STB stardates Edit

The table of stardates collects them as datapoints with calculated calendar dates — not the other way around. The contribution I reverted speculates that the FYM started on 2260.132 and that Kirk celebrated his birthday on 2263.04, based on mission day 966 and Kirk’s birthday in STB, but we don’t know if those were the actual stardates. If we start calculating in the other direction, the purpose of the table is lost. I’d already explained it on the Talk page. —-PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 16:37, January 26, 2018 (UTC)

A thank you Edit

Since Enzo Aquarius doesn't appear to be around any more, I just wanted to pass my thanks onto you and your user page for bringing this into my life. I can't believe I hadn't found it sooner but it really brightened my day! So...thanks! --| TrekFan Open a channel 03:32, February 4, 2018 (UTC)

jpEgs Edit

Hi Arch, I noticed some annoyance on your par with the use of jpeg. If there is a reason why this format should not be used it might be good to remove the format from the upload page for images. You also mentioned an issue with underscores from which I am not sure what exactly you were trying to say. Otto Vonbacon ❯❯❯ Talk 23:23, February 6, 2018 (UTC)

The list of "permitted" formats is for wikia as a whole, not MA, and can't be changed locally. While .jpegs can be uploaded, they shouldn't be, since you can simply change the file extension to .jpg on the upload page. As for underscores, they're lazy and create extra work later, since they mess with search results. For example, searching for "1 2" on a page with "1_2" won't return a result. - Archduk3 23:30, February 6, 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the underscores since I see them in pretty much every single image name. Of course I do not know to what exact file or place your comment was directed since it was only visible in the history and not particularly directed to something. So please if you can when something happens that is not up to snuff put a quick not on my talk, that way it is easier for me to avoid something or alter my work method. Thanks for talking the time the help me out. Otto Vonbacon ❯❯❯ Talk 01:28, February 7, 2018 (UTC)

If you could point out where you're seeing underscores, that would help, as they are generally a rarity outside of a few templates and, obviously, web addresses. - Archduk3 05:40, February 7, 2018 (UTC)

As I can only think of me having used them in image names instead of spaces I can give you any such example. I have, to my knowledge, not used them as actual underlines. example:File:Cult of the Pah-wraiths symbol.jpg. Otto Vonbacon ❯❯❯ Talk 17:02, February 7, 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why you're seeing underscores instead of spaces then, so all I can say is you should replace underscores with spaces, as I have in your example, when placing files in articles. - Archduk3 17:27, February 7, 2018 (UTC)

Ok, now at least I understand why we were having a miscommunication. So even when you remove the underscores I still see them in the address bar of any browser. But when uploading an Image I will be sure to not have underscores when uploading in the hope that that fixes the issue. If for some reason underscores are still there let me know and please remember that I am not deliberately putting them in. Btw, thanks again for your help and patience Otto Vonbacon ❯❯❯ Talk 18:03, February 7, 2018 (UTC)


Hello, could you help us on MA-fr ? Ours topbanners ("real wolrd article", "multiple realities", "mirror universe") are invisibles. I don't understand how to change comon.CSS for to correct that. Thank you. C-IMZADI-4 (talk) 09:04, February 8, 2018 (UTC)

Hi, who could help us ? Thank you C-IMZADI-4 (talk) 07:06, March 17, 2018 (UTC)

The problem is in your MediaWiki:Common.js, which I can't edit on MA/fr. You should give sysop rights to User:Sulfur, who can make the changes you need. - Archduk3 08:22, March 17, 2018 (UTC)

Archbot's reversion of map changeEdit

Firstly, why did Archbot change back the image I've replaced on pages like this one?

