Stars and Star systems Edit

What is the actual added value of all those stub-sized ___ system articles? Take for example Regulus and Regulan system. I was looking at Regulus, and to get to Regulus III, I first have to click on Regulan system, which has zero information and just links to the planets. I expected to find these links on the article on the star Regulus.

Then there is the information on the Battle of Andoria, which is only linked in Regulus, not in Regulan system, leading to more confusion and discussion.

Why not simply combine these two typed of articles? Neither of these articles are ever going to be very long. Even Sol, likely the biggest star/star system article we'll ever have, are just two small articles at the moment. -- Harry 23:34, 6 Jan 2005 (CET)

The original idea was to separate the "star" from the "system", I think - about a year ago, we started adding all those bits of real astronomical information to articles about stars, and at that point it seemed like a good idea (at least to me) to have a separate article about those "brand name" stars. In these cases, I still think that "star articles" are a good idea. At the same time, we needed the "X system" articles, both because these article titles often were terms used in the episodes and because we simply didn't know (or could only assume) the names of the respective stars. While I still believe that this (having the possibility of both the "star" and "star system" articles) is necessary and a good idea, I agree that this system got out of control somewhat. The best example of this is the "list of stars and stellar bodies" which is more than just a little messy in my opinion. In short, any form of cleanup would be nice, but we can't simply remove either all "star" articles or all "star system" articles. -- Cid Highwind 23:59, 2005 Jan 6 (CET)
Some of them could do without.. i'd still say that every star X that has a system should have an 'X system' redirect should there not be a necessity for a system article. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel
I think we need to narrow down the policy, and only allow 'X system' articles for references for which we don't know the name of the primary (like Goren system, which could strictly speaking also be a planetary system or even a starcluster, judging by the sometimes confusing language). But confirmed stars should not have a separate 'X system' article, and we should use a redirect in these cases. To summarize:
  1. If we have no further information on a system, and the primary of the system is not a known object, put the article at __ system.
  2. Otherwise, if the primary is known, link to that article or use a __ system redirect.
Articles like Devron system are good examples of #1, but cases like Regulus and Alpha Centauri need cleaning up. -- Harry 14:32, 7 Jan 2005 (CET)
I think the rule of thumb is that any system where the system name and the star name are identical should go under the star article. This works well, for example, that Altair is the main article and Altair system simply redirects back to it. The only separate "system" articles that could and should remain in this case are those where the name of the star is unknown or unlisted, or when the system has a separate name from the star. The last system article possible under the new rule would be a tiered system: the Alpha Centauri system has three stars, each with its own separate system (a subsystem?). -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 21:10, 9 Jan 2005 (CET)
User:EtaPiscium is concerned (Talk:Vico system) about the number of redirects this will create. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 21:12, 10 Jan 2005 (CET)
What I propose instead is that only star systems where the star is known and is the same as the system name should be combined with the star systems. That means star systems around real stars (i.e. "Acamar system") would be under "Acamar", as would systems where the star is known (i.e. "Monac"/"Monac system") For systems whose parent stars have never been mentioned (i.e. "Volon system"), I recommend the article stay under "Volon system" because there is no possibility that another article will ever link to just "Volon". That will cut down on the number of redirects enormously, since we know of many systems only through their planets (i.e. "Narendra IV"/"Narendra system") and through them the star ("Narendra"), and there's no need to have a redirect when any conceivable reference to the system will linked to "Narendra system" and not "Narendra". -- EtaPiscium 21:24, 10 Jan 2005 (CET)
I simply think that I prefer the simpler names.. as you can see from Talk:Vico system. If an article's main home resides at the simpler name as a rule, it will be a lot easier to link to about three-quarters of the star / system articles on this site, by keeping them in one main name form, with the separate solar system names that exist only when absolutely necessary. I don't think it makes much of an issue if 10 articles link to a Vico system redirect and only 2 or so link to "Vico (star)" -- because they all end up at the same article. Wiki naming conventions suggest the simpler article name and support an infrastructure of useful redirects anyway, i'm saying we use it. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 21:48, 10 Jan 2005 (CET)
The problem is that there will be no articles that link to "Vico (star)" because it's never been mentioned, nor is "Vico (star)" particularly convenient a link because of the qualifier attached to it. The simplest name is not always the best one; I think that the most logical name is best. In the case of Vico, when I'm writing about the Vico system because it's mentioned in the episode, the obvious thought is to link it to "Vico system", rather than having to make a jump to "Vico (star)", which somebody might not even think of because it's non-intuitive to link to the star when you're talking about the system. If all the systems we know of are instead switched to their stars, there'll be a bunch of broken links from people who're writing and believe that "X system" is the correct nomenclature, that'll either have to be fixed or changed to a redirect. I don't see why we have to implement a system that makes it more difficult for people to put in the correct links. -- EtaPiscium 00:12, 11 Jan 2005 (CET)
I agree with both of you. In the case of Vico, there's enough evidence that Vico is a star. In the case of Volon, there is not. I don't agree with the Narendra example. What's the point of the "Narendra system" page? There is only one planet, Narendra III, and we know absolutely nothing about the Narendra system apart from that. I suggest we don't make ___ system pages for every minor planet with Roman numerals. -- Harry 22:06, 10 Jan 2005 (CET)
Unfortunately there're already a bunch of them out there since a while ago I was looking at edits people made to my planet articles and I started assuming that was the protocol for all planets with Roman numerals. -- EtaPiscium 00:14, 11 Jan 2005 (CET)
This seems to become even more complicated than I feared... Some questions I asked myself when reading this discussion were:
  • Which pages are necessary? I think that each "object" that was mentioned deserves a page - even if it is a redirect page to another article (which makes sense in some cases, of course). Regarding the "Vico"-issue, this means that both "Vico _" (whatever numeral was used in this case) and "Vico system" deserve to exist, while "Vico" is just an assumed title - a good assumption, but still an assumption.
  • What is the simplest title? I agree that articles should exist at a "most simple" title, but what is or isn't "simple" depends on the context. If "Vico system" was mentioned in an episode and "Vico" was not, can the latter one really be the "simplest title"? If "Vico" even is a disambiguation page, does it really make sense to use "Vico (star)" instead of "Vico system"?
There are good arguments for both sides - what we will most probably end up with is a mess of both "star" and "star system" articles, with additional redirects to and from both. It simply isn't possible to create only star articles or only star system articles (although it would be nice, for example when trying to categorize all these). I don't have an easy solution, but I'm unsure if we should simply continue deleting some of the existing pages at the moment... -- Cid Highwind 01:16, 2005 Jan 11 (CET)
Additional note regarding categorization: Please keep in mind that it is not possible to categorize redirects. If we ever want to have a "Category:Stars" or a "Category:Star systems", it might be a good idea to not have a redirect at that article title. Perhaps the idea of having both articles (if both are known or can at least be reasonably assumed, of course) isn't that bad after all? Perhaps we should just update the relevant templates to avoid extraneous clicks (as described in the initial post) instead... -- Cid Highwind 11:50, 2005 Jan 11 (CET)

