visualize what was there, as I've regularly consulted his site, and I'd hate to lose the info, but for others in the future that will be unfeasible...Goes to show, when internet arrived, I really thought info would be there for the ages, only to find it is extremely fleeting. Now here is a case for paper books and magazines...We, albeit with some effort, can still read what Thutmosis III wrote 3000 years ago, but I very much doubt if anything that is put online now is still accessible 30 years from now.--Sennim (talk) 06:44, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

Image galleries Edit

Hey, I have a question that I posted earlier this year on Sulfur's Talk Page regarding a layout aspect on MemoryAlpha. I've noticed the image galleries (example) have a set width for each image in which the image automatically re-sizes to fit the box. How is this achieved? Because normally Wikia galleries don't do this. I assume this involves some CSS? Kleaver (talk) 18:12, April 10, 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know this is how galleries are "suppose" to behave, though I suppose that something in the CSS might be affecting it. We used to be able to set the default gallery size for both the site and as users, but wikia removed those options years ago, for no reason I might add, and I've actually been looking for a way to regain that control on and off since then, to, as far as I know, no avail. According to wikia's help page on the subject, the default size is a 200px box, so I guess my question to you would be can you link to an example of galleries behaving differently? I might be able to better help you then. - Archduk3 04:39, April 11, 2014 (UTC)

Sure, pretty much every wiki uses the default, see this gallery on The Vault (edit: NukaPedia, whatever) for example (w:c:fallout:Ghoul#Gallery). Although every image in this gallery is automatically resized to a smaller percentage, the sizes still differ, whereas on MA the gallery boxes that contain the images are always 200px by 200px. Kleaver (talk) 17:55, April 13, 2014 (UTC)

Images that have a native resolution below 200px won't be displayed larger than whatever their actual size is. The "boxes" at NukaPedia are just borders around the image, and the difference is where we have our borders. The two images above are actually displayed at different sizes, but it seems like they are the same size because we have the border, and a background color, displayed around, and in, the 200px wide/tall box instead of around the actual image.
.wikia-gallery-item .thumb {
  border: 1px solid #666;
  background-color: #222;

.wikia-gallery-item .thumb .gallery-image-wrapper {
  border: none;
.WikiaArticle div.gallerybox div.thumb .gallerybox {
  background: none repeat scroll 0 0 #222;
  border: 1px solid #666;

.gallery-image-wrapper {
  background-color: transparent;
This should be the relevant CSS that removes the border around the image itself, and adds a border and background color around and in the 200px "box" the image is displayed in. The HTML color codes would have to be changed to match whatever color scheme you're using of course. Hope that helps. - Archduk3 18:39, April 13, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually started realizing that just after I posted my last reply. I might consider using this 'wider border' on my own wiki, makes it seems a bit more organized and uniform. Thanks for the help! Kleaver (talk) 18:59, April 13, 2014 (UTC)

EllieNeo Edit

I unblocked her, but she states that she is still blocked. Do you know why this would be? 31dot (talk) 22:00, April 23, 2014 (UTC)

Could be:
  1. She needs to clear her cache
  2. IP address is still blocked
  3. There is a global block for either her IP address or username in effect
Those are the only things I can think of that might result in her still being blocked. Sulfur is the guy with all dark magicks when it comes to this sort of thing though, so you might want to ask him. - Archduk3 22:09, April 23, 2014 (UTC)
I think I've removed the auto-IP address block that was done when first you blocked her, so have her try editing again. Even if this solves the problem, we should inform sulfur in case this isn't the desired behavior. - Archduk3 22:26, April 23, 2014 (UTC)

Well, you knew more than I did, so I thank you. :) 31dot (talk) 22:47, April 23, 2014 (UTC)

ISS Avenger assignment patch Edit

You recently deleted the ISS Avenger assignment patch. On the Avenger page there is now a broke link because of your deletion. You stated you deleted it because there was a duplicate but I can't seem to find any other image to replace the one you delete. Is there one? --BorgKnight (talk) 02:23, May 18, 2014 (UTC)

Actually forget what I said, found the new file. --BorgKnight (talk) 02:32, May 18, 2014 (UTC)

Image deletion Edit

I see you've deleted the image I've put up for deletion, the aircar thing. Would you mind telling me exactly what I did wrong / how I should handle something like this the next time? -- Capricorn (talk) 14:31, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

I actually merged the two images together, so the deletion discussion wasn't necessary. Generally, if someone uploads a duplicate image under a different file name and the two images are the same format, it's better to merge them together instead of delete one, to preserve the file history. If the file formats are different, one of them should be labeled as an immediate deletion. - Archduk3 15:02, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, am I understanding this correctly? if they're different formats they should be listed them for immediate deletion. And if they're not, they should be merged. Also since merging is something only an admin can do I'm guessing, where should I report such an duplicate? -- Capricorn (talk) 16:22, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

