Gral and Shran call a truce


Welcome to Memory Alpha, Terran Officer! 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 06:29, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • Or you can direct your questions to myself directly via my talk page. Thanks! --Alan del Beccio 06:31, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)


Just answering a comment you left in talk:Star Trek: The Motion Picture. IN the Star Trek: Voyager episode "Q2", it is stated that Kirk's five-year mission ended in 2270. Since they said in the movie that the ship had been out of service for two-and-a-half years, it means the film couldn't have taken place in 2271.

It has nothing to do with Gene Roddenberry's writings or Star Trek: The Animated Series. -- Captain M.K.B. 17:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thats right. Well, I guess on that point, it could complicate things, although in the movie I seem to remeber them saying something about 18 months after the series ended? Not exactly sure, I should watch the movie again. Someone could have refered to it as two years after the last TOS episode when making the movie at that time, which by the episode stated, would then end up working right? --Terran Officer April 22, 2006 1:58PM (EST)
I think the film stated the ship had been under construction for eighteen months, but i'm sure it had Kirk state he hadn't been a starship commander for two-and-a half years. Either reference rules out 2271 as a date since it was stated in the VOY episode that Kirk and the ship were in service in 2270. eighteen months would suggest 2272, and two and a half years would be either 2272 or 2273. Either way, the date of TOS and TAS doesnt matter, since the VOY reference establishes both Kirk and the Enterprise were active together for the last time in 2270, and the film specifies that Kirk in specific had been an admiral for a period of 2.5 yrs. Gene Roddenberry's writings state that Kirk received his Admiral's star upon his return home, so there's no way the gap could be less than 2 years, even if the "and-a-half" was rounding up. -- Captain M.K.B. 18:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess, It's probably a dating flub really, because there was still two years to go really when the series ended, so the producers of the movie MIGHT have looked at that date, while as the producers/writers of Voyager looked at it with the full five year mission. That and the years in TOS were never explicitly mentioned anyways...--Terran Officer April 22, 2006 2:32PM (EST)

Welcome Edit

Hello, I have noticed that we have similar names and are both quite novices in regard to matters such as posting and such. I have been using M.A. for only a bit longer than you(I speculate) and would be honored to render any assistance, also your name somehow turned up on one of my watchlists or something.--Sciofficer 00:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! You may have, I don't know. I was visiting this site long before I joined. I had made an edit to an artical (I can't remeber what lol,) and then got a message suggesting i join. I will prolly keep you on your offer! Terran OfficerTerran Officer Sunday, April 03 9:14 PM (EST)

Good,glad to hear it.--Sciofficer 20:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Screencaps Edit

I use Fraps, and just to give credit where credit is due - got it from T smitts. - AJ Halliwell 13:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Views on Enterprise Edit

Hi, Terran Officer. I'm glad you got some entertainment out of my ramblings on Enterprise. ;) As for the Suliban cloak, while it didn't use the selective bending of light, Spock and Kirk were surprised that any ship could render itself invisible at all. Spock merely surmised that it was the selective bending of light. That said, however, it would be worth mentioning... as well as the fact that they had already devised methods of seeing through the Suliban cloak, so they may have also found a way to see through Romulan cloaks, hence Kirk and company's surprise a century later. Um... I'm not sure I made sense there. If I didn't, just lemme know, and I'll try to explain myself when I'm more awake. ;) --See you... out there! From Andoria with Love 11:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Cloak Edit

With the Cloak, that might be it, they didnt consdar a cloak because they had penetraited a cloak, and to hide like that, the enormus power cost makse even more sense?

That makes sense. I think I mentioned something similar to that in my explanation here. Or maybe I didn't, I dunno, haven't actually read it (as in process the information I wrote) in a while. :P --From Andoria with Love 07:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: The MU MA... Edit

I was wondering if you'd be someone to talk to about this? I've looked around and it seems interesting. I was thinking about doing some contributing, but was wondering about the writing style, as some pages seem...odd (Like saying Captain Forrest had weapons in his ready room, didnt the episode show it was Commander Archer's?). Also, if I notice any sort of troubles is it ok to add it to the page where a list is being made? (Upload does not work at all it seems...)

The site in itself is an awesome idea :-D--Terran Officer 03:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. MA/mu is a wiki like all the others, so if you have something to change or add, go right ahead. There are some specific rules and guidelines (as, for example, "No episode pages"), but other than that editing there is OK, of course. For further question, you might also want to contact User:Bp, who is admin over there.
You can add any sort of problem description to the list page over there, or here - I will try to relay that sort of information to the right people ASAP. -- Cid Highwind 10:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

EpLink template Edit

I left a message for you on Cid's talk page, in case you didn't see it yet. --Sasoriza 00:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Main Edit

I've begin a discussion on Portal talk:Main and would like to hear your input on the subject. Regards, Nat.tang 00:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

scripts Edit

STM - they have all tng & ds9 scripts — Morder (talk) 04:05, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wow, thanks!--Terran Officer 04:12, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Actor's names in sidebar Edit