Groups of pages needing attention Edit

Since these comments refer to complete groups of articles instead of single pages, I'm moving these comments from Memory Alpha:Pages needing attention to this discussion page. If you think that individual articles "need attention", feel free to add the appropriate template. -- Cid Highwind 15:17, 2005 Jan 23 (CET)

  • Pages linked to in Drugs and treatments. Most pages linked through here don't conform to style and are missing sources, references or any other clue as to where in Star Trek it was ever mentioned. -- Redge 20:45, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • Most pages linked to by Government and Politics. A lot of articles linked through here mistake Race and Politic, giving the article the name of the government body and then writing about the species itself, or the other way around. -- Redge 23:24, 29 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • Many of the pages linked to by Language. Many of the longer pages have improper POV, poor organization, and massive amounts of speculation. -- EtaPiscium 03:26, 2 Dec 2004 (CET)

The Star Trek DVD's Edit

I was wondering if a page should be created with information on the six series DVD releases.-Rebelstrike2005 23:59, 28 Jan 2005 (CET)

That could be very useful. Actually, some sort of category containing information on releases of all kinds would be great, ie VHS, DVD, DVD/spec ed., etc. I don't know if this should be separate or listed in the same article as a film/episode, or perhaps both. A separate page is probably best, to avoid a feel of advertising. The extent of this info could also be discussed. -- Toddas 00:36, 30 Jan 2005 (CET)
I think it would be most appropriate to add information of that kind to the "Background information" sections of the "season" articles (such as: TNG Season 1). -- Cid Highwind 13:37, 2005 Jan 30 (CET)
I also noticed that at Star episode guides they now say what DVD number the episode is on-Rebelstrike2005 16:01, 30 Jan 2005 (CET)

Can I go ahead and add DVD information to the various seasons then? - Rebelstrike2005 20:14, 30 Jan 2005 (CET)

Go ahead, I'd say - we could still move that information to another page later, although I think that this won't be necessary. -- Cid Highwind 22:09, 2005 Jan 30 (CET)

Could I talk about the various special features as well?-Rebelstrike2005 22:05, 3 Feb 2005 (CET)

I added the DVD info to the seven DS9 seasons. Let me know what you think.-Rebelstrike2005 13:11, 5 Feb 2005 (CET)


Could sections of lengthy summaries for episodes be aranged under the heading of 'act's, such as Act One - Act Five? --Defiant | Talk 20:55, 4 Feb 2005 (CET)

My thoughts on this matter are already established at Memory Alpha:Nominations for featured articles - I believe that on most summaries, they will distract from the text, and break up the flow of the storyline too much. I try to signify the end of an act with an ellipsis (...) to establish the FADE OUT: typical at the act break (cf "Sacrifice of Angels"). In addition, some summaries are too short for this to be effective, as the subsections are too small. -- Michael Warren | Talk 21:04, Feb 4, 2005 (CET)
Which is why I wrote "lengthy" in the earlier post - if you read it, you'd see that! I tried to nominate an episode page earlier (see "Emergence"), but was told that it should be broken down into sub-headings. So should they or should they not be? If not, why isn't "Emergence" a featured page, yet? --Defiant | Talk 21:13, 4 Feb 2005 (CET)
It's been supported, so it will be when we get around to adding it! As Tyrant said, his request for sub-headings is personal preference, as is my opposition to it. It did not stop him supporting it, as my dislike was not my reason for opposing "Babel One". If you think your summaries work better with subheadings, fine, but each author has their own style of writing and arranging summaries, and I would not force people to such a rigid layout that may impede that. -- Michael Warren | Talk 21:19, Feb 4, 2005 (CET)
Okay, thanks for clearing that up and I'm looking forward to "Emergence" becoming a featured article.--Defiant | Talk 21:24, 4 Feb 2005 (CET)

