Memory Alpha

StAkAr Karnak

691 Edits since joining this wiki
August 13, 2005
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 page on the page that follows.

Gral and Shran call a truce


Welcome to Memory Alpha, StAkAr Karnak! 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 02:08, 13 Aug 2005 (UTC)


  • Hi. It is not necessary to categorize articles, in the way that you are, as we have special bots designated to do it. All you need to do is provide one of the bot controllers with a list (usually a subpage that can be deleted) of the things that you wish to categorize and they will get to it as soon as they have the time. Thanks. --Alan del Beccio 03:07, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, Alan. I'm not going about my categorizing in any systematic way; just coming up with new additions as I go along. Besides, as long as it isn't bothering anyone, I think it's fun.--StAkAr Karnak 03:11, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Although I feel the same way about it being "fun", it does "clog up" the recent changes -- especially when categorizing such a potentally large group, which does bother a lot of people. When a bot does these changes, they do not appear on the recent changes page. Otherwise, yeah, this is just a public service announcement, because if you don't hear it from me, I'm sure Kobi, our resident bot-master will tell you the same thing. --Alan del Beccio 03:37, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Hey StakAr don't forget, MA is also great because new edits stay in the "recent changes" much longer then wika because it is not about everything in the world. I made a change on wika but with all the other edits it's gone before I even click the link. --TOSrules 05:18, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

And that's a good thing? I think it's depressing if nothing ever changes. Shows a lack of progress. With all the professed Trek fans all over the world, I can't understand why MA doesn't have constant editing going on. That anyone should be concerned with how many individual edits someone makes because it 'clogs' the update page boggles my mind. --StAkAr Karnak 05:27, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
It's a good thing as Gvsulan points out, but this place moves pretty fast. I think it moves at just the right speed. Not to slow, but not so fast that the "recent changes" is a snap shot changing every second. --TOSrules 06:21, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I semi-agree about the sluggishness, but the truth is that MA is pretty saturated. I mean, come on, 14500 articles about "canon" Trek is pretty amazing - the only stuff left in a lot of cases is the little technobabble stuff that got a passing reference at most. But yeah, it is nice to see something that has changes from more than the past 30 seconds. :) --Schrei 06:37, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Because it is easier to browse the edits of others when the edits are limited to intelligent edits and not just edits that can be performed by a bot that are otherwise unseen. --Alan del Beccio 05:32, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

When I asked you this in the first place, it was with good reason -- it is not necessary to categorize articles, in the way that you are. Additionally, while the name of Category:Religious figures has been approved by a community consensus, the article or category contents of this new category are still under discussion. Clearly there has been some confusion about what belongs in this category, as a number of the names you are adding do not fit into the category as it was originally discussed. If you wish to further discuss this, please use the following talk page. Thank you. --Alan del Beccio 17:26, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)


Please use Memory Alpha:Category suggestions to suggest new categories. We have a well-established process in creating new categories, of which, your suggestion for Category:Production-named species must also undergo. --Alan del Beccio 05:32, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

any thoughts on suggesting this (i think i might add it) and wondered if you wanted to take part in the discussion. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

Bajoran Proverbs

Congrats on being the first person to comment on them! I'm sure they're just real sayings that someone thought sounded like Bajoran ideas... maybe you could do a Google search for each one, and find out who said which one! They're only on the first two season fo DS9, on the UK version video covers (The ones that have little image on the spine that makes a big picture if you put them all together). I just thought they were interesting, although, of course, they're nothing to do with the episodes. :-) As for the later episodes, there are quotes, but they're from one of the two episodes on the video. EG: on 4.3 (containing "Indiscretion" and "Rejoined") there is a quote from Dukat, which says: "...personal reasons can be quite an incentive..." Zsingaya Talk 08:23, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Cited source

I cited the source to Wired for the Ticonderoga info -- fan fiction and fan films are topics that many feel don't belong on MA, so I'm just trying to keep them as businesslike as possible. Sorry i had to question the addition, but I think the latest version is a good compromise (data on what fan films Cawley appears in and who he plays is best referenced at fan films, only the data dealing with Ticonderoga directly seems fitting in that article.

Citing news and magazines is a new field for Memory Alpha, but i feel its a direction we should be working on, so thanks for helping to find a way to reference a magazine article here.

See you round the galaxy... -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

Links to Conventions

Being the "Canon Star Trek wiki" we try to avoid most of the IRL aspects of Star Trek (but some are allowed, like Design patents and CGI, etc.) but being as there are no links to Star Trek conventions of any type as far as I can tell, I presume that that kind of thing is out of our purview. But if a different decision is brought up in Ten Forward, my apologies. - AJ Halliwell 19:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

More Moore

I noticed that you added many comments by Ronald D. Moore to various articles. While I think it is interesting to know what he thinks about his own creations, be it characters or episodes, I really think it is unnecessary to know that Ron Moore thinks "Up The Long Ladder" is "embarassing", an episode which was written one year before he had anything to do with the show. --Jörg 15:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether he worked on the episode is irrelevant; he has contributed enough to Trek over the years that his viewpoint holds some weight, IMHO. We have no objection to noting his favorite episode, "The Conscience of the King", and he didn't work on that either. -- StAkAr Karnak 15:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The thing is: if we accept this, we could just as well ask Mike Sussman, Eric Stillwell or anyone else who was connected to the show at one time about their favourite episodes. We remove comments like "This episode is generally disliked by many/most Star Trek fans" but keep one man's opinion about an episode he had nothing to do with. He might me a prolific writer, having written many great episodes of Star Trek and other shows, but still, what he personally thinks about one episode is not important, IMHO. --Jörg 15:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I acquiesce; do as you wish with "Up The Long Ladder". After further thought, I see how the comment is not particularly useful and can lead to MA being cluttered with a collection of pet peeves and criticisms. Better to keep things upbeat.
As an aside, I have to say that I have nothing but admiration and awe for your work here as well as your incredible Ex Astris articles. I cannot compliment your efforts strongly enough. -- StAkAr Karnak 15:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I wasn't expecting that. Well, thank you for your words about the stuff I do here and at ex-astris! It's lots of fun, I can assure of you that! :-) Well, I'll remove that comment from "Up The Long Ladder" then if it's okay with you, as you say. Might I ask why you particularly add quotes by Moore? Just my personal curiosity at work here. --Jörg 18:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Back when Ron first posted his comments, I eagerly awaited each new look into the behind-the-scenes process. I'm the sort that loves all the commentary and bonus discs with DVDs, and this is similar to what Ron did. It seemed such a loss to me that his insights weren't readily available. When I stumbled across an archive of his postings, I jumped at the chance to enrich Memory Alpha with 'exclusive' content. I started with the oldest postings and am, IIRC, about 1/3 through. -- StAkAr Karnak 00:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, while more of Moore is appreciated - can you be a bit more conservative about which pages you add them to? His opinion on everything isn't necessary, and is actually becoming an eye soar. Specifically, this was spawned by the "He doesn't believe there's a death penalty in the Fed." because we have screen evidence there isn't, except for the one, which we can leave up to the fans to decide if still exists. Maybe his opinions on things he was directly involved in, and some of the broader Star Trek topics - but a link to the interview site on his article covers it, because several users have been complaining. - AJ Halliwell 15:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how Ron's insights can simultaneously be appreciated and an eyesore. At the time he commented on the Fed's death penalty, Ron was in a position to know something about Federation policy. Surely, creator intent has greater weight than leaving things "up to the fans". I think that as a body of work, Ron's comments have value; a value you apparently acknowledge. While I am trying to be objective about what I contribute, I want to be liberal enough that I don't omit some gem that doesn't resonate with me personally as I systematically mine his archives. As far as "several users complaining", I think their above concerns have been individually addressed. If anyone have an objection to any of my edits, they are more than welcome to redit them as the community sees fit or bring them to my attention. Please adjust Death penalty as you see fit. -- StAkAr Karnak 15:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Strike 1

Popping my head in as one of the complaining users. The problem I have is that Moore is just one of the writers/producers. He is not the only one. I do not think it is fitting to have his comments on everything under the sun in Star Trek. We don't even have Roddenberry's views in anywhere near the detail that we know have Moore's. It just doesn't make sense or seem needed to me. --OuroborosCobra talk Klingon Empire logo 15:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't have any other creator's comments because no one has taken the iniative to add them yet. I don't have access to the years of articles in Star Trek Communicator or other magazines, but if anyone wished to add writers/producers/actors comments, I'd be grateful. I 'm sorry you do not enjoy what Moore had to say. -- StAkAr Karnak 15:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Even if we had access to them, I don't think it would be right to put them here. Where would we draw the line? The production comments could quickly become longer than the articles themselves, and that does not make sense to me. SO we only have Moore right now? That won't last forever. We have to think ahead here. --OuroborosCobra talk Klingon Empire logo 15:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
MA's About page says: "Our goal is to become the largest, most reliable, and most up-to-date encyclopedia about everything related to the Star Trek universe." It does not make a distinction as to whether this information must be episode-derived or behind-the-scenes. I feel the two sources shed light upon each other and that there is no balance to maintain between the two. -- StAkAr Karnak 15:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Memory Alpha is supposed to be written as an in-universe encyclopedia. To me, that means that background information should be kept to a minimum., and should not grow beyond that of the main articles. Perhaps a better place for these would be external links on the production crew pages themselves? --OuroborosCobra talk Klingon Empire logo 15:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
On your background info point, I disagree. On your next point, links would remove pertinent info. How would it be practical to outsource every footnote to penalty-box pages? Make articles useful for readers states: "The most important goal is to make the article readable and informative. Towards that end, you should do whatever you feel is necessary to make the article meet those standards. "Informative" would seem to take priority over how much is in-universe. -- StAkAr Karnak 16:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I would also remind you that this is a community effort, not just yours, and as AJHalliwell said, a number of users have been complaining. --OuroborosCobra talk Klingon Empire logo 16:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
As far as I have been made aware, user concerns have been limited to this page. These have been limited to 3 individuals, two cases of which have been resolved. When the "community" wishes to "complain", my door is open. -- StAkAr Karnak 16:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Strike 2

Actually, there are about five or six of us who have been complaining about them over at the IRC; not everything takes place on MA. Anyways, I'm one of the complainers. While I can see a use for Moore comments on aspects of the Trek universe that he, himself, was responsible for, I don't think we need every single comment he has made on every single subject. That's a bit redundant (for lack of a better word), IMO. Basically, what he has to say about his episodes or movies: interesting. His thoughts on things he had nothing to do with or random subjects such as Starfleet operations, Cardassian cuisine, and the death penalty? Not interesting. Again, IMO. --From Andoria with Love 17:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Strike 3

Bp commented:

I also think the Ron Moore comments are getting out of hand. This is not the Ron Moore opinion archive. My biggest objection is that it is not processed or paraphrased at all, it is just large pieces of copy and pasted Moore blog with "Ron Moore commented <colon>" at the top. All of the data on MA is extrapolated from dialogue, we dont just copy and paste large portions of the script (well some do as "Memorable Quotes" but thats another problem). If you want to add these comments, paraphrase them in the briefest possible way. Pages full of this look ridiculous. --Bp 17:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. If there's a place for "every single subject" at MA, which some might find obsessive, then I do not understand why complimentary background info on said subjects is unwelcome. I feel it enhances the articles, but it looks like YMMV. I saw no need to paraphrase because his words are not copyrighted and I didn't want to lose the flavor of his delivery. Again, YMMV.

Here's where we stand - Out of respect for the wishes of OuroborosCobra, Shran, and Bp, I will refrain from adding any more Moore. While I think everyone is in agreement that some of Ron's words are appropriate, I am not objective enough to finish searching them. Whoever wishes can sift through the remainder of his archive and use what fits your aesthetics. 5 Mar 1998-26 Mar 1999 have not been done. -- StAkAr Karnak 20:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page formatting

As an aside, I'd recommend checking out Help:Talk page for formatting purposes (specifically how much you indent responses, etc). As per policy, you should indent to the same level as each of your responses, so if you started the discussion, your indent level should be at that level each time you respond, even if someone's response is indented four or five times. Thanks! -- Sulfur 17:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Aha! I had no idea. Thanks for the link! -- StAkAr Karnak 21:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Could you also add new comments at the end of a discussion, not somewhere in the middle. Otherwise, it might look as if people are responding to other comments than originally intended. If you want to make clear that you are referring to a specific comment, you could add something like "Re:Username" at the beginning of your own comment. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 13:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Apologies. It can get confusing in some discussions to sort who said what when. -- StAkAr Karnak 21:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Christie's auction images

Hi StAkAr. While the legality of using the images from the Christie's Auction catalogue is being discussed at Ten Forward, I would stop uploading images from it. There is no consensus right now on whether it is legal, and in fact a lot more evidence that it isn't (see especially the copyright info that Jorg posted). --OuroborosCobra talk Klingon Empire logo 01:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Production History + Apoc in Episodes

Can you make sure to make these bits subsections of BG Info? Just use '===' rather than '==' as their section demarkers. Thanks! -- Sulfur 19:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Slipped my mind; thanks for the reminder! -- StAkAr Karnak 21:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki