This user believes in keeping talk page conversations in one place. If you leave a comment here, expect a reply on this page. Blah!
For older discussions, see the 2006 archives, the 2007 archives, or the 2008 archives.


Sulfur I appreciate you constantly cleaning up my work. I am learning as I go, sorry if I am hurting more than I am helping. I noticed just now on my last images you cleaned up the "Riker" "Picard" links. I WILL eventually start doing that correctly haha, again im sorry I'm trying.!!--Jlandeen 13:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Best way to do things is that when you are editing, use the "Preview" button. Click on the links (opening them in a new window/tab) to ensure that the links are going where you think that they should be going. Also, note that on images, the description goes before the license. Just use the same format/order that I put on your talk page. Oh, and don't put the ":" at the start of the category, else those images will not be categorized. -- sulfur 13:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

not sure i understand what you mean by "don't put the ":" at the start of the category, else those images will not be categorized." Do you have an example?--Jlandeen 13:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Load up an image. Look at the bottom of the webpage that loads. You'll see some categories listed. Edit that image with the button at the top of the webpage. You'll see that the category is in this format:
[[Category:Memory Alpha images]]
If you put in the category in this format:
[[:Category:Memory Alpha images]]
It merely creates a link to the category, but does not categorize it. When trying to put something into a category... that's bad. When trying to say "see also here because you're looking in the wrong place", that's not so bad. :) -- sulfur 13:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent explanation! I will make note of that.--Jlandeen 13:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. When responding to conversations on talk pages, indent to the same level each time. So, if you started the conversation, you don't indent in it, at all. If you're the first respondant, indent once, etc. See Help:talk page for details. It's not the same way every other wiki does it, but it works well here. -- sulfur 14:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Noted :) I was familiar with a different setup that I thought I saw being used here, where each response becomes indented with the intent of organizing the responses :) But now I know!--Jlandeen 14:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you :)

thanks for your cleanup of my userpage. I'm still learning all the functions of this place, so it's a little rough at times. I'm still very reliant the tips that the site gives me. --Fleurdelista 05:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect is not proper

We don't even have a source or anything saying it will be in the game, or any reason to believe plans for it to be there are finalized. That is precisely why I put it up for deletion, if you read my comments. You really should have commented yourself or something rather than deleting the discussion as well, when it pertained to your very choice of action. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the other option is to add it to the deleted pages (ie, cannot re-create) like the stuff for the new movie. In fact... that may be a better option. I'll do that now. :) -- sulfur 23:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. We've been getting a lot of rumors on that page covered as "ostensibly" and stuff, too, which is partly why I am so doubtful. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, apparently they're putting up a "road to <insert date here>" thing right now that's apparently all been approved in the grand road map of the Trek story, and that's all leading into the game's release. So I'm told. :) -- sulfur 00:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


I recently added in the background section for the Voyager episode VOY: "Innocence" a reference to 47 which appeared on a display screen in that episode. This reference was later deleted with the explanation that we only list 47 references if they are citeable. I'm just wondering what that means, as I've never seen citations on most of the other 47 references listed. Just looking for some clarification, as I'm relatively new here. Thanks! Betasigx20 23:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Those references are (slowly) being cleaned up. But the gist is... unless there's a production source that says "we meant to put this 47 in because it's a cool number" :) -- sulfur 00:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I see. That's too bad... I kind of enjoyed looking for the references. I'd never heard of this until I read the 47 page here at Memory Alpha, but I've been noticing them ever since. Is the goal then to eventually delete all of the references to 47 listed in the background information of the episodes? I can't imagine there are more than one or two examples where production staff specifically stated it was there, beyond what is written on the 47 page where it states it is included in "virtually every episode of all the modern series." -- Betasigx20 04:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


thanks. looks like i didn't revert far enough. — Morder 11:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Just wanted to say Thank You. I appreciate you fixing the pages on Memory Beta that I worked on, as well as the heads up on how to do things right the first time. Again, Thank you. – Commander Phoenix 03:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


Thanks, Sulfur. These edits are fine and correct. Nilva is a good source, believe me. ;) – Tom 00:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Title and name redirect policy

Moved to here...

Bad user page

I don't think this page or the picture on it belongs. User:LadyClump Vince 21:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree... something not kosher seems to be going on. See "Forum:Sir Christopher A Green Esq - Lady Clump" as well. -- Renegade54 22:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Countdown summary

Hey, Sulf. Were you planning on writing the summary for "Countdown, Number One"? If not, I can take a crack at it this weekend, time permitting. A spoiler template will be required, though, since it deals with elements from the upcoming movie. --From Andoria with Love 01:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I was going to, but you're welcome to take a hit on it. :) -- sulfur 03:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, I'll go ahead and do that now. Thanks :) --From Andoria with Love 19:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


I think that the Vulcan page needs to be edited. Namely the *Ahem* "Vulcan Posterior" picture. I would enjoy being able to read about Vulcans WITHOUT seeing a 'Vulcan Posterior' on my screen! At least someone STOP PUTTING IT BACK! I taken it off like 10 times, and it keeps coming back. Martok42 21:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop removing it then. Add to the relevant talk page discussing rationally why it should be removed. Do note that it was on the aired version, and it is also on the DVD version of the episode. It's seen. It's in evidence. To this point, nobody has given a valid reason why it should not be there. -- sulfur 21:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


Would you say something at Talk:747 about it please. I'm sorry, I did it too, I guess it's time to just stop the reversions/page edits until it's sorted out. See you there. --TribbleFurSuit 01:49, 11 February 2009 (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+