No double reference Edit

It's not a good style to keep linking one keyword again and again, for expample having Jean-Luc Picard linked inside an episode each time Jean-Luc appears. I read that sometime ago on a talk-page but this isn't an official policy nor is it issued in one of our How To's. Can anyone help me find a MA-resource that makes this "rule of thumb" more "offical"? -- Florian K 22:23, 5 Feb 2005 (CET)

In addition to my above request for clarification on Episode References, I agree that this is something that needs an SOP dictated on. I always ensure not to duplicate my linking on any given pages, and occasionally I edit others' pages to conform to the same; but I am reluctant to do so frequently as I don't know what the rules govening such are. | THOR 20:51, 7 Feb 2005 (CET)

I'm still looking to get guidance on this as well as the same below, but I'm loathe to "nag"; have I addressed this issue in the wrong forum? | THOR 20:17, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)
I'd be interested to hear an "official" word on this myself. It seems to me that the best style would be to link to a keyword only once within an episode summary, but also to link to each name in the cast list so that a user who wants to find out more about, say, Arne Darvin doesn't have to search for where he's mentioned in the episode summary. (Just my $.02.) --Josiah Rowe 00:08, 24 Feb 2005 (GMT)
It has often been said that links should be made only once in an article, see for example User_talk:Ottens#Multiple_links. It is an implicit convention, rather than an explicit one, but it should be made the latter. I will consider where best to put it - perhaps Memory Alpha:Build the web or similar. -- Michael Warren | Talk 00:29, 24 Feb 2005 (GMT)
Do you think that an exception could, or should, be made for cast lists? If you look at "Yesterday's Enterprise", for example (a featured page), you'll find that each of the guest star characters (e.g. Guinan, Natasha Yar and Rachel Garrett) are linked both in the episode summary and in the list of guest stars, which seems appropriate to me. If a user wants to find out more about Captain Garrett, it makes sense (to me) that such a user might scroll past the summary and look at the list of guest stars. I suppose the question is one of ease of use vs. aesthetic convention. --Josiah Rowe 00:43, 24 Feb 2005 (GMT)
I think in longer articles it should be 'allowed' to create a link per section, especially if it is not a character's name. If I read the article, but don't want to click on the link when it first does appear I read on, but if I notice something is mentioned again I might want to read on there. However I can't find the link, because it is within a bulk of text. I would also link all articles that are mentioned in the reference section of an article, for similar reasons: If I don't find the link where do I look? in the reference section, but for some weird reason the article is mentioned there, but not linked and that is very stupid -- Kobi - (Talk) 09:42, 24 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Featured pages Edit

Why does it take so long for these to be added to the list of featured pages? --Defiant | Talk 20:38, 9 Feb 2005 (CET)

  • You are welcome to pick up the slack yourself. Just follow the rules at: Memory Alpha:Featured article policies. Tyrant 00:27, 24 Feb 2005 (GMT)Tyrant
    • Sorry, the question was about nominated articles actually being featured and not just nominated. --Defiant | Talk 01:25, 24 Feb 2005 (GMT)
      • I understood that. Read the policy. Tyrant 02:07, 24 Feb 2005 (GMT)Tyrant
        • Why are so many of these guidelines approximate? Why, for instance, does it read, "Nominations must wait for a minimum of seven days before they are accepted as Featured Articles"? Quite a few of the nominated articles have been on the nominations page (only, without being added to the list of Featured Articles) for longer than that, without any oppositions. Why? Also, why did you post "You are welcome to pick up the slack yourself", when I thought administrators only are able to select what articles become featured pages (with the support or opposition of others, of course)? --Defiant | Talk 03:15, 25 Feb 2005 (GMT)
          • They are still there because no one has moved them. And any logged in user can do it, this was addressed here. Tyrant 03:42, 25 Feb 2005 (GMT)Tyrant

Style question Edit

Quick question - is anyone else missing the horizontal line between the page title header, and "From Memory Alpha,..."? It seems to have disappeared for me some time since the server move, and I can't see how to get it back, having looked through my Monobook.css and the general site one. -- Michael Warren | Talk 18:36, 11 Feb 2005 (GMT)

I've also noticed this -- another thing: all the links contained in the quicklinks and special pages usually point at , but that address has no response -- the only way to stay on the site is to type the www onto the address bar after youve failed to reach the esired page - is the only site that responds. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 18:41, 11 Feb 2005 (GMT)
That's odd, the address is working fine for me (I'm using it right now). The only thing I can think of is your DNS may not be fully updated yet - I did have some problems with that URL not connecting earlier. As for the hr, I was about to send an email to one of the Wikicities tech people, but I thought I'd check to see if it was just me first. I'll see if anyone else checks in with an affirmative, then get onto them. -- Michael Warren | Talk 18:50, 11 Feb 2005 (GMT)

