May Edit

Interpreting vague references to past events Edit

How should we deal with vague references like "X (60, 2000, ...) years ago"? The official chronology assumes that each of these events happened exactly X years ago, but this is definitely not how this phrase is normally used - instead of exactly 2000 years ago, that event could as well have happened 1921 or 2034 years ago without really contradicting the meaning of the original quote.

I think we should mention the original quote in those cases, but don't use it to determine a specific year. Instead, we should link to the decade, or even the century, if we are unsure... ((See also: Talk:369, Treaty of Algeron (recently changed from 2310s to 2310).) -- Cid Highwind 22:09, 29 May 2004 (CEST)

I'm also a big fan of using the vague date, saying 'in the early 23rd century' or 'the mid 2250s' rather than using a conjectural date. I did a little work on 2260s and decided it would be good to use the decade to list all the vague events we can't place in one of the years within, so i added a paragraph to see how it would fit.--Captainmike 23:22, 29 May 2004 (CEST)

How much "real life" information to include? Edit

I've brought this up a little in the Enterprise (OV-101) article, but I've noticed it start to creep into a few other articles, mainly those based around the space program (NASA, Apollo 11, amongst others) - a proliferation of 'real life' information, highly detailed, but it seems overly excessive from the POV of Memory Alpha - ie from within the Trek universe. Much of the information isn't relevant to the Trek universe, and the tone is more suited to describing the items if they were in a Wikipedia article than here (listing Trek events as 'non-historical', for example). Comments/suggestions? -- Michael Warren 23:15, 31 May 2004 (CEST)

For one thing, Real Trek is an expression not idly used for these kind of subjects, and they are an important part of Trek history. However, if the subjects are never even mentioned on screen in the show, I see no reason to make an article about it here. You could follow the Reference pages of the articles you mean, and insert a link to WikiPedia where it is now an internal link. But as far as I am concerned, those articles can be deleted. -- Redge 22:37, 6 Jun 2004 (CEST)

June Edit

Meta-Trek header? Edit

I've been thinking about this for the past few days, and figure I should get some community feedback. What would you think about creating a header for all Meta-Trek articles, to show that these are (technically) separate from the other articles? I'm talking something like this:

This article is a Meta-Trek article and does not directly follow Memory Alpha:Canon policy.

Obviously, the wording and appearance can be worked on, but, as for the general idea, what do you think? -- Michael Warren 01:50, 4 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Wholeheartedly approve. Now do we keep it as a small and simple one that would fit into any article to split the fact from conjecture & heresy, or do we make it bigger and reserve it only for an article that is completey offscreen info? -- Captainmike 03:19, 4 Jun 2004 (CEST)
You seem to be missing the point of the header. This is not for indicating the use of non-canon information. It is simply for things like episode, movie, book etc. entries, to show they are separate from the normal articles, which are in the POV of the Trek universe. The reason it is said they do not follow the standard canon policy is because they will describe items that do not count as canon and/or valid resources for the other articles, and are described from the 'franchise' perspective. One would go, for example, at the top of the Star Fleet Technical Manual page, but would not be used on Enterprise (NX-01). -- Michael Warren 05:00, 4 Jun 2004 (CEST)
I get that. But what I meant was, every article has at least one portion that is out of the Trek POV: the source and any behind the screen commentary. i just meant, is this specifically for articles like Star Trek: The Original Series and "The Way to Eden" or is it something we are going to adapt to put at the end of the Spock article before the content that is 'out-of-POV' where we say Spock first appeared in TOS: "The Cage". He was played by Leonard Nimoy. The producers almost replaced him with Mark Lenard .. blah blah.. -- Captainmike 14:13, 4 Jun 2004 (CEST)
I think that's what the Background information section or the indented italics style is for - this header should be reserved for articles that are completely Meta-Trek. -- Cid Highwind 14:25, 4 Jun 2004 (CEST)
If I may note something in this space, I have a book entitled ST:TNG Technical Manual. All information that is "real", or production, behind-the-scenes material is in italics. All the fantasy "Technical information" is normal type and it worked well for that book, so my vote goes with Cid Highwind. Normal print for regular info, italics for reality info. I'm not sure I fully understand what "Meta-Trek" means, but I think I'm on the right track. -- EAnchor 22:45, 14 June 2004 (CEST)
I like this idea, when used as you seem to suggest. It should be made perfectly clear that this is not to be used as an excuse to include any form of fan-fiction. We should also discuss which "depth" (for lack of a better term) we want to allow? Do we allow articles about novel characters with this header, or should we stop at describing the novel itself. I would prefer the latter. -- Cid Highwind 14:25, 4 Jun 2004 (CEST)
Yeah, for now something like this should be restricted to "Meta-Trek" articles: articles about real world things, like a description of The Wounded Sky. A character from The Wounded Sky, like K't'lk for instance, is not real world, and therefore falls under the canon policy. Steve 20:12, 4 Jun 2004 (CEST)
Meta-Trek Article

here goes nothing --Captainmike 04:55, 6 Jun 2004 (CEST)

read my piece: User:Captainmike#Notes on the Creation of a META-TREK article --Captainmike 17:40, 6 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Cid suggested that if i wish to make this policy, i should suggest it on the appropriate page. Since the appropriate policy pages are a tangled mess that an average user like me can't find his way around, i don't know if i'll be able to. too bad. --Captainmike 18:40, 6 Jun 2004 (CEST)

What, you mean Memory Alpha talk:Canon Policy? Or, better still, create "Memory Alpha talk:Meta-Trek"? -- Michael Warren 21:02, 6 Jun 2004 (CEST)
Very complicated, IMO. It should be short and sweet. The description of what it means by a Meta-Trek article should be at "Memory Alpha:Meta-Trek" rather than in the header box. And putting it in unilaterally is definitely not a good idea, which is why I didn't do it. -- Michael Warren 21:02, 6 Jun 2004 (CEST)
Thanks for the link. I thought that putting it here would be a good start though.
I thought about this also, it was very verbose when i pasted it up. Maybe it should just be:
"Meta Trek Article: This article is from the (real life, Meta Trek) point of view."
and leave it up to the reader to investigate our canon policy further with the links in the header. --Captainmike 21:22, 6 Jun 2004 (CEST)
I hate to jump in at so late a point, but I'm really wondering if this whole idea is really necessary. First, I don't like the idea of having a big gaudy header at the top of article pages. Second, the Encyclopedia never had to worry about distinguishing between what was "real" and what wasn't -- because it was very obvious. It seems to me that it's very obvious as well, as long as we describe it properly. And if there's still confusion, then we obviously need to describe it better. But I don't think we need to use a gaudy header for articles referring to every single episode, movie, novel, book, comic, etc... -- Dan Carlson 22:07, 6 Jun 2004 (CEST)
I quite agree. I think the policy as set forth by CaptainMike is far better, less 'gaudy', as Dan puts it. If an entire article is real-life POV, and that fact isn't directly suggested by the name, you might consider a sign like that. -- Redge 22:37, 6 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Memory Alpha has its first copycat! Edit

I just came across this site while browsing this afternoon, and thought everyone might be interested in taking a look at this attempt to copycat Memory Alpha's work. Not that it's a bad thing to have another Trek reference site, of course, but I wonder why they didn't just come here instead? They seem to be duplicating a lot of work that's already been done... -- Dan Carlson 22:00, 5 Jun 2004 (CEST)

The quality of it's contents varies. There seem to be many well-written articles [1], while others seem to be written rather hurriedly, to say the least[2].
As far as "duplications" go... there is definitely some literal duplication going on there. Compare [3] to Temporal Cold War or [4] to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Most of it seems to be the doing of, who is actually a user here as well: [5] Steve 00:33, 6 Jun 2004 (CEST)
There might be some problems with the different licenses in use. While we use a Creative Commons license, that page uses the GNU FDL, which, I think, is less restrictive and not compatible. If that's the case, the owner of that page should be made aware of this. -- Cid Highwind 16:41, 6 Jun 2004 (CEST)
That is quite pathetic. It is literally copying information from Memory Alpha, and it seems user is one of the few users around there. He (of she) also copied text from my website, without asking, nor even creditting my site. -- Ottens

Don't forget, though, that people are free to copy Memory Alpha's content, as long as the guidelines (non-commercial uses, and attribution given) are followed. -- Dan Carlson 22:07, 6 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Well is it in this case? Do we bring those guys down and sue them, or are we flattered and ammused by their efforts? -- Redge 22:37, 6 Jun 2004 (CEST)

I've just posted a message there informing them of the situation. I'm not sure that the user who's copying our material is directly affiliated with TrekWiki, considering that they also posted articles copied from Wikipedia here on MA. At any rate, there's hardly a reason to sue anyone -- and we wouldn't be able to afford that course of action, anyway! There's no point in making idle threats like that. A friendly yet stern notice is pretty much all we need. -- Dan Carlson 22:49, 6 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Well stated Redge. I'm really amused by their efforts, I know it's a "young" Wiki, but it serves as caution what this would be if we didn't maintain stringent standards. --Captainmike 23:06, 6 Jun 2004 (CEST)
Because there was no Answer about the Copies on that TrekWiki, but only new Copies, I've added the Message from Citing Memory to 3 Articels there. - 13:14, 15 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Well, thank you! :-) -- Dan Carlson 15:07, 15 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Actually, not a copycat -- we knew nothing about your Wiki before we started ours ;) As for the copies on our site, it's news to me. We've shelved the TrekWiki project for the moment as our group focuses on overhauling our main website. The "discovery" of your Wiki is going to call into question the redundancy of ours. I'll look into the copying as per a notice by Dan and take the appropriate steps to fix the problem. Thanks for notifying me of the problem. FltAdml. Wolf 19:40, 20 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Wanted PagesEdit

Is there any way to get the wiki to furnish a list of Most Wanted pages sorted alphabetically by title, as of right now the (very helpful) Special:WantedPages sorts them by how many links to them exist. Just wondering, --Captain Mike K. Bartel

We already have that at Memory Alpha:Requested articles, although it isn't in alphabetical order, but I don't think that's a problem. -- Redge 12:34, 15 Jun 2004 (CEST)
The Special:Wantedpages page is hard-coded into the wiki software, and unfortunately can't be sorted any other way. Sorry. -- Dan Carlson 15:07, 15 Jun 2004 (CEST)

ENG-DUT-GER Ten Forward? Edit

Problems with the German and Dutch editions occur frequently. Where do we ask the admins to take a look at it? Through the forum, e-mail, user page, our Ten Forward, this Ten Forward? We could of course start a seperate page for international Wiki and MA issues. I think that would be the best option. -- Redge 15:22, 10 Jun 2004 (CEST)

I think that's when the SCN forum should be used. Either that, or just e-mail me directly. ;-) -- Dan Carlson 15:44, 10 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Another note: We still need to devise some plocies like name-conventions (original English or Dutch variant), Translating Policy, etc.. Are you sure the forum is the best place to do that? Some people don't know their way there, and the link no longer features on the toolbar. Perhaps the forum is suitable for technical difficulties, but what about policy? -- Redge 16:02, 10 Jun 2004 (CEST)

It seems to me that's up to you. Seeing as how I don't speak a word of Dutch, and I don't know how the episodes are translated over on your side of the pond, you can decide what the appropriate policy should be. :-) -- Dan Carlson 17:35, 10 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Well, in that case, anyone here who can read and write Dutch is welcome to discuss the policy on the Dutch Ten Forward. I've put a reference link in here so you'll be able to find it. -- Redge 16:37, 12 Jun 2004 (CEST)

/extra pages Edit

It is a shame that we don't include info that isn't official or canon. My thoughts on the issue: One can never have to much information. If info isn't fit for mention in the article body, we move it to background. But if it isn't even fit for background, what then?

In any case, don't just throw info away! Gather every bit you can find, even if it isn't fit for MA yet. A day may come when it is relevant. As long as you mention clearly that info isn't canon or official, there's no harm in mentioning it anyway, as long as it doesn't get in the way. You have to give people the whole story, or they will have to look for it elsewhere. And our goal of course is also to be complete. That includes non-canon info.

So: what about something like (name of article)/extra to include extra info?

PS: I couldn't wait for an answer and have already created Akira class/extra as an example of what I mean. Everyone who would want to could add info to this page. That way, if someone were to come to MA looking for info on Akira class, in stead of getting: that name was never even mentioned on screen, they'd get this. Sorry for going on like this, but I feel very strongly about this. -- Redge 12:28, 15 Jun 2004 (CEST)

I'm not generally opposed to that approach, but I think that if we use it, we should do it completely - all additional information from all articles should be moved to an /extra page in that case (although this might not be viable). In any case, we should still stick to official publications - something like a DITL strength index should stay on DITL, for example... -- Cid Highwind 12:53, 15 Jun 2004 (CEST)
By additional information you mean what precisely? I would vote for allowing speculation in extra pages to. Maybe not something as a DITL strength index, but those other specs were for a large part also speculation... -- Redge 13:31, 15 Jun 2004 (CEST)
By additional information, I mean everything that is not on-screen Trek (a.k.a. canon) as defined by our canon policy. Basically everything that now makes up inline notes and the 'Background' section, plus those parts that already creeped into the main article text. -- Cid Highwind 13:37, 15 Jun 2004 (CEST)
Then what do you mean to do with the non-canon/speculation information. That was partly why I first suggested /extra pages, to collect unofficial data in. -- Redge 13:40, 15 Jun 2004 (CEST)
Remove it. I really think that pure fan speculation doesn't and shouldn't have a place on this site (see: What Memory Alpha is not). The main article text should be reserved for canon information - any non-canon addition should be at least official or short speculation that directly relates to canon facts (by showing errors/omissions therof, for example). -- Cid Highwind 13:50, 15 Jun 2004 (CEST)
And is it possible to automatically put a link to the /extra page in the article itself? Like we've got for talk pages now. -- Redge 13:45, 15 Jun 2004 (CEST)
I am not opposed to this idea at all, and support it. Ottens 14:05, 15 Jun 2004 (CEST)
In theory, I am not opposed to this idea and I think that it could work well. However, I think that we should wait for now, and concentrate on getting more pure canon articles first before we start going back to add lots of non-canon and speculative stuff. We don't want to divide our efforts too much just yet -- we're still in the infant stages of this project, remember! :-) -- Dan Carlson 15:07, 15 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Well, I suggest we keep the akira/extra page for now. It'll be great to experiment on it and find a good style and the right procedures/protocols/policies concerning /extra pages if we are to use them in the future.

Let's suppose we are going to put the /extra pages in. What kind of info would be suitable for them? Quotes, background info, exerpts from interviews for one thing.

Bernd, in this 1 interview with Rick Sternbach there's mention of an Akira class (compared to the NX-class). Would it be allright to cite the passage relevant to Akira in the /extra page? -- Redge 20:06, 15 Jun 2004 (CEST)

PS: I've created a talk page for Akira class/extra. -- Redge 20:23, 15 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Actually, Redge, we haven't even decided whether to use the idea in the first place. We need to make that decision first before we decide what to put on those pages. For that reason, I've (temporarily) deleted the Akira/extra page. (We can bring it back later, if we decide to use your idea. -- Dan Carlson 20:53, 15 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Page for leisure discussion Edit

Would it be possible to create a sort of Ten Forward for more leisure conversation concerning Star Trek, or should we just use SCN? -- Redge 13:38, 15 Jun 2004 (CEST)

It would be much, much better if you guys would use the SCN for that. The reason is because the MA wiki software saves anything and everything that's ever submitted to the site -- not once, but many times. This eventually becomes a huge drain on memory and disk space in the long run. It's an acceptable trade-off to have discussion pages like Ten Forward that are specifically for discussion of MA-related issues, but it would end up becoming a huge drain on resources to have a "shoot-the-breeze" type page as well. Sorry. -- Dan Carlson 15:07, 15 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Too bad. -- Redge 19:57, 15 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Does Memory Alpha back up its content? Edit

Just a question: In case of hardware failure or whatnot, does Memory Alpha back up its content? I'd hate to see it all disappear in case of a lightning strike! —Barclay 03:19, 20 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Ooooohhh, yes! We already lost six weeks worth of work back in late March, when a glitch occurred during an upgrade of the MediaWiki software that wiped the entire database. But that was before we moved to our new host, provided by Erik Möller, one of the developers of MediaWiki. Now, we have automatic nightly backups performed on all three wikis. [6] [7] [8] -- Dan Carlson 15:29, 20 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Formatting questions/concerns Edit

Well, I'm just going to note some things I've noticed recently. First: background info. I usually prefer to just put background info under a header (ex: Typhon sector). Other users, such as Mike, stick it in italics as well (ex: Federation class). Still others just italicize and indent it (ex: Ceti Alpha), though I've personally been using that style for alternate timelines (ex: Yerdrin Lek).

The other thing I'm thinking of now is episode citations. I just cite parenthetically, usually (ex: Xindi). However, Mike puts his parenthetical citations in italics (ex: Pizza). I can see the logic here, as episodes are out-of-the-box info, but I think that 1) it's obvious that episode names are out-of-the-box and 2) it's clunky-looking.

Also, in appearances and references lists, I usually link to the series every time it's listed since it looks nicer (ex: J. Hayes). Mike, on the other hand, links to each series only once (ex: Three-dimensional chess).

Hmmmm... seems like I'm ripping on Mike here. I suspect what's going on is that he and I are the only ones to apply a consistent methodology to our formatting-- methodologies that are very divergent on some points.

Can we reach any consensus on these admittedly very nitpicky things? --Steve 20:36, 21 Jun 2004 (CEST)

I'm trying to keep up with the pack, because I am very fastidious and methodical about my styling, as this project is similar to another one I self-publish, but the policy doesn't quite seem finalized. I feel that inconsistent (or simply unattractive) styling is the downfall of Trek websites. Ive been to a few this week that horrified me to try and retrieve information from, in my search for info to bring back to what I write about.
Since I've joined MA, there have been quite a few styles applied, I've even tried to make some suggestions as to how to set a policy, but there hasn't been much feedback from the community except when it is simply me and one or two other users who disagree with me.
The newer users ae tending towards a different style than the original group, the ones whose articles are in the 'older' category, but there have been a few discussions on this, but the styles continue to fluctuate. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 22:56, 21 Jun 2004 (CEST)
See here, I was involved in the discussion regarding the policy, but this part of it was changed without really being run by me? I think other users interested in styling might support me on this, or at least we can entertain each others ideas as to why the policy is diverging like this...--Captain Mike K. Bartel
OK, some answers:
  • Italicization&Indentation: This is a style defined in the section Background information and comments here. I'm not sure if this should include alternate timelines - there are both reasons for and against that.
  • Italicization alone: Is used for quotes, titles, (starship) names or general emphasis (and is not commonly used to mark background information), which is why I think that it would be too ambiguous (and also redundant) to use it in separate Background sections. I guess Mike wants to discuss this here, feel free to join.
  • Separate Background sections: Are defined here and here, and should be used for additional information exceeding three sentences.
  • Linking series: It is a general policy to link an article once per page, not every time the title is used, but I agree - this might be worth an exception to that rule.
-- Cid Highwind 00:40, 22 Jun 2004 (CEST)
Ooh, I was unaware there was a page to discuss these things. I looked around, but it can be difficult to find what you're looking for in the Memory Alpha namespace sometimes. I'll pop over there and weigh in. --Steve 21:20, 22 Jun 2004 (CEST)
Italicization is a essential tool to mark information based on an alternate timeline and, thus, should be further used in this respictve purpose. in my opinion it's very helpful to mark non-canon info aswell as info of an alternate timeline. --BlueMars 21:54, Jun 22, 2004 (CEST)
See, I disagree. We have header sections to help us divide out extraneous data like alternate timelines, and using italics really bugs me, especially when it is still the recommended separation for header-less apocrypha. (BTW, this discussion has moved to the layout talk page linked above)--Captain Mike K. Bartel 22:15, 23 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Main Page Trivia Edit

Here are some new Trivia, courtesy of Federation Forum:

...that LeVar Burton directed at least one episode of ENT ...that the Borg Queen elevater thingy, the restrainment thingy of Locutus (on Enterprise), the restrainment thingy where Data created his daughter and the thingy where Geordi La Forge controlled the remote probe are in fact one and the same prop

They may need to be reformatted a bit. -- Redge 21:28, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)

I have another one I know off the top of my head: The corridors seen in ST:TNG were actually built for Star Trek: Phase Two in the late seventies when that series was budgeted for preproduction. They were refurbished for TMP, and used in ST:2 and ST:3 as the NCC-1701 refit corridors, and refurbished again to be used as the NCC-1701-D corridors in TNG. They made their final appearance in "Generations" in 1994, over 15 years after their inception.
Oh and LeVar Burton has directed more episodes than any other actor i believe, (and has directed for each series, TNG DS9 VGR and ENT) --Captain Mike K. Bartel 06:45, 29 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Didn't Levar, Patrick, Brent and Jonathan form a band of some sort (I remember reading that here at MA). I never knew that. it would make a nice did-you know as well.

I don't think 10F is the right place for this discussion. perhaps we should use "MediaWiki talk:DidYouKnow" to suggest new did-you-know's... -- Redge 16:36, 4 Jul 2004 (CEST)

done. this section is duplicated there, so it is ready for archiving here..--Captain Mike K. Bartel

Paragraph end references Edit

I wish people would pay more attention to in-line references... They make an article so much beter te read. With in-line references, you can determine where info came from and if you're interested, you can take a look at the episode the info was derived from. People seem to be increasingly ignoring this style. Some people still add references to their articles, but they are at the end and there is no way to determine (as a reader) where all the information came from. Like every good scientific papaer, I think our articles should also adhere to the necessity of in-line references! -- Redge 21:52, 29 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Really? I personally find inline references ruin the flow of an article, intruding into the POV, so I don't want to include them unless necessary or suitable (eg, at the end of a paragraph or section as a whole, not midway through.) -- Michael Warren 22:54, 29 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Pardon me, that's what I meant. At the end of the paragraph, instead of all at the end of the article (or end of section if all info came from one source). -- Redge 23:06, 29 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Perhaps we could feature the rule that people are supposed to add references to their articles (paragraph-end or articleend), so people can determine the source for the information, a bit better. Maybe people are unaware of the rule, since it not as implicit as canon-policy etc.. I see more and more increasingly that they are being left out of articles, mostly by unregistered or new members. -- Redge 12:02, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Sometimes, I just don't know from which episode or movie something is, so I think it's too much asked to demand references to be added. Of course, references are always fine... Ottens 12:43, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST)

I don't think they should be demanded right away, but after several members have viewed and reviewed the page, and especially in pages that are nominated for featured, you should expect to find references. It is given as a point in the perfect article as well. A good article is well-documented. -- Redge 13:43, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Remember also that perfection is not required. IMO, while I would definitely prefer that all articles be given references from the very beginning, I don't believe it's an absolute requirement. It's just something that needs to be added in later on by copyediting members. (I know, sometimes it's difficult to get used to the incompleteness of the wiki system...) -- Dan Carlson 15:27, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST)

I don't think it should be made mandatory, but the suggestion that it is a good addition should be featured a bit more obvious. -- Redge 11:33, 7 Jul 2004 (CEST)

On the same subject: We have a toolbar atop the editing box which can be used for italics, bold, link, etc.. Could we include Reference there as well? For example, the text that would appear in the copy box could be: ( [[Series]]: "[[Episode]]"). -- Redge 20:49, 21 Jul 2004 (CEST)

Also, a button producing the text: [[USS Name|USS ''Name'']] would greatly increase efficiency, as Seven would put it.


The Excelsior-class articles has a lot of notes. Currently they are given in-line, indented and italicized. I think that this clutters up the page in a most obtrusive way. I think it shouldn't be to difficult to come up with a notes system that is both easy to access and non-obtrusive. I suggested this format, but Michael correctly commented that this would not be easy to access for people who want to read these notes. I later discovered, by the way, that they can be easily read by simple clicking the note link, reading the note, and hitting your browser's back button. But if anyone can come up with a better ystem, I would welcome the suggeston. -- Redge 13:49, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST)