If there are two images of the same thing that are different formats, only the image that is the wrong format, according to MA:IMAGE, should be listed for immediate deletion. For merges, the image at the file name we don't want to keep should be marked with the {{merge with}} template, which should point to the file with the name we do want when filled out correctly (remember to add the "File:" namespace part). That, or just use a talk page for a recently active admin to flag them down. Deletion discussions for files generally only need to happen for unused or non-canon stuff, as personal, spam, inappropriate, and duplicate files can be dealt with immediately by admins. - Archduk3 16:48, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks -- Capricorn (talk) 17:20, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

Wrong episode categoryEdit

Is there any way to fix this? The image is incorrectly listed as appearing in "Doctor's Orders" category-wise because the episode is linked to in the background section. -- Capricorn (talk) 05:45, June 5, 2014 (UTC)

The category is automatically added by the {{Episode}} template, so the solution is to not use it, and instead use "{{dis|Doctor's Orders|episode}}" (including the quotes). - Archduk3 04:51, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this is a bad solution for bot usage... and is simply an issue that we have to live with. -- sulfur (talk) 10:29, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
An "escape" call to not add the category could be added to the template. - Archduk3 22:11, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

Snuck v Sneaked Edit

Snuck is used in American and Canadian English as the past tense and past participle of sneak, but it is considered non-standard, i.e., ol for dialectal and informal speech and writing. The standard past tense is sneaked. [3] But we are talking about Osaarian pirates here, aren't we? Who wants to be standard? ;) [4] --Admiral Divok (talk) 06:34, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

American English is the standard, and per policy, it's best to stick with an informal, conversational writing style, least we come off as taking ourselves to seriously. - Archduk3 23:22, June 18, 2014 (UTC)

NCC paragraph Edit

I read your comment on the paragraph I wrote. Couldn't you have given me tips on how to write it so that it was more objective? Or, provide more information on why it was wrong, so that I would know how to write better in the future? Short pithy comments are, in my opinion, not at all helpful. I have read that guide more times than I would like, especially since I am having difficulties with Pseudohuman, who feels that I have "inventions of the imagination" and that my head is full of speculation and doesn't want me here, and 36Ophiuchi (I hope I got the username right), who feels I am vandalizing this wiki, and others. The guide is not useful. Instead of getting help, I feel that I am under constant barrage for not meeting the standards of this wiki. I have to deal with a critical mother and now I have to deal with a critical group of editors. Neither is helpful and both are overly eager to pounce on me and smash me into the ground. Enough.Throwback (talk) 11:35, August 17, 2014 (UTC)

I could write more than a few paragraphs breaking down everything that is wrong with the one you wrote, but that would be neither constructive or a good use of time at this point. I would simply say that what 31dot wrote on his talk page I would echo here. Some good rules of thumb would be that anything that needs a disclaimer about how it might not be fact shouldn't be written as fact, and we don't have to draw conclusions based on the information we have, we can just let the reader do that. Anyways, I prefer to think of my shorter comments as epigrammatic rather than pithy.
I do have to point out that our personal talk pages is not where this should have been discussed though, since the talk page containing the post you have questions about is where they should have been asked. That said, asking other admins or users to participate is fine, so long the actual conversation stays on one page. The unrelated stuff, of course, is fine to bring up here, but I'm under the impression that your insistence to take criticism personally, particularly that from Pseudohuman, has more to do with your feelings than the intent with which they were originally written, at least at first. - Archduk3 12:46, August 17, 2014 (UTC)

There is on-going discussion between me and 31dot on whether or not I should be banned from this site permanently. I am suffering from severe mental disability, and it's affecting how I am functioning on this site. I have doubts about being functional; I feel Pseudohuman adds fuel to the fire with his words.Throwback (talk) 13:01, August 17, 2014 (UTC)


Thanks. That fixed it. The IDW Star Trek ongoing page is a good, quick example to check it on. :) -- sulfur (talk) 14:49, August 23, 2014 (UTC)

Hey there Edit

Thanks. Can you unprotect File:Memory Alpha.svg for a moment so I can update it? --bp 21:15, October 12, 2014 (UTC)

Barclay as hologram Edit

Could you explain why you reverted the recent edits to the Reginald Barclay page relating to VOY: "Projections"? The real Barclay was not present in that episode and no direct credence was given to the holographic Barclay's basis within the reality of the series. Should The Doctor's hallucinations be considered canon history for Barclay? Please, explain your edit. 00:02, October 18, 2014 (UTC)