I can help you find the line. You can add one of the following lines to your monobook.css: #siteSub { border-top: 1px solid #aaaaaa; } (will have a line above "from Memory Alpha..."; that's a crude bugfix, but looks the same) OR #bodyContent { background : none; } (solution by Benutzer:FProg; the empty layer "bodyContent" blocks the line from beeing visible. If you'd extend the line, which is attached to each header to 3 or more px, you could see it. Making the layer invisible would bring it back). In the german monobook I implemented the first version because I don't like to "hide" layers I don't know personal. -- Florian - Talk 19:20, 11 Feb 2005 (GMT)

I'll add the second one to the general Monobook.css now - if there are problems, we can replace it with the cruder fix. Thanks, Florian. -- Michael Warren | Talk 19:24, 11 Feb 2005 (GMT)
Please add your updates from MediaWiki:Monobook.css to MediaWiki:Monobook.css/de for us german users. -- Florian - Talk 15:40, 12 Feb 2005 (GMT)

conflicting articles Edit

Hi sorry i may be misunderstanding or misreading an article, so please bare with my question. The page on warp says there is no time dilation because space is moving around the ship not the shit though space. Fine enough, but if thats the case why would stardates have to compensate for differing passages of time at different places?

Because impulse drive is how starships travel at near-relativistic velocities, and noticable time dilation can occur in greater and greater amounts as you get closer to light speed, which is exactly what impulse does -- propels you at high speeds just under the speed of light.
Besides the fact that there are proven holes in space, wormholes and time loops that are encountered by starships on a fairly regular basis. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 02:53, 21 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Patrolled articles? Edit

Sometimes I see a small link at the bottom of a newly created page saying, "Mark this article as patrolled". I can't find any reference to articles being "patrolled" in the Help pages. What exactly does this mean? I can guess that a "patrolled" new page is one that's been OKed in some form, but I'd like to know the details. Is everyone authorized to do this? --Josiah Rowe 19:55, 20 Feb 2005 (GMT)

I haven't seen any "official" information about that, either, but edits that are "marked as patrolled" are no longer marked with a '!' in the list of recent changes. Apparently, anyone who is logged in can do this. -- Cid Highwind 20:17, 20 Feb 2005 (GMT)
For a brief introduction read Help:Recent changes patrol. Florian - Talk 19:12, 22 Feb 2005 (GMT)
Thanks, Florian! So marking an article as "patrolled" simply means, "it's not vandalism". Useful. --Josiah Rowe 20:51, 22 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Unusual people list Edit

I'd like to see a list created that would allow us to show all of the unusual guest stars that have wandered onto star trek sets. No idea what we could call it, but it would nice to see them compiled. Non-actors like Abdullah ibn al-Hussein, Stephen Hawking and Mae Jemison. There are also a lot of hollywood style celebrities (not really my taste but i'm sure someone would like them listed) as well as interesting people visiting behind the scenes - The Dalai Lama for example. Any ideas? Tyrant 17:26, 3 Mar 2005 (GMT)Tyrant

Not a bad idea, although I agree that finding a name for such a list is daunting. List of non-actor guest stars is pretty awkward, but IMO better than List of unusual guest stars. List of notable guest stars might work if you want a single list to include the non-actors and folks like Ashley Judd and Kirsten Dunst. (The page could be divided into non-actors and Hollywood stars, or something.) --Josiah Rowe 17:48, 3 Mar 2005 (GMT)
I like List of notable guest performers myself -- but with the use of "notable" we may need to create a consensus process on Talk:List of notable guest performers to help decide borderline cases -- some people consider people more notable than others might. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 18:24, 3 Mar 2005 (GMT)

List of books Edit

I was thinking we could use a List of books from the star trek universe. Everything from Book of the Kosst Amojan to How to Advance Your Career Through Marriage. However, I worried it might be confused with books from the real world, so a better title might be in order. I also gave some thought about adding the books to the List of recreational activities, however that is also problematic as it is seperated into species. This brings up other questions like List of movies. Any thoughts? Tyrant 12:15, 4 Mar 2005 (GMT)Tyrant

    • I just came across this, so it might not be necessary. Tho, redirects are needed if we decide to just leave it as is. Tyrant 12:56, 4 Mar 2005 (GMT)Tyrant

peer review? Edit

I know that wikipedia has a function called peer review where you can request scrutiny on an article for the ultimate purposes making it Featured Article material. Would it be possible to do implement like that here? Perhaps along the lines of the {{pna}} articles where you can attach it to a page and have it categorize itself to a page were you can view what articles are requesting peer reviews. -- THOR 23:07, 8 Mar 2005 (GMT)

It's a good idea, I think, but I'd hate to create even more lists that are basically ignored just as the "pna-lists" are at the moment. Articles get added to these lists, but I don't often see someone actually working to remove them from the lists again. Does anyone have an idea to improve this situation? -- Cid Highwind 10:42, 15 Mar 2005 (GMT)
Maybe put links to the pna categories on 'Special Pages', that way people might see those links sooner and might be invited to make some changes ? As far as I can see you can only reach those categories via Recent changes. -- Q 18:44, 15 Mar 2005 (GMT)
'Special Pages' is a special page itself - I don't think we can add anything to that list. However, I added a link to the hub page Memory Alpha:Pages needing attention to the main page, maybe that helps. Feel free to suggest other sensible places to link "PNA" from or do it yourself if the page isn't protected. -- Cid Highwind 07:53, 21 Mar 2005 (EST)

