Recommended LayoutYou are currently viewing Memory Alpha without recommended changes to the standard layout. To apply these changes, please click on the following Apply link - to just get rid of this notice, click on Reject. In either case, click Save on the page that follows.

Gral and Shran call a truce


Welcome to Memory Alpha, Kingfisher! I've noticed that you've already made some contributions to our database – thank you! We all hope that you'll enjoy our activities here and decide to join our community.

If you'd like to learn more about working with the nuts and bolts of Memory Alpha, I have a few links that you might want to check out:

One other suggestion: if you're going to make comments on talk pages or make other sorts of comments, please be sure to sign them with four tildes (~~~~) to paste in your user name and the date/time of the comment.

If you have any questions, please feel free to post them in our Ten Forward community page. Thanks, and once again, welcome to Memory Alpha! --Alan del Beccio 06:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Impulse ship

My bad on that. I did not read it enough before using my itchy trigger finger. Sorry about that, hope no harm is done. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No prob. -- Kingfisher 02:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

New Pages

Hey, great work you've been doing. Thanks. - Lt. Washburn 22:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. --Alan 20:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Kingfisher 21:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


Why are you removing the Energy category from the reactor articles? The category isn't just for types of energy, it's for energy sources, energy fields, and other energy-related topics as well -- Renegade54 21:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the Energy category is part of the Physics category, I think it would be a poor choice to conflagrate "things that produce/affect/transform energy" with "things that are energy", considering that they are two fundamentally different things. Either of those groups would contain several dozen articles, and I think to blend them would make the category less useful. I would advocate an "Energy Technology" category instead. -- Kingfisher 21:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
We conflagrate all the time... which doesn't mean it's right. ;) It probably wouldn't hurt to have an "Energy technology" category, though, as a sub-cat of Technology. Why don't you assemble a list of potential candidates and add it to the category suggestion page. I'll be happy to support it. -- Renegade54 21:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi Kingfisher. I just saw your rewrite of the article Vaadwaur. Good work on that, I think the article has a better flow now. However, when copy-editing articles, please make sure not to remove any information - the content of the former "physiology" section seems to be missing completely for some reason.

When an editor thinks that some content doesn't belong on an article, it is common practice to move that content to the talk page for further discussion instead of just removing it. So, if that wasn't just a mistake during editing which you will fix later, it would be nice if you could comment that removal. Thanks. :) -- Cid Highwind 22:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it is a personal bias of mine, that I don't like extensive descriptions of things that are self-evident upon looking at the subject but not emphasized in dialogue, hence the truncation of the physical description. -- Kingfisher 22:34, 14 August 2007 (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+