Secondly, regardless of merit, if you're going to do a bot run specifically targeting edits of mine, it would have been really nice if you could maybe have checked in first. -- Capricorn (talk) 22:00, February 26, 2018 (UTC)

First, because we always use the clearer image, readers don't care if a map is directly from the show or if it's a recreation, they generally only care if it's readable. Second, it's something I just didn't get to last night, and your changing of my edits in the interim is purely a coincidence as far as my plans were concerned. - Archduk3 22:16, February 26, 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about the courtesy complaint, I guess I failed assume good faith there.
Regarding the non-screenshot version of the map, problem is it's neither a straight tracing of the map, nor a production-sourced image. There can be no doubt that it is very close to the source material, but if you look close enough, differences emerge, both in naming and in the exact locations of stuff within the map. Subtle, but different nonetheless.
Because of that, I think it should be regarded as a fan interpretation, falling short of being a recreation. Substituting an on screen graphic for a vector redrawn version only makes sense if our version is functionally identical, no? -- Capricorn (talk) 23:12, February 26, 2018 (UTC)

If the current recreation isn't up to snuff, then we shouldn't have it. The only reason to have a recreation is for it to be used like this. If you have a way to better duplicate the onscreen version, now would be the time. Otherwise, I can do another run tomorrow switching them back and then delete the recreation. - Archduk3 01:18, February 27, 2018 (UTC)

I know of no better version, and yeah, it's very well done but at the smallest detail level there's many issues. My confusion in how I handled things came from the fact that we've had a deletion discussion about this image before, which only focused on a copyright concern but I misremebered as focusing on accuracy as well (because I conflated it with this discussion (not that that does more then scratch the surface)) - so I was mistakenly kinda trying to walk the tightrope between objectively seeing issues and it having survived a deletion discussion.
So in summary, unless you've got further questions/concerns, the new run + deletion seems the right course of action to me. -- Capricorn (talk) 01:55, February 27, 2018 (UTC)

Cite what? Edit

Cite what, per *what* forum?? -- Renegade54 (talk) 20:58, March 1, 2018 (UTC)

Cite the naming convention your using to justify moving a bunch of pages without discussion, because the top post in Ten Forward is why these are capitalized now. - Archduk3 21:03, March 1, 2018 (UTC)
You could have at least left a link on his talk page TO the discussion rather than just reverting. Let's have some communication amongst ourselves here. -- sulfur (talk) 21:06, March 1, 2018 (UTC)
I'm not the one here who isn't talking. Check around first maybe, or just assume I know what I'm doing, since I'm suppose to assume that for others. - Archduk3 21:12, March 1, 2018 (UTC)
When you're doing a bunch of reverts, leave a message on his page. I didn't see that happening. -- sulfur (talk) 21:14, March 1, 2018 (UTC)
When you're moving a bunch of pages and reverting another user without discussion, it would be nice to say something other than citing a phantom guideline in an edit summary. So, am I the pot or the kettle here? - Archduk3 21:17, March 1, 2018 (UTC)

Wait, you're the one who reverted work that *I've* done over many years... without discussing any of that with me. Or does this only work to your benefit, and not for anyone else? The lower case format for class and type has been around for a long time; it may be an unwritten/undocumented convention, but it *has* existed. And by insisting that every "phantom" guideline be documented, you put yourself in the same leaky boat as some of the rule lawyers we've fought in the past who demand to see where a format or convention is documented... and then we get hammered by other who say we have to damn many rules and regulations. -- Renegade54 (talk) 22:21, March 1, 2018 (UTC)

You may have noticed I asked first, and left it alone for over a year, so I'm not some rule lawyer trying to shove this through on a lack of documentation, you just don't have a leg to stand on. I never said it wasn't a thing we did, but we don't do it now, and we followed the guidelines while changing it, so if you have a problem with it, or could have answered the question, you had 17 months to say something. Decisions get made by those who show up and participate, and unlike some apparently, I want a record of it. You don't get to just arbitrarily override that because that's not how it was done back in the days of ENT. I'm fine with those who claim we have too many rules, because those people weren't going to read them anyways, so I'm not going to be bother by trying to make all people on the internet like me. You can say that's a leaky boat, but considering the whole point of the site is to document things with references, it seems pretty weird to not write things like this down when this shit happens every few years. - Archduk3 23:14, March 1, 2018 (UTC)

Star Trek Timelines wiki link Edit

I was wondering if you wouldn't mind creating an external link template in the vein of Template:STOwiki which links to the Star Trek Timelines Wiki instead? I'm not brilliant with wiki templates but I think it would be a useful one to have. Thanks. --| TrekFan Open a channel 20:53, March 4, 2018 (UTC)