Comic Relief VI Edit

I know this may sound silly, but should we include an entry or entries related to the skit performed by the Star Trek: The Next Generation cast on Comic Relief VI? For those who haven't seen it, a transcript can be found at Google Groups. It was filmed by the whole season seven main cast (and aired during season seven of the show) except for Patrick Stewart and utilized the actual conference lounge set. --Lenonn

We could put a small note, or a page of information on this. However, since it's behind-the-scenes, it's literally how we would treat blooper scenes, though this is more important. Enzo Aquarius 01:47, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)
I'd suggest a section where we could compile popular trek parodies, there have been a few. Many of them have poped up on MA and been deleted, so it might please a few users. Tyrant 02:00, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)Tyrant
I'd caution about creating individual articles for anything without a canon reference -- so i'd recommend limiting the parody mentions to perhaps an annotated list, with links to any relevant keywords -- i dont see the need for a new article for every Wrath of Farrakhan or Star Wreck that some pirate has undertaken. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 09:25, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)
    • That's pretty much what I had in mind. A list with short discriptions and maybe external links? Tyrant 19:47, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)Tyrant
Another good parody reference was the 30th anniversary show Frasier/voyager crossover sketch -- they had the cast of Frasier in starfleet uniforms on a mockup of the VOY bridge, but Kelsey Grammer was on a bender, and didnt show up for taping. -- Kate Mulgrew stepped in and played the captain of voyager. I think it would've been swell to see him in a TNG era uniform -- perhaps to imagine if Morgan Bateson was still in service. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 09:25, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)
Just checking. I wish I knew who wrote the dialogue (Whoopi, one of the show's writers, or the cast themselves). I know it won't be considered canon, but since it was filmed on the show's sets, I figured it might have some importance to it.

VCR Board Game Edit

The same goes for the VCR Board Game by Decipher (A Klingon Challenge). The video was filmed on the TNG sets and starred Robert O'Reilly as a Klingon who steals an empty Enterprise and tries to start a war between the Klingon Empire and the UFP.

This game would deserve a separate article, falling under the games page -- browse that list for how game articles are named and laid out -- Captain Mike K. Bartel

Century and century pages Edit

I strongly suspect this has already been discussed somewhere, but I couldn't find the relevant discussion. The "century" pages are inconsistent: most are now at titles with lowercase "c" (as I think is appropriate), with redirects at the Century page but 22nd century, 24th century, 25th century and 26th century are all actual articles, with redirects at 22nd century, etc. Could an admin/sysop/whoever can do this sort of thing switch these around? (I'd do it myself, but doesn't it require the redirect to be deleted first?) --Josiah Rowe 08:39, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)

That sounds like a perfect task for a bot -- Kobi - (Talk) 09:45, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)

List of appearances Edit

Some of the 'list of appearances' on species articles are getting long, it looks combersom. I suggest creating seperate pages as was done with 'list of people' on such pages when they became too long. Tyrant 19:47, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)Tyrant

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)
Would there be any objections to my creating categories for episode types based on primary storyline? For instance, Klingon, Romance, First Contact, Medical, War, Romulan, Ferengi, Cardassian, Bajoran Religion, Borg, Vulcan, Character Death. Alison9 08:17, 13 Jan 2005 (CET)
Would there be any use for a "Weapons" category? I think it would be good to have all the weapons articles accessable via one page. What does anyone else think? zsingaya 08:08, 14 Jan 2005 (CET)
I like it. We need to put it up for a community vote to apporve the naming of the category (to be sure it fits with what we are doing). Submit it at Memory Alpha talk:Category tree for evaluation, it should be able to get working on something like it soon. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 16:42, 14 Jan 2005 (CET)
I've restructured the Memory Alpha:Category tree to include two new pages designed to smooth the process -- Memory Alpha:Category suggestions and Memory Alpha:Category tree suggestions. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 18:31, 16 Mar 2005 (EST)

Do we need a mailinglist? Edit

Since we came to wikicities there's an option of mailing-lists (see left hand navigation). Do we need a mailing-list? We have wiki-pages (e.g. Ten Forwards) on all three languages, we have a message board, user talk pages... And though I like the idea of (one) mailing-list for all three versions to have a central announcement method for important stuff which could affect all of us, since the message board doesn't work; it's too inconvenient to have a regular look at the board plus there are just a few archivists. This mailing-list could be a way to announce last-minute upgardes or outages as well as wiki-wide problems. -- Florian - Talk 05:20, 20 Mar 2005 (EST)

Although the mailing list link is there, there isn't currently a list configured for this wiki, so please let me know if you do need it and I can create one then. Angela 22:33, 30 Mar 2005 (EST)

Changing Series Pages Edit

I really think there should be a voting system for changing the long series pages, much like the Featured Articles system. These pages are a major part of MA, and if this was done, it would help to avoid vandalism. --Defiant | Talk 12:16, 30 Mar 2005 (EST)

If users would discuss page changes rather than just reverting edits without explanation as you did, perhaps it would be more productive. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 12:47, 30 Mar 2005 (EST)

Exactly! I very strongly believe that people should discuss changes, before they are made and that significant changes to the series pages ought be done democratically. It seems to me like we're both arguing for similar things here, Mike!
I think the TOS and TNG pages should be returned to how they were before you edited them, so a vote can be taken on whether they stay like that, or if the changes you suggest are made. --Defiant | Talk 12:57, 30 Mar 2005 (EST)