Just want to give you a heads up. I did what you are doing now earlier today, that is removing the name of the actor from the main body when it is listed in the sidebar, and it was reverted by Archduk3. Personally, I agree with you that there's no reason to duplicate it, unless perhaps it's a long article on a main character. --| TrekFan Open a channel 05:41, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see the need for it, unless there's some sort of explanation going into it (like there is on the main character articles, such as T'Pol), it just seems kind of silly to me, now that I consider it, to have a BG info line with just the actor who portrayed the character. Particularly, when given the side of the page I just did for instance, the BG info and the sidebar field that listed the actor are right next to each other. --Terran Officer 05:44, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

I know, I completely agree with you. I'm just gonna keep on removing any I see like that since, like you said, they're right next to each other and there's no point. --| TrekFan Open a channel 05:48, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

And I'll tell you both what was told to me when I was the user removing them, the sidebar does not replace the article. If you want to bring it up, actually bring it up, don't just remove them. - Archduk3 06:38, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
Alright then, for the moment at least, I'll refrain from making those types of edits in the future. --Terran Officer 06:47, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

Federation Starfleet Edit

Ships have Federation Starfleet on them for a reason, to differentiate them from the likes of United Earth Starfleet and Terran Empire Starfleet. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 03:33, March 7, 2011 (UTC)

I was changing this due to consensus from two discussions which ultimately agreed to merely state it as "Starfleet" within the sidebar. This is to match the much older consensus wherein Starfleet has been portrayed to be a single organization (with historical references in TNG and DS9 supporting this) rather then separate entities of United Earth and the Federation. I welcome you to present your arguments if you feel that this is not the case (which means another change throughout Memory Alpha, but that's okay), as I would be curious to hear why you feel this is so (as would the community, I imagine). For the moment, however, I feel it would be best for the sidebars to reflect upon the consensus and the agreement that Starfleet is one organization. It's to confusing to say it's one organization in the Starfleet article and then say it's multiple, separate organizations in the sidebars (Did I make sense in my response? I've rewritten this like three times). --Terran Officer 04:05, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it should be:
  • Federation/United Earth/Terran Empire
    • Starfleet
In a nested faction like that, which would make more sense than dropping Federation/United Earth. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 04:09, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
There's a discussion here in regards to how to format that. My argument has been, that Starfleet is the operators of such craft where I have been changing the affiliation, even if the Federation "owns" the ships. And at the risk of sounding I am lashing at you (I am really not here), I really hope some sort of agreement can be reached. It's really frustrating to bring this issue up, get the implication I can just say "Starfleet" and when I make those changes someone goes "No, no, no, no, don't do that!" *sigh*. Anyway, I invite you to join that discussion and offer any input you have (I still say it should be Starfleet for Starfleet controlled vessels, but whatever). --Terran Officer 04:16, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
Actually, there isn't a consensus to remove the government yet, since the discussion is still ongoing and, as evidenced by this, new users keep thinking that this action is wrong. Either way, if the change currently under discussion happens, all these edits are redundant anyway, since the call would change and a bot would most likely do the heavy lifting. - Archduk3 04:37, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
In the new discussion, no, in the old discussion, yes and as the new one did not get resolved, I figured per standard (at least from how I witnessed other discussions going unresolved/unanswered), that it would be okay to make the edits. If I'm wrong, then something needs to be done about that, because I see this happen many, many times, someone makes a suggestion, it isn't explicitly opposed and when its being implemented someone goes "NO! DON'T DO THAT!" Either way, I wish this would get resolved, like I mentioned earlier it's frustrating as hell to bring this up, get the impression that the community feels "Meh, it's whatever" and when I start the change, someone, as it turns out, doesn't like the idea. --Terran Officer 04:42, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
Having something come up again before any changes are finished can be considered a continuation of the old discussion for some folks. We're at the "changes need to be finalized and implemented" stage right now anyway, so it shouldn't be too much of a big deal. I've been bust as hell this last week, but I should have some more free time this coming week to spend on this. Trust me, it hasn't been forgotten, just moved to the back burner for a bit. - Archduk3 05:12, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
It's whatever, I guess, I probably am making too big of a deal on this, but I am opposed to sidebars saying "Federation Starfleet" and "United Earth Starfleet" if "Starfleet" is one article because it was once decided that we actually don't have canon evidence that there is more then "one" Starfleet. I guess my point is, is that we shouldn't format such a distinction in the sidebar if the article (and the rest of memory alpha) says such a distinction doesn't even exist. --Terran Officer 05:16, March 7, 2011 (UTC)

please help Edit

my friends and i want to build a prometheus class alfa section and where loking for blueprints that whe can use

if you have any please let me know

if you want to be in the crew also let me know that (please remember to let me know what department you want to be in

--Armando.thijssen 21:15, June 23, 2011 (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+