I like that, but it's easier to just put the notes all on the bottom of the page, along with References and Background Information. See Defiant-class. Ottens 15:12, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST)
I strongly feel that the inline notes should be kept the way they are in the Excelsior article. The main reason for this is because we want to keep things as simple as possible. So what if it's a little more obtrusive? It's still the most straightforward way of doing notes, and that's what wikis are about -- simplicity. -- Dan Carlson 15:27, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST)
I may add, that I first didn't notice that all the notes (which I usually prefer over the content itself) were tiny little numbers. So I would include the notes in main body of the text again. However alternativly one can use another system of applying notes: [1] but I don't know how that might conflict with wikilinks -- Kobi 19:59, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST)
I can see that. How about the system I use, but in stead of superscript notes we use [1]? -- Redge 20:49, 21 Jul 2004 (CEST)
I've made an attempt at this system here. -- Redge | Talk 12:57, 21 Aug 2004 (CEST)
I think for an article with so many reference links, it's a good idea. Though normally, I would prefer inline references Ottens 13:50, 21 Aug 2004 (CEST)
I don't like it - in my opinion, it is much more 'obtrusive' than having inline notes. I can read those together with the main text, but at the same time it is simple to ignore everything that is indented/italicized. Using footnotes, I either have to click and scroll back all the time, or try to remember the context of each footnote. -- Cid Highwind 00:49, 23 Aug 2004 (CEST)
If you look closer you'll see there are several methods of reading the notes without scrolling. You can use your browsers 'back' button, or you can click on the corresponding link in the == Notes == section, which takes you back to where you were reading. -- Redge | Talk 11:51, 5 Sep 2004 (CEST)

July Edit

Production and the fans Edit

I think a timeline of Star Trek production should be added to Memory Alpha. This should include more backround information about the history of Star Trek in production. We also need more information about the history of the fandom.

I realy could care less about this info, and I don't know a thing about it, but I do agree with you there should be good info available on MA. -- Redge 20:49, 21 Jul 2004 (CEST)

August Edit

Enterprise J Edit

I am trying to find an image of the Enterprise J as shown on Enterprise. The Memory Apha listing has a box showing a place for the computer diagram but that is all. Is there any image references of this ship available? -- Richard Baker

No exterior shots were made for the episode. The only view we have of the ship is the one presented here, seen behind the characters as they looked out the corridor window --Captain Mike K. Bartel 05:30, 11 Aug 2004 (CEST)

There is now a very large color print available of the exterior of the Enterprise J. It is in the 'Ships of the Line' Calender for Feb 2004. The image is 12"x24" and I can scan it in sections and splice it in photoshop to send to Memory Alpha but I have no idea how to send it or what would be a maximum file size. The image is nice and I will be glad to send it if someone could just tell me where to upload in to. -- Richard Baker

I have tried to view the referenced image of the Enterprise J and it will not display anything. The only thing I get is a grey box with a text line mentioning that it is a computer graphic display from the show. I could also not get the images from E2 and Twilight to display. This is my first entry into Memory Alpha and I cannot get anything to show except artfully arranged text with a background. I am using WinXP/IE6 with all current patches. What is the trick to get the embedded images to display anything more than a grey box with a description?

-Richard Baker

Have you tried to click on it? The image should have a page with its own disclaimer and so forth, which also contains a direct link to the image file itself. otherwise, i'm stumped. The image has spread some, perhaps you can find a copy on a different server using 's image search. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 21:37, 16 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Categories Edit

I've started a wiki of my own, and noted a feature in the MediaWiki software: Categories. Do we use those on Memory Alpha? And if not, why not? It seems to me a very usefull navigational feature. -- Redge | Talk 16:00, 29 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Categories were a feature implemented in MediaWiki 1.3, which MA does not (yet) run on. I don't like them. Personally, I see lists and reference tables as much easier and visually clear ways to organise articles. -- Michael Warren | Talk 19:24, Aug 29, 2004 (CEST)
Is this a MA-policy or just regional for MA/en? I'd like to see this feature with the german edition some time. -- Florian K 12:24, 12 Sep 2004 (CEST)

Well, now we do. I'm not saying we abandon the lists altogether, which would be s shame to all the work done on them, but I feel the category system is very functional in the sense that you don't have to manually add a new article to all kinds of tables, but simply insert one or more links [[Category:(Name)]], and the article is automatically added to the right pages. It's a lot less work and a very good way IMO to navigate. -- Redge | Talk 17:13, 1 Sep 2004 (CEST)

True! IMHO we should use Categories instead of "List of ...". It's an easy way of having episoded, characters, actors, planets and all kind of trek and meta-trek both listed and separated. As easy are sub-categories, let's say for "DS9-Episodes", "TNG-Episodes",... being a category within "Episodes". I'm looking forward to MediaWiki 1.3.x for MA-de. ;) (Please also notice the far more developed markup for images, btw!) -- Florian K 19:07, 1 Sep 2004 (CEST)

September Edit

Memory Alpha Skin Edit

For some reason, the old skin I was using - I am using a public computer now, though - is not available anymore. It was the one that looked quite like Star Trek Minutiae's layout. Is it just this computer or a general error/change? Ottens 10:52, 1 Sep 2004 (CEST)

Probably has something to do with the apparent upgrade to mediawiki 1.3 -- Redge | Talk 13:41, 1 Sep 2004 (CEST)
Yes. If you want to keep the old skin, go to Preferences, and select the Classic skin. The new skin is called Monobook. It's nice, but still needs a few tweaks... -- Michael Warren | Talk
The new Monobook is quite neat, but I think I prefer the previous. The MonoBook looks better, but I think the classic MA skin is more functional. Unfortunately, when I select the "Classic" as skin, I get something different.... Ottens 15:10, 1 Sep 2004 (CEST)
MinutiaeMan is currently editing the Monobook file, I think we need to be patient... -- Kobi 15:19, 1 Sep 2004 (CEST)
Could we get some more contrast, please? The Monobook style looks great, but light-blue/white on medium grey is a little hard to read. Thanks... :) -- Cid Highwind 15:30, 1 Sep 2004 (CEST)
Yes, we just got upgraded to MediaWiki 1.3 last night, and with it comes a brand-new skin to accommodate all of the new features we've got. I'll be composing a new page to introduce everyone to the new changes and features, but that'll take a little while. Also, please direct all comments about the new skin to MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css. Currently, I'm trying to squash the various bugs and minor deviations in the stylesheet to ensure a consistent look across the entire site. After that, we can discuss changing or altering the style. :-) -- Dan Carlson 15:51, 1 Sep 2004 (CEST)

For those who liked the old skin better... Edit

This is either a bug or an oversight in the MediaWiki software, but for the time being, I can't restore the old appearance for the "Classic" skin. However, if you do decide that you like the old appearance better (with the blue background and all), then you can set it in your own personal preferences. Copy the contents of MediaWiki:Standard.css to [[User:USERNAME/standard.css]], and you'll be ready to go! -- Dan Carlson | Talk 15:45, Sep 5, 2004 (CEST)


Currently, the categories system is disabled on Memory Alpha (at least on the English version, I haven't checked the others). We did this to allow everyone to discuss a category tree and have a firm plan before we enabled the system, in order to avoid creating a hodgepodge of categories like Wikipedia has. We've already got a basic outline present at Memory Alpha talk:Category tree, so I'd suggest that everyone drop by that discussion and add their own two cents on the issue! As soon as we've got a good idea of the basic makeup of the categories, we'll enable them and let everyone start categorizing the pages. -- Dan Carlson | Talk 13:46, Sep 12, 2004 (CEST)

Image File Sizes Edit

Folks, I urge any of you who have been uploading images to take a good look at the MA image list. Not counting the sound files (which can be expected to be larger), there are 32 images that are larger than 100 kilobytes. Some of them were over 200 kilobytes! (I've already gotten rid of those.)