I understand Defiant's point, you should make your changes to Star Trek: The Original Series/temp, work out the layout and then ask if some improvements could be made. For example I think the template:TOS Season 3 is a cool idea, however I personally don't like the numbered scheme. I suggest these edits are on hold for a while until this is discussed -- Kobi - (Talk) 13:29, 30 Mar 2005 (EST)

Episode References Edit

I see everywhere differing styles of referencing episodes; and cannot find in the Manual of Style anything specific that denotes what the SOP is. Personally, on the articles I've worked on, I use:


(TNG: "Encounter at Farpoint")

or as a list:

And while I ensure to maintain continuity within my own articular contributions; I do not see that within MA as a whole. I would like to keep an eye out and make conformation when I need to refarding episode references, but need first to know what the standard is. | THOR 21:38, 3 Feb 2005 (CET)

It won't help you when I tell you from the german Memory Alpha. I can't remind me of any rule of style that tells me how to arrange such references and so everyone has his own style. I once brought up the very same issue on the german 10F which led to (TNG: "Encounter at Farpoint"); italic to emphase on the meta-trek nature and quto-marks for titles. -- Florian K 11:13, 8 Feb 2005 (CET)
I'm still looking to get guidance on this as well as the same below, but I'm loathe to "nag"; have I addressed this issue in the wrong forum? | THOR 20:16, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)
That style is what has traditionally been used, since the start of the wiki, for referencing episodes. I will add something to this effect to Memory Alpha:Cite your sources, and possibly the Manual of Style. I have noticed the italicizing of said references creeping in, and have reverted to the original style when found for consistency. -- Michael Warren | Talk 00:22, 24 Feb 2005 (GMT)
I'm still seeing users using italicization with episode references. I am hesitant to continually change them: checking both Memory Alpha:Cite your sources and Manual of Style this doesn't seem to have been added as official SOP; and as such I have no regulatory backing or standing to be making these changes other than this 10F thread. -- THOR 13:39, 18 Mar 2005 (EST)
Well, since it is said to emphasise book titles it is only logical to emphasise episode and movie titles as well. It does also merge with the style to indent and italicise background information. Keeping a list without italicisation is also an analogon to keeping an entire background section un-italicised. (see: Episodenverweise) -- Kobi - (Talk) 14:06, 18 Mar 2005 (EST)
My take on this is as follows: I understand everyone's point here, but to me - despite "professional writing guides", it is, frankly, rather distracting when I am trying read an article and see non-italicized items that are from outside the "Trek-universe" POV, as I have yet to see a good explaination as to why it must be included inside the "Trek-universe" POV when it really belongs to ours (the outside). That certainly was not what was in mind when they designed the MLA guide -- that is jumping in and out of "reality". Natually if I see it in italics I will skip over it or click it if I wish to go to the page, otherwise there are several cases where in the middle of a paragraph there will be three long unitalicized episode references in a row and it really takes away from the natural flow of the fiction. --Gvsualan 22:06, 27 Feb 2005 (GMT)
I understand this argument, and have some sympathy with it; however, what I find distracting is inconsistency in the format between articles, or, worse, within a given article. If there were a consensus that all inline references should be in italics, I might support making a bot to make those changes (if such a thing is possible). However, as things stand now the majority of entries are in (roughly) MLA standard, which puts names of television series and films in italics, but puts individual episodes unitalicized in quotation marks. Barring a consensus that we should change this, I'm going to continue to put citations in the current standard form. I won't edit an article to change an italicized citation alone, but if I'm making other changes to an article I'll probably change the citations to the current standard while I'm at it. --Josiah Rowe 15:21, 28 Mar 2005 (EST)

I went ahead and made some changes to Memory Alpha:Cite your sources about citations. I myself could not find what the preferred citation form should be so I put in the first and most seen, as far as I can tell, form -- Q 01:51, 28 Mar 2005 (EST)

That page ought to have something about film citation as well. The standard has been that the names of TV series and films are put in italics (per MLA form), but I hesitate to put that on the page myself until the subject has been aired a bit more fully here. --Josiah Rowe 15:21, 28 Mar 2005 (EST)
Maybe a short vote (for example over a ten day period) on the two styles to see which is the preferred one by the archivists. I did some quick research on citations and found several styles and some depend on if you are writing an article or a book. There is however something to be said to keep the citations styles between the different MA's the same. -- Q 04:18, 3 Apr 2005 (EDT)
I'm a big supporter of italics for all information that is out of Trek POV -- this includes episode names when the occur in or behind paragraphs. I know some users are making an effort to remove this style, but that seems preemptive -- there's never been a clear consensus on it.
One think i'd like to do away with is italicizing alternate timelines -- the events of an alternate timeline don't take place from "our" POV, therefore they should not be styled so -- besides, there is always confusion over what is alternate -- for example, what happened on Earth in "Storm Front" is alternate, but the events that occurred aboard ship was "real" -- the people all went home remembering having lived that -- it was a "real" part of their lives and timeline that they visited another timeline, therefore those events arent covered
Since alternate timelines are ambiguous anyway, i dont see any real way to conclude what really happened in the end of some of the more complex ones -- so italicizing them is a really uninformative and distracting feature. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:48, 3 Apr 2005 (EDT)
I certainly recognize my name when it's not said, but I would like to clarify my position on this subject:
I do no espouse to "support" one variety of reference standardization over another. I just want defined clarity on what the standard should be. I now make changes based on Memory_Alpha:Cite_your_sources, but beforehand I simply wanted some standard; I chose the variety that I did (the same that was added to the cite your sources page) because it's what I felt I saw more frequently and proliferously, therefore making it easier to change fewer pages to an already unofficially stated standard.
As for what preferences I do have: I suppose I would prefer the italicization of all OOC (out of character) information (episode/movie references, background information, notes, bloopers, tidbits, etc) and the indention of alternate timelines/universes. I would support wiki-linking as frequently as the majority prefers, but personally lean towards once per article -- or once per section for articles long enough to garner tables of contents. That's my 3¢ — THOR 11:32, 6 Apr 2005 (EDT)
I certainly support indentation over italicization for alternate universe happenings. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 11:43, 6 Apr 2005 (EDT)