See {{STTwiki}}. - Archduk3 09:34, March 5, 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Archduk3. Appreciated. --| TrekFan Open a channel 14:58, March 5, 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but further to the above would it also be possible to create the accompanying {{stt}} template (as in {{mb}}) for inline links? --| TrekFan Open a channel 03:12, March 16, 2018 (UTC)

I've expanded the template to work with both formats. - Archduk3 14:54, March 21, 2018 (UTC)

That's great, thank you! I won't harass you anymore now! --| TrekFan Open a channel 16:33, March 21, 2018 (UTC)

Double thumb template Edit

Just wanted to say I really like your double thumbnail template. I expect to use it a lot. Nice work. --| TrekFan Open a channel 16:55, March 9, 2018 (UTC)

Category:Transwarp Edit

Dear Archduk3, I think its better to include the category Transwarp in the category Propulsion and not in the category Warp. Apart from the name Warp and Transwarp are mostly completely different technical concepts. Thx. --Mark McWire (talk) 05:55, March 18, 2018 (UTC)

And I think you're wrong, and that you need to make a case for this to stick. - Archduk3 07:04, March 18, 2018 (UTC)

Transwarp is NOT a subdivision of warp. It's a term for a various bandwidth of technologies. Borg use transwarp conduits, which is not the same as a warp field. Its more like a wormhole. --Mark McWire (talk) 07:13, March 18, 2018 (UTC)

Use the category talk page to lay out an argument then. Until then, I trust me more than you. - Archduk3 07:43, March 18, 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Edit

I've been having some regret about how flippant I was to you in that comment at the removed featured articles article category suggestion about a week back now. I'll keep this short bc any time I tried to write something longer things kinda derailed, but basically sorry for that. -- Capricorn (talk) 16:40, March 20, 2018 (UTC)

That reply wasn't directed at you, or at any other single person, so much as it was directed at the overall situation. If anything, it was probably a overreaction on my part, since it's not a complaint that is unique to MA, or even my other online activities. There's nothing for you to apologize for, though it is appreciated. - Archduk3 14:26, March 21, 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I realize all that. It's less of an apology for wrongdoing, and more sort of an expression of sympathy. I've experienced some of the frustrations you expressed there, although to a much lesser extent (I would guess). And what bothers me is that I've contributed to it, just wanted you to know I wish I could have handled it better. (basically, irl I'd have tried to resolve this through a big hug) -- Capricorn (talk) 16:27, March 21, 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguations Edit

i'm curious why you reverted the disambiguation i added to Andrew?

Live long and prosper.

-- 20:20, June 20, 2018 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you thought that was necessary there, or remotely close to how we do things here? - Archduk3 05:58, June 21, 2018 (UTC)

i feel as though i have unintentionally offended you, and i apologize if that is the case. Sometimes i try to be helpful, and when someone reverses my well-intended actions, i try to find out what mistake i made so i can avoid making the same mistake in the future. Based on the link you provided (which recommends Disambiguations... when articles about two or more different topics... are substantially similar in title), i would expect Andrew to be a disambiguation page. Your link also says In almost all cases the "most important" article is the one that should stay at the main, natural title without any disambiguation. This is open for discussion, though. So, let's discuss! i suspect many characters, cast, and crew members named Andrew are "more important" than the hypothetical Andrew who doesn't actually exist. However, since this Andrew's name is a more exact match for the url (lacking an official modifier like so many of the other Andrews have), i did not want to drown out the article as it stands now. Therefore, i added the hatnote, aiming for a compromise between keeping the information about this Andrew visible while also acknowledging and assisting people (like me) trying to find others named Andrew but maybe not remembering a particular Andrew's full name. (For comparison, consider this wiki's Enterprise disambiguation, or Wikipedia's articles for Andrew and Andrew (disambiguation).)

How would you feel about Memory-Alpha's Andrew article having a See also section toward the bottom instead of a disambiguation hatnote?

Thank you for your attention and assistance with this matter.