When you're uploading files, please, please remember that Memory Alpha is not an image gallery -- it is not necessary to upload the largest or highest-quality image to our server. As long as the image is of decent size (say, between 400 and 600 pixels across), that's more than enough to show the subject of the image. There's a reason why the server complains when you try to upload an image that's larger than 100 KB -- we've got to conserve file space, because otherwise people will run rampant and upload anything they feel like, no matter the size.

Already, the images uploaded to Memory Alpha account for more than three times the file space that's consumed by our entire text database. I really hate to say this, but if we keep getting too-large and inappropriate images uploaded, we may have to consider disabling the upload service (at least temporarily). I say that not as a threat, but simply as a fact, the result of our need to make sure we don't consume too much file space. Because ultimately, it's Harry and I who are responsible for paying for this site.

I'm going to be keeping a much closer eye on the image uploads from now on. I urge you all to make sure that an image needs to be used to illustrate something -- think before you upload!

Thanks, Dan Carlson | Talk 18:29, Sep 13, 2004 (CEST)

Donation Edit

I'd like to know more what the fund raising is about. What will we have with this 100 EUR? How fast do we need to get it? Has it something to do with the new server-hardware? And what are the benefits and changes about this server anyway? I like the concept of donating for a good idea, but a word or two concerning the site notice would be fine. If it is a secret birthday present for MA I'm now pushing to public, please do remove my posting as fast as possible! ;o) -- Florian K 01:05, 28 Sep 2004 (CEST)

Well, I might as well answer this, although it's a bit late ;) Basically, the rather boring answer is that the new server is more expensive than the old one. The server move was necessary because of the usual bandwith and diskspace issues. Memory Alpha continues to grow, and we just had to move to a more capabable machine. -- Harry 17:55, 9 Dec 2004 (CET)

Wikipedia Edit

Hello all. I've just come across this site and it looks very good. I did notice it looks very similar to Wikipedia, and I was wondering if there has ever been a discussion here about mergin Alpha into the Wikipedia? As WP's goal is basically to include all human knowledge, there's definitely a place for Star Trek articles as much as say Medicine articles. -- 15:56, 28 Sep 2004 (CEST)

Thanks for your appreciation! Memory Alpha (MA) will never merge with Wikipedia (WP) since WP covers a real-live encyclopedia. Nevertheless WP features an article about Star Trek and MA. Besides this problem of topics and relations to real-life / fiction there will be the problem of licences, since WP is totally "free and open" and MA restricts commercial use (for instance). Both MA and WP bases on the same software and philosophie, so you can see Memory Alpha as a spin-off, a daughter or an offspring of Wikipedia. -- Florian K 18:02, 28 Sep 2004 (CEST)

Ah right, so you are using this license then:, I was under the impression that MA was using a less restricted license. Maybe linking to this human-readable license at the bottom of articles would be more convenient than linking to the full lawyer-readable version? Best of luck. -- 20:18, 28 Sep 2004 (CEST)

If you are using the standard monobook-skin you can see at the bottom of each page a little button in the left corner. There's were we keep the secret human readable "short" version. ;o) -- Florian K 17:46, 30 Sep 2004 (CEST)
So lawyers are not human? -- Redge | Talk 14:11, 15 Oct 2004 (CEST)
I'd like to quote: "That's right, nothing will survive WWIII except cockroaches and lawyers." -- Florian K 12:46, 10 Dec 2004 (CET)

October Edit

Copyright Line Edit

Hello. I've begun managing my own Wiki, and would like to ask you a question. What file did you edit to add the Paramount Copyright Line to your copyright footer? Thanks.

You should ask DarHorizon. Post on this question on his talk page. -- Krevaner 00:43, 13 Oct 2004 (CEST)
I believe you'll find it in your system messages. If you look on your Recent Changes, it should be the first page to be edited. -- Redge | Talk 14:09, 15 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Episode guidesEdit

The individual episode pages are mostly lacking, but there are a number of rich episode guides on the net. Why not try to persuade the authors of one of them to wikify it here?

It might be easier just to convince of these aforementioned authors to just license us the content and do some scripting to Wikify it. --D-sta-b 01:52, 20 Oct 2004 (CEST)


I have noticed a large amount of apocrypha being added to Memory Alpha in recent days and weeks. Since I am now at university every day, and lack the time have time to go through every article talk page, I make this point as a general note: I strongly oppose the addition of such information at this time. There are still vast swathes of canonical information, much of it essential, that need to be written and expanded upon. Such additions only lead to confusion and clutter in the article, and make it appear that such information is acceptable to be added in the general article space, when it is not. -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:57, Oct 21, 2004 (CEST)

November Edit


This subject is at the moment IMHO not at all well organised in MA. Just now I tried to find out how Europe was geographically aligned in Star Trek. Hadn't I known to look at Earth, it would have taken me some time to find. There needs to come some sort of navigational reference to geography, both of Earth as well as other planets, such as Bajor. -- Redge | Talk 11:07, 2 Nov 2004 (CET)

More Episode Info Edit

There is a post here about Episode Guides, and I'd just like to say I really enjoy this website, and with more definitive info of each episode, I'd probably like it more than Paramount's Star Trek website. I know it's time consuming, and I may add/edit info on a couple of episodes, but I'm wondering why more info has not been placed into this site concerning episode info. I'm sure there's plenty of intelligent people here who can creatively, and yet succintly give episode summaries without pirating info from Paramount or other websites or literature. 16:36, 5 Nov 2004 (CET)allstargeneral 9:33, 4 November 2004 (CST)

Superfluous Pictures Edit

There are frequent references in MA talking about exercising restraint while utilizing multimedia in conjunction with articles. Now, many articles I've browsed have several media (usually pictures) associated with them and used in what I would assume to be proper usage. i.e. Several shots of different interior sections of a starship, diagrams and such for equipment, etc. However, I notice on many personnel pages that they frequently have several pictures depicting the same referenced personnel with little-to-no discernable difference in them (e.g. reason for having duplicate pictures).