MA/nl Edit

Hi I just hit the wrong link and was brought to MA/nl. I had to notice that Gebruiker:Buttfucker has removed content of ~100 articles and also posted pornography. Isn't there someone responsible for that wiki because that vandalism was on the 25th! -- Kobi - (Talk) 03:42, 29 Mar 2005 (EST)

I've seen it, but as my exams are comming up, I don't have the time to correct it. i'm going to need other editors on Dutch MA te help me out. So far, however, I haven't seen more than two or three editors work on MA at a time. Any suggestions? -- Redge | Talk 05:44, 29 Mar 2005 (EST)
I'm sure that some of the MA/en and /de admins (me included) could check for the most obvious vandalism from time to time if you would grant us admin rights there. If there really aren't any contributors at the time, though, it might be best to put that part of MA "on hold" (if possible)... -- Cid Highwind 08:33, 29 Mar 2005 (EST)
As long as my dutch isn't in shape, I just can assist as a spam-detector. Although, I'de love to see more dutch users online to edit and expand. -- Florian - Talk 11:00, 30 Mar 2005 (EST)
Any help is welcome, but I don´t know how we can get more Dutch to the Dutch MA. I´ve tried pointing the site out on a few Star trek sites I know, but it didn´t meet with much enthousiasm. I theorize this is because most Dutch trekkies know enough English not to need a Dutch translation. -- Redge | Talk 11:06, 3 Apr 2005 (EDT)
I´m also having a bug in the MA/nl skin I´d hoped someone could help us with. All common text is colored black in stead of white. Where do I fix that? -- Redge | Talk 11:42, 3 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Best thing to have a synchronized CSS for all languages will be to insert a template-tag into those monobook.css/LANG pages, see Overleg MediaWiki:Monobook.css/de. This is an open issue here, too. -- Florian - talk 04:18, 14 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Star Trek Related Music? Edit

We already have a section on such non-canon works such as books and games. Should we create a new section for music about Star Trek? For example Warp 11, No Kill I, Sto-Vo-Kor, and any other Star Trek related bands or music could get pages that fall into this section. --docdude316 22:48, 6 Apr 2005 (EDT)

These would be fandom bands, unlicensed works, correct? These aren't something MA accepts at this time. Licensed works are fine for inclusion in the Trek Franchise area, but not these. -- Michael Warren | Talk 08:59, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Battle BoxesEdit

I have noted a new user implementing so-called "battle boxes" into all our major battle pages. Whilst I understand what the user is trying to do, I find these inclusions both distracting and badly-designed, and generally unsuitable for this reference. I would note to this user (following his edit summaries of "adding Wikipedia-style battle table") that MA is not Wikipedia, and so does not follow the same style conventions. I have reverted for now, but wish to get further opinion from the rest of the Archivists. Please see [1] for an example. -- Michael Warren | Talk 08:59, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)

I'd support the inclusion of a standardized sidebar which is useful to the kind of information our battle articles contain -- for example, the Wikipedia version lists casualties, there are only three or four Trek battles that we have reliable casualty numbers. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 10:29, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)
I'd support it as well. I'd like to find a format that would better accomodate/incorporate the MA styling, but I think they could certainly work out well. We could gen up a standardized template based on the MA style and put it up on "Memory Alpha:Article templates". — THOR 11:18, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Operation Return
Conflict: Dominion War
Etc.: Etc..
I'd recommend using the standard wiki-sidebar class table -- using the "class" modifier probably allows us to reformat all the sidebar tables on the sit simply by updating the style sheet -- so that's a non-issue. Just what information to put in.

List of composersEdit

Could pages be created like the list of director pages for all of the people who composed music for the series and movies? -Rebelstrike2005 11:03, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)

I'd say yes -- this is a natural outgrowth of our production information -- but suitable names for each article need to be found. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 11:07, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)
I was just thinking of just List of DS9 composers
Sounds like a good idea to me. Why don't we start articles like this for the many other people involved in certain aspects of Star Trek? Enzo Aquarius 18:01, 8 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Good idea, I was also thinking of a list of writers but thought it might be too long -- Rebelstrike2005 06:12, 11 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Maybe we could have a Star Trek production staff list? -- Rebelstrike2005 18:05, 13 Apr 2005 (EDT)
I'll start creating the article soon. - Rebelstrike2005 12:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

DVD LinkEdit

Could someone please place a link to the DVD page on the Main Page, under "Other Sources"? --Defiant | Talk 20:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if that would be appropriate. A DVD, in my opinion, is not an "other source" (as a novel or a game is), but just another way of publishing the episodes and movies. I might be in the minority, of course, but I think this needs some discussion first. -- Cid Highwind 13:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Star Trek DVDs include much more than the actual episodes and movies. A great amount of behind-the-scenes trivia can be learned from them, some of which has already influenced articles here at Memory Alpha. The DVDs are probably more of an insightful source than the novels, as these present facts about canon Trek. --Defiant | Talk 15:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Defiant. Some of the special features can be very useful to Memory Alpha. -- Rebelstrike2005 18:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is there anyone else who feels that the DVDs are not as resourceful as novels or games? Is there anyone else that feels that they are? Opinions would be appreciated. --Defiant | Talk 09:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK, you convinced me, I didn't really think about the bonus features. :) No one else seems to have any objections, so I will add a link to the main page now. -- Cid Highwind 15:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. --Defiant | Talk 19:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Typographically correct punctuation Edit

(moved from Talk:Benjamin Sisko:

For more details on the changes I made to the punctuation in this article, see and

Ian Adams 10:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think that this style brings only difficulties. It slows down to write an article and also doesn't look very good in a browser at this font size. This is not word and the simple quotation marks " do fulfil our needs.
But what I also want to address is the slowly spreading illogical quotation: Why does it have to be "The Cage", "Where No Man Has Gone Before"?? the komma has nothing to do with the article and it really slows down reading a series of references -- Kobi - (Talk) 10:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually Kobi, i prefer tht way (with punctuation correctly within the quotes) -- i believe it is also the American English standard -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 12:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed you started to use that quotation style: I also am aware that it is considered typographically correct in American English, but I wanted to address that it doesn't make sense when used in single emphasised words, and especially not in lists. I'm already semi-comfortable with having to use -yze -se -o- -er and so on, though being taught otherwise from first lesson in school, but in the case of illogical quoting I must say stop here. That is why I put it here too: I want to hear the opinion of the international visitors, maybe I'm not the only one who has difficulties to read those lists. I also noticed that people started to include full stops within links (asuming they are following the "include dots rule", so that they created links like "The Cage." -- Kobi - (Talk) 14:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I must take exception though to people parenthesizing an episode reference when it occurs as an object in a sentence -- for example "In (TNG: "Family"), Data met.." -- The point of parentheses is to separate a thought that is part of a sentence, obviously we can't intend to separate "Family" because it is non removable ("In, Data met something" is not a sentence). "In "Family", Data.." or "In TNG: "Family", Data.."
However, an episode title is a separate thought when placed at the end of a sentence, but it is still included as part of a sentence, so therefore does not deserve an extra period: "Data met Dr. Soong. (TNG: "Brothers")." is incorrect, because "(TNG: "Brothers")" is not a complete thought or statement -- it is a parentetical add-on to the sentence, so the correct form would be "Data met Dr. Soong. (TNG:"Brothers")" or even, possibly including it as part of the parent sentence as "Data met Dr. Soong (TNG:"Brothers")." -- but not with both having a period. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 13:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Isn’t that defined in the MoS?
Ian Adams 13:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The “style” is only more time-intensive on very long, already published articles. (I put “style” in quotes because it isn’t just a style: it’s proper English.) But then I had no problem going through and making the adjustments. When you’re writing copy from scratch, however, it takes no time at all. I just use the free tool available at and it is able to do all the formatting for me at the click of a button. The argument against how it looks at small font sizes is hardly applicable since the font sizing is done in ems in the style sheet — users can (and frequently do) adjust the font size in their browser. And even then, at the default size, I’d say that it actually looks quite a bit better. Certainly more legible, and definitely more professional and polished.

Either way, it’s a Wiki — it’s not like we’re on a deadline. ;)

Ian Adams 13:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think usiing ' " and -- are fine. One of the points of a wiki is to use the simplest markup possible, so I'm going to go with the characters that are already on my keyboard -- also, it confuses me when i open up a file and find that this reads & #8217; & #8212; & #8217; & #8217; -- this is simply unacceptable because it makes our markup impossible to read for the casual user, for what amounts to only minor, minor characters. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree - in fact, there's a section called Keep it simple in our Manual of Style that states exactly this: HTML markup should be avoided in most circumstances. -- Cid Highwind 14:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oooh, touché on me (from the MoS, which I would have posted minutes ago if you guys could have stopped responding ;) ):
"For uniformity and to avoid problems with the wiki software and the searching utility, use straight quotation marks and apostrophes, and avoid curved marks such as the backtick (the so-called "smart quotes")."
Although I suppose, then, that it should be rephrased to say "use single and double primes instead of quotation marks and apostrophes". :P
But the author is right: I tried searching for "Benjamin's" (a word that came up often in the article), and it didn't pull up the article for Benjamin Sisko. I'll go ahead and re-apply the non-typographically correct single and double primes. Please don't just revert, as that will lose many grammatical and other copy corrections that I also did at the time. I said I'll handle it and I will. :)
Sorry for jumping the gun, folks!
Ian Adams 14:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wow, that was a quick decision -- Kobi - (Talk) 14:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Good question about the MoS including this, Ian -- I actually forgot the other day, when I was trying to remember how to