-- 23:12, June 22, 2018 (UTC)

I'm not offened, I just don't see the benefit of using the prefix index for this, or why you thought to use that in the first place. If you want a disambiguation page, for instance at Andrew (disambiguation), you should just make one, like the one for Jean-Luc, so there is context, and not just an alphabetized list. As for the why of the name, that's a web of naming conventions and standards that apply to disambiguations in titles, the most relevant ones here being don't use disambiguations if you don't have to and use natural titles. Beware though, as not all users here are going to think we even need a disambiguation for this what with the search bar. - Archduk3 08:13, June 23, 2018 (UTC)

PNA Edit

What is a PNA? I did a search, came up empty. Thanks.--Memphis77 (talk) 14:17, August 17, 2018 (UTC)

Page needing attention. :) -- sulfur (talk) 14:28, August 17, 2018 (UTC)
See MA:PNA. - Archduk3 14:47, August 17, 2018 (UTC)

AWB Edit

Why was I removed? Also admins dont need to be there. MechQueste talk 00:47, August 25, 2018 (UTC)

Why should you have not been removed? - Archduk3 06:14, August 27, 2018 (UTC)

I was gonna use the tool just to normally edit because the dark theme slightly strains my eyes. And I was planning to use to clean up some of the "what links here" the few pages I created without jumping through browsers. In addition, the usage of the edit summary MA:Bots is a poor reason for removal. (Admins automatically are allowed usage of AWB). MechQueste talk 15:42, August 28, 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think the policy here on automated editing is a poor reason, but it is the policy, so I'm going to enforce it. I'm also took you at your word that you weren't going to use the AWB anyways, even though you're saying something completely different now. I understood you perfectly fine the first time you mentioned that admins don't have to be on the list as well, it's just happenstance that all the active bot controllers right now are admins. It is interesting to me that the dark theme strains your eyes though, when everything I've read on the subject says staring into a strong light source for long periods is what really strains a person's eyes. Are you sure there isn't some default font issue with your browser? Also, I was under the impression that the AWB is still not working on wikia anyways, due to all the back end garbage wikia is doing, so it's not like you could be doing much anyway. - Archduk3 05:24, August 29, 2018 (UTC)

Template repair Edit

Hey Duke,

The {{bsgwiki}} template is in need of repair...As explained here and here the original wiki has gone dark. Though there is a new wiki up and running, I think the template is best served by adapting it to the live cloned version or the archived one, due to its contents amount, and the number of entries already using the template...Would you be so kind as to look into it?


Sennim (talk) 17:45, August 25, 2018 (UTC)

OK. - Archduk3 06:14, August 27, 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Duke

I've noticed that the issue is resolved, thanks for the very quick handling of this (btw the new {{bsg}} template is awesome, so thanks for that as well). I've also noticed that you removed two external links for reasons of advancing free sites. Now this is perfectly fine by me, but it has left me wondering: What is our status? Are we a free wiki or still an official wikia?

Now that I have your attention so to speak, could you take a look at Magicam; something has apparently gone awry as the article's title reads "Magicam's modelshop staff" (at least on my screen) which is not correct in my opinion for a company entry, and was certainly not the title I've given it when I created the article way back then.

Kind regards--Sennim (talk) 13:49, August 30, 2018 (UTC)

The Magicam article used a {{Sidebar starship class}} template. This template should only be used on Starship class articles. Ever. -- sulfur (talk) 14:09, August 30, 2018 (UTC)

Noted, that was apparantly my bad. Sorry for that --Sennim (talk) 14:15, August 30, 2018 (UTC)

There are no such things as "wikias". That's corporate branding, just like they pretend to own your fandom by calling themselves that. Don't be an ad. This wiki existed before wikia hosted it, and if I have anything to say about it it will exist long after wikia is gone. We only need to link to one wiki for the subject, if that, and the "free" option is far better. Links to other wikis hosted by wikia are like any other external link, only there if necessary and used sparingly. - Archduk3 01:44, August 31, 2018 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the clarification -- Sennim (talk) 07:58, August 31, 2018 (UTC)

Welcome messagesEdit

Why remove the welcome-css template at the top? That's what offered up the use of the homegrown CSS that tries to clean some stuff up and make it more palatable. -- sulfur (talk) 10:24, September 5, 2018 (UTC)