I may, from time to time, revert edits that contain:
  1. In-universe nitpicks that should rather be addressed as background notes (The holographic Barclay's rank insignia is shown alternating between Lieutenant junior grade and Lieutenant.),
  2. former complete sentences that just suddenly end (At sometime prior to 2371, Barclay transferred to Jupiter Station and (VOY: "Projections")),
  3. and obtuse citations ([[TNG]]: "[[Genesis (episode)|Genesis]]", [[Star Trek: First Contact|''Star Trek: First Contact'']] instead of {{TNG|Genesis}}; {{film|7}})
while patrolling an entire days worth of edits, but in this case "Life Line" makes it clear that Zimmerman and Barclay are:
  1. friends, and these two characters don't make friends easily or quickly,
  2. knew each other from around the time the EMH Mark I was created and subsequently rejected by Starfleet,
  3. and that Zimmerman hasn't left the station since his trip to DS9 in 2373, meaning it's unlikely he met Barclay after that time or when the latter was assigned to the Enterprise-E, which launched in 2372.
That would seem to suggest that the line "Barclay was part of the original engineering team that designed your program. He was in charge of testing your interpersonal skills." from "Projections" is actually true. After all, assuming he was on the Enterprise-D until it crashed, he would still have all the time between that and the launch of the Enterprise-E to work at Jupiter Station. Also, if there is no connection between Barclay and The Doctor before the Pathfinder project, how did data on a real Starfleet officer end up in the "head" of a hologram when said officer wasn't apparently anywhere near the ship the hologram was installed in? Common sense says that the reason The Doctor gave himself in his hallucination is at least based on information he already had or was present in the ship's computer, because The Doctor is just data in the same computer. - Archduk3 01:15, October 18, 2014 (UTC)
Also, keep conversations in one place. If you wanted a general discussion, you shouldn't have started on my talk page. - Archduk3 01:17, October 18, 2014 (UTC)
Originally, your only objection given for your reversion of any of my edits was "seems speculative". Now I find a boat load of speculation on your part about Barclay's potential relationship to Zimmerman at that time of an episode years after the Doctor's last contact with Zimmerman or Jupiter Station. It may be as you speculate, but to suggest that your speculation is any more valid than suggesting that a switching of rank insignia (back and forth) on an holographic hallucination was intentional ... is simple hypocrisy. To further suppose that some use of working links is unacceptable is itself "obtuse". If you're going to nitpick observations that had here-to-fore been overlooked, might I suggest that you re-watch the episode before reverting good faith contributions in haste. Slow down and consider what you are doing. I'm new to editing here, I don't mean to shatter any status-quo you're working to maintain, but I don't expect legitimate work to be dismissed with invalid logic. Your treatment of these pages has been inconsistent and hypocritical, as demonstrated here and on the talk page for "Projections" ... I expected better on the Star Trek wiki.
Question: how do I report you or otherwise request this dispute be settled by a third party? 06:20, October 18, 2014 (UTC)
There is no means to "report" anyone; all discussion is open to posting by anyone. It is up to you to justify your changes and convince others that they are needed. As Archduk3 said, it would have been best to post all of this on the talk page of the article. All that said, as someone who just looked at what is going on here, I will say Archduk3 seems correct to me. 31dot (talk) 10:25, October 18, 2014 (UTC)
Watch the episode. It's not Barclay. All information provided about the real Barclay would be speculative. 02:14, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

Human capitalized?Edit

Moved to Memory Alpha talk:Manual of Style#Human capitalized?...

Mission Log links Edit

Hey - following up directly about your Mission Log question. Roddenberry said you can use where individual links can be found, so using that site is cool with them. At some point in the future, they'll be updating their site with individual links. So you could wait in order to avoid having to update links a second time, but there's no ETA. Hope that helps. - Brandon Rhea@fandom(talk) 00:14, November 19, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, this has been a big help. I've been meaning to send them an email for almost a year now and just haven't gotten around to it. - Archduk3 01:12, November 19, 2014 (UTC)

Glad it helped! We can probably contact them with any other questions the community may have in the future (if appropriate, of course). - Brandon Rhea@fandom(talk) 04:34, November 19, 2014 (UTC)

Kira Nerys imageEdit

You didn't like the last Kira image I uploaded, I found another one from the last episode that will work on the Kira Nerys page. I have uploaded a new image of Kira from 2375 from the last episode of Star Trek Deep Space Nine. Do you like the new Kira image?.--Typhuss999 (talk) 15:29, November 19, 2014 (UTC)

She's still kinda making a face, and it's a bit tall to be in the sidebar, so I wouldn't be surprised if someone else eventually changed it again, but it's good enough for me. - Archduk3 23:19, November 19, 2014 (UTC)

I got the image from Trek Core it was the best one I could find, its better than nothing.--Typhuss999 (talk) 23:35, November 19, 2014 (UTC)

I have uploaded a new image of Kira from 2375 from the last episode of Star Trek Deep Space Nine. Do you like the new Kira image? Its a great image, better than the old Kira Nerys, 2375 image.--Typhuss999 (talk) 04:23, November 27, 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It's artificially enlarged and grainy. Read MA:IMAGE for details on the requirements and instructions for creating screen captures. - Archduk3 06:06, November 27, 2014 (UTC)

The current image is fine, I guess we will have to wait until Star Trek Deep Space Nine gets on Blu ray like TNG, then the image of Kira from What You Leave Behind will look great because it would be a Blu ray image.--Typhuss999 (talk) 04:03, December 9, 2014 (UTC)

I have uploaded a new Kira Nerys, 2375 image, Kira is smiling in the image. Does this work?.--Typhuss999 (talk) 12:20, January 9, 2015 (UTC)

Search message Edit

Hi ArchDuk3,

I have removed the search message again. Please don't re-create it. The Global navigation, including the search field, is off-limits for customization at this time. We'll be revisiting both design and policy in January.

We can confirm that the change is not an issue with regard to the NC license. As I mentioned in my original edit summary, having the sitename in the search field is an interesting idea and has been brought up already. Some of the challenges there are the variable width of the field, especially in the tablet/portrait layout, and the fact that some communities have long names.

Please let me know if you have any questions.


BertH @fandom (help forum 23:17, December 8, 2014 (UTC)

The TOU do NOT allow wikia to unilaterally decide that they can add no less than three omnipresent corporate brands to content that is copyrighted non-commercial. If the bar didn't scroll, this wouldn't be a problem, but since I know there is at least one external link that points to a location that isn't the top of a page, it is reasonable to assume that someone following that link will conclude that this site is only called wikia in the less than five minutes they are here on average, which is the point of all those "wikia"s anyway, hence wikia will have supplanted the Memory Alpha name. That is not acceptable under any conditions for any amount of time, and since changing the text in the box does not "intentionally block, remove, or otherwise obstruct the proper functioning and view of advertisements, and/or user interface and functionality by other users" and not having the site name displayed in an equal or more prominent place could be considered "...forge[ing] headers, or manipulat[ing] source identifiers or otherwise attempt[ing] to disguise the origin of any content made available via the Service", I will be changing it back, and I would like to think that someone over there is smart enough to realize that one month isn't worth the cost of having to have this conversation in court. I don't thinks it's unreasonable here that wikia "allow" everyone to change the text so long as it's under a certain character count before you would like, since you released this product before it was ready, which is upsetting btw, since I distinctly remember having a conversation in your lobby about how that wasn't going to be a thing you guys did anymore. - Archduk3 00:56, December 9, 2014 (UTC)

The message has been deleted again, and it needs to stay that way. The Terms of Use apply to users of Wikia, not to Wikia. However, the Terms of Use do state that "the company does not represent or warrant to you that ... your use of the service will meet your requirements, be they express or implied". We are comfortable with our compliance with the terms of the NC license in this case. As we have stated, this design is still evolving and may change in the future, though the specifics of any changes are still to be determined. The navigation is certainly "ready" from a usability standpoint. Concerns about the design and implementation, while subjective, have been heard -- yours and others -- and will factor into upcoming decisions. I urge to you wait this out. I'm unclear if your threat of a lawsuit supposes you or CBS as the plaintiff, but in either case, we are happy to review mailed correspondence from legal counsel. We are fully capable of adding staff-level protection to this message and/or removing your admin rights if you continue to violate the Terms of Use in this way. I hope we don't have to consider those options. - BertH @fandom (help forum 18:26, December 10, 2014 (UTC)

Hi ArchDuk3, I wanted to let you know that we're running a test on Memory Alpha, that began a few weeks before the new year. 50% of users see "Search Memory Alpha" in the search field, and 50% will see the current message ("Search this wikia"). I will let you know what results we see, after the test concludes. My hope is that this will help us to move toward having the sitename show with the search field or at least allow that as a local customization. BertH @fandom (help forum 18:18, January 6, 2015 (UTC)

Hi Again, I'm following up on my last message as promised. We ran the test for about a month with the 50-50 split between the variants. There was very little difference between the groups. 0.2% more people did some kind of click action after the first page load, in the group with "Search Memory Alpha" displayed. 0.6% more people executed a search in the group with "Search this wikia" displayed. We'll disable the test tomorrow, please feel free to create the custom message again. On the staff blog tomorrow (Jan 28) we'll be talking about the upcoming design changes to the nav bar, and I am happy to report that the default message will display the sitename for all communities. Thanks for your patience and understanding with regard to this. Please let me know if you have any questions! --BertH @fandom (help forum 06:36, January 28, 2015 (UTC)

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

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+