Several personnel articles utilize multiple pictures in a manner I would construe as proper, such as James T. Kirk, (while not a person) USS Voyager, and Montgomery Scott. These differing pictures depict substantial changes made to the subject in question (significant age difference, partial assimilation, uniform difference (although the latter could also be construed as a non-influential change)). However, many entries utilize extremely similar or change-disindicative pictures for the same person, prime examples of this consist of Kathryn Janeway, Jean-Luc Picard, Jonathan Archer, and (while not a person) USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E).

Now while I feel that having an assimilated Picard, or a picture of him from his time as a Lieutenant in the alternate timeline (TNG: Tapestry) would make sense, much as the already-existing picture of him as a cadet does. But three pictures of him only in the time span of 15 years with very slight discernable difference in the subject matter seems excessive to me, at least in view of the media policy. Either removing excessive pictures, or allowing their replacement with more ... differing ones would seem more in line with conserving disk space and prolonging the existence and up-time of Memory Alpha.

-- THOR 01:48, 8 Nov 2004 (CET) | Talk

In the articles you point out, I feel the problems is not so much an excess of pictures, but a lack of good information. if more inforation was written on Picard for example, those four pictures would not be crammed together like that. Besides that, these are very popular subjects, and there are tons of info on them. It stands to reason they'd have more pictures than most articles. -- Redge | Talk 13:20, 8 Nov 2004 (CET)

Holodeck Characters Edit

Since there seems to be a list of virtually everything else, would it be a good idea to create a list of holodeck characters? It's not like there isn't enough of them for a list. --Brian M 19:44, 16 Nov 2004 (CET)

Production number prefixes Edit

Is there really any need for production numbers on DS9 episodes to start with "4XX" or TNG to be "1XX".. the only real meaning the number has for readers is to show the progression of episodes in production order. Internal studio info is neat, but I don't really think its useful or interesting to put it in individual episode pages. In fact, the whole thing seems kind of stupid.. the 47th episode should be episode 47, not 147 (in this example, to avoid confusion with episode 147). -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 00:19, 23 Nov 2004 (CET)

Episode Image
Series: TNG
Episode: 2x10 (#35)
Original Airdate: YYYY-MM-DD
Production Number: 135
Year: 2365
Stardate: Unknown
Story by: WRITER
Directed by: DIRECTOR
I've started a testing a few
If we are listing production numbers, they should be the official ones - and as obscure as they are for most of us, I'm sure they are useful for someone, so we shouldn't simply remove or change them. -- Cid Highwind 01:16, 23 Nov 2004 (CET)
In fact production numbers are, besides titles, the most acurate refference to episodes across the globe. Airing-lists may differ, even the original order is not linear if you have a look at TNG's first season. German airing order is very strange some times, not to mention the translated episode-titles. PS: Is that any 47-gag? -- Florian K 01:47, 23 Nov 2004 (CET)

I love 47 refs. 42, adjusted for inflation. Anywho. Perhaps a dual listing is in order. (Serial number, production number). Someone also suggested a seasonal episode number notation, I endorse this also -->

I used production numbers on all my VHS DS9 episodes. Not the best, perhaps, but it's a quick, small number that tells me exactly which episode is on the tape, and makes it easy to find in the "Deep Space Nine Companion" book -- James 0200, Dec 2 2004

Check the layout i tried -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 20:01, 4 Dec 2004 (CET)

I would suggest the modification above, which has become a common representation of season-episode order. -- Michael Warren | Talk 13:38, Dec 6, 2004 (CET)
Excellent. I think this presentation is exactly what most users would be looking for. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel

redirect search Edit

Is there any way to query the wiki software for a straight list of all redirect pages? I've been noticing a lot of badly formed article titles staying around in the database for long periods of time without being caught. If it isn't desirable to have so many of them, I'd suggest mandating a policy to create a manual list (recommended for addition every time a user moves an article or creates a redirect, just as every new disambiguation gets listed at Memory Alpha:Links to disambiguating pages), or to simply tag the redirects somehow. Comments? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 06:58, 23 Nov 2004 (CET)

Waht about the Maintenance page? -- Redge | Talk 12:31, 23 Nov 2004 (CET)

Episode Log Entries Edit

Hello - I'm new here, so sorry if this is in the wrong place, or I've made a similar mistake! In the past couple of months, I've created a new website - Star Trek: Captain's Logs. The site is a database of log entries from every series of ST, although I've only just started. I was wondering what others might think about adding log entries to their relative episode entries in Memory Alpha?

The site can be found here:

That's certainly an interesting idea. At the very least, I'm happy you have the stardate spans of the episodes, as opposed to just the first stardate, since I planned to go looking for those soon. --Steve 19:21, 23 Nov 2004 (CET)

December Edit

Best Newbie Episodes Edit

First, I hope this is an appropriate use of Ten Forward...

For some time now, I've been giving thought to what the best episodes would be to show to people who know nothing about Star Trek. In other words, which episodes are the most "accessible" and the least "obtuse"? Would this be an appropriate new article, or is this too much of a subjective and opinion driven idea?

I hope some regulars here have some thoughts! Thanks! User:Brad606 | Talk

I think that's a great idea. As a newbie myself, I've been hunting around to find an episode to use a basis, for (hopefully) writing my own. Having an actually "this is a typical example of what to aim for" link or three would be lovely. -- User:James Dec 4 2004

Categories Edit

So... what are these, why do they matter, and what do we do with them? Captain Mike mentioned them in a VfD discussion once, and I see them used on Wikipedia... -- Steve 03:36, 7 Dec 2004 (CET)

In MA/de we are currently testing them, so far they are quite handy, but we already had to move some categories and delete others. Best is you check Memory Alpha:Category tree and Memory Alpha talk:Category tree -- Kobi 17:59, 7 Dec 2004 (CET)

Looking for Star Trek the Magazine Edit

Hellow everyone. I was a huge fan of Star Trek the Magazine. However I missed 10 issues of the publication. Does anyone know where I could get the back issues?