How much of that is actually still working? I'm under the impression that chunks of it are outdated. I was also thinking we should just have a suggested changes "help" page instead of a red banner band-aid that fixes some of the worst looking, if not any of the actual problem causing, wikia crap. The VE does more damage than anything the css covers, and I think the banner is stopping people from reading any further. - Archduk3 11:30, September 5, 2018 (UTC)
See Recommended changes and the tweak to Template:Welcome. I think these changes makes the big red box no longer necessary. It's questionable how well it ever worked in the first place. - Archduk3 23:41, September 5, 2018 (UTC)

Updates Edit

Hey Archduk3. I am glad the Announcements tool is proving useful. After looking over Memory Alpha:Recommended changes have disabled the "Create new article flow" here and also configured things so that no one will get VisualEditor unless they specifically choose it from the Edit drop-down (this will be true even if they have selected VE as their editor of choice in their preferences). Hopefully these changes will cut down on the need for cleanup. -BertH @fandom (help forum | blog) 20:17, September 14, 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Would have been nice to have those options awhile ago. Would have been better to never need them. Announcements does seem better than the community corner system, but it certianly isn't the site notice. - Archduk3 05:48, September 15, 2018 (UTC)

Photo license Edit

The photo I posted File:Woden explodes.png, and which you removed, was taken as a screenshot from the episode "The Ultimate Computer". I pointed this out in the file itself. If you still think the "licensing" is somehow not sufficient, then please tell me what I should do about it and how I would go about "licensing" a simple screenshot. ~~ The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gdeblois19 (talk • contribs).

See User talk:Gdeblois19. -- sulfur (talk) 01:07, October 2, 2018 (UTC)


Please give reasons when you block somebody. And if it's too long for the block reason, leave them a message on their talk page.

Simply blocking and reverting an edit is insufficient. -- sulfur (talk) 13:16, November 14, 2018 (UTC)

I thought I did selected one in the drop down menu, but clearly it didn't take. I just duplicated the last time period since this is the same behavior as before. Feel free to change it if you want. - Archduk3 (on an unsecure connection) 17:54, November 14, 2018 (UTC)::
Pianoman was trying to update a very old picture of the day with a new, Discovery-era version photo and you revert the edit and then block him. You go about like this is your own private website, not a collaborative effort of hundreds of people. It's high time people start changing out some Pictures of the Day that haven't been changed in years. You need to be a little more tolerant of people trying to contribute to this website and stop blocking people just because you don't like the edits they've made.

--Dowling813! (talk) 21:32, November 14, 2018 (UTC)

...and who are you suppose to be? - Archduk3 21:39, November 14, 2018 (UTC)

Someone who happens to agree that pictures should be updated from non-cannon photos to more topical things. Why are you running around like you're god's gift to this website? Other people should be allowed to make changes. And you say it's a non-relevant update? What makes you judge, jury, and executioner? --Dowling813! (talk) 21:41, November 14, 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't relevant (I said the old one was more interesting), I know it's spelled canon (because it isn't for hurling balls), and I think god doesn't need a starship (because are you suppose to god's gift to this website?). What I do know for a fact is that I was appointed by the community to be all three of those things you seem to think are an accusation, and you're literally an entitled nobody who has no context for what this is, like a small child who has wondered in while the grownups are talking. So once again, who the are you suppose to be, and be honest this time. - Archduk3 (on an unsecure connection) 21:51, November 14, 2018 (UTC)

I am someone who views this website on a regular basis and actually enjoys the content here. I probably know more about Star Trek than anyone here - yourself included - and by saying the things you just said, validates the fact you are nothing more than a tyrant and someone who thinks they are the be-all and end-all of what happens around here. Doesn't invalidate my point that it's time to update some things here on this website - starting with these non-CANON photos. --Dowling813! (talk) 22:00, November 14, 2018 (UTC)

OK god's gift, since you know everything and totally didn't learn the difference between canon and cannon right now, why don't you suggest something better than a guy standing next to another guy sitting down for a picture and try not to trip over how right you are while doing it, or start some edit warring after being warned repeatably to not do that like the martyr I blocked this morning. Also, and I know you know everything, but we do cover non-canon stuff here; you might want to read some of the links on your talk page, even though you know more than me and everyone else here, including the users who work on the show. - Archduk3 22:07, November 14, 2018 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.