I don't intend to feature advertising but what about this link: BTW: Google came up with this! And doesn't Scott Bakula look like Gordon Freeman from "Half Life" on issue "November 2002"? -- Florian K 14:27, 15 Dec 2004 (CET)

new MediaWiki version Edit

Hey, you've updated the MediaWiki with parameter "silent" instead of "verbose"! ;) I happen to see something like "Templeted used on page:" when editing this article and had a look on Special:Version. There used to be something like "MediaWiki 1.3.4+", now it's 1.3.9. Are there any more killer features to know? -- Florian K 12:16, 16 Dec 2004 (CET)

History, physiology, philosophy, etc articles Edit

Articles like Klingon Physiology, Ferengi History, Q Philosophy, Vulcan mating rituals etc. keep popping up on VfD.. is there any way we can create a more solid guideline for creating these articles so that they dont end up as graveyard fodder, and also the question has been asked: do they more rightfully belong at Klingon physiology, Ferengi history, Q philosophy and Vulcan mating (naming convention)? Dicussion? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 20:26, 16 Dec 2004 (CET)

With the exception of Vulcans, Klingons, and Ferengi, I don't think there is nearly enough information about the philosophy of any other species to justify a separate article; it's just clumsy when that information's not combined with the main species article in those cases. I also think that the history articles, with the exception of humans, are just redundant and should be merged with the history sections of respective articles (Cardassian history merged with Cardassians, Cardassian Union, and any separate articles like First Hebitian civilization). I've argued for this before and I still think there's nothing covered in those history articles that wouldn't be covered in one or all of those other pages, which already repeat the information enough times for my taste.
For naming conventions, I think it should be "Klingon philosophy" rather than "Klingon Philosophy". Capitalizing a non-proper noun just bothers me because it pretends a formality that doesn't exist. -- EtaPiscium 20:38, 16 Dec 2004 (CET)

For past discussions of this topic, please see: Talk:Interstellar history, Talk:Romulan history. Another good read is Wiki is not paper, especially the section "How long should the ideal article be?". If an article about X physiology would consist of two or three sentences, we don't need a separate article - but we don't necessarily need to restrict ourselves to one humongous article per species either; if we know enough about Romulan history, for example, why should we have to put everything on Romulan? Regarding capitalization: I agree, it should probably be lower-case. -- Cid Highwind 13:19, 17 Dec 2004 (CET)

And again my issue is with repetition and convenience. Undoubtedly any article about the Romulans would include something about history (it would probably be the biggest section), and so I see no need to separate it into a separate article. In fact I think that would be clumsy and redundant, because either a very vital part of the subject isn't readily accessible on the page or only a cursory summary is provided with a link to another page with a slightly less cursory summary. I don't see what's so wrong with just collecting the information on a single page, because certainly it's more convenient to simply scroll down an article rather than having to follow a separate link. At present, the histories provided at the pages such as Klingon Empire, Klingon, and Dominion are already more comprehensive than their respective history pages, which are woefully inadequate by comparison. -- EtaPiscium 00:39, 18 Dec 2004 (CET)
Well, actually, as far as convenience goes, there's a lot of material duplicated between History on Klingon and Klingon Empire. Ideally, I think, each page should have a blurb and tell you to see more at Klingon history-- that's how I did it with Xindi and Xindi history. Now it may not be useful for all species, but the Klingons, Romulans, and so on could all do with separate history articles to keep things less cluttered. As for physiology and philosophy-- those could certainly belong to the main article, since we rarely know that much about those aspects of aliens.
As a matter of note, if we don't count "sector" in things like Mutara sector as being a proper noun, we sure shouldn't count "History" in things like Xindi history. -- Steve 01:07, 18 Dec 2004 (CET)
I've gone ahead and moved all "histories" to the lower case. Also, see Talk:History for more on how I envision these pages evolving. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel

About the use of disambiguation pages Edit

Right now, there are several pages claiming to be "disambiguation pages" (DP), such as Alpha, Beta, Gamma... I don't know if these are really necessary (or valid DPs at all). In my opinion, a DP should be created only if there are several "objects" that are normally referred to using the same term. Enterprise, for example, is such a term, because it is used to refer to one of many starships as well as the latest series. Alpha, though, could be a disambiguation page for Alpha (Jem'Hadar), Alpha Quadrant and Alpha system and others, but definitely shouldn't include links to articles like Treaty of Alpha Cygnus IX (no one would refer to that treaty as simply "Alpha"). In this case, the search function of this wiki seems to be good enough (try searching for "Zeta", for example). -- Cid Highwind 12:55, 17 Dec 2004 (CET)

Yeah, this was occuring to me as I wrote Beta through Epsilon; Alpha was created by someone else (Mike maybe?) and that's what gave me the idea. Wikipedia, though, does do these basically the way we are right now: Wikipedia:Alpha, Wikipedia:Beta, &c. -- Steve 00:32, 18 Dec 2004 (CET)

copyright on cover-texts? Edit

I found many copies of cover-texts of novels inside MA, for instance Time's Enemy or First Strike. Is that covered by the Memory Alpha:Copyrights? I always thought verbatim copy of any material should be avoided; I'm not quite sure if the back cover texts are ment to be copyrighted since it is a kind of advertisement. Is there someone with proofed knowledge about that? -- Florian K 18:55, 23 Dec 2004 (CET)

Unknown Edit

Stardates Edit

While reading the 30th Anniversary Special Collector's Edition Star Trek book, I noticed some information on the Stardates that is not included in Memory-Alpha's "Stardate" entry. It mentions that the the digit following the decimal indicates one-tenth of a 24-hour period, logic dictating that a single unit is equal to one earth-day. This seems somewhat incongruous with the fact that the 3 digits preceding the decimal from 000 to 999 reveal the progression of a single earth year (although the book indicates that those 3 digits progress unevenly). Could someone else amend the Memory-Alpha entry to account for this info, despite its incongruities, I don't trust that I could improve the entry myself.

Who knows what the Whorfin class ship is? Edit

My name is Connor Ennis but while I'm here I'm Lt. Ennis of the USS Southwest in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. I'm asking if anyone knows any information about the Whorfin-class ship. I've seen pictures of them but I have zero information. I'm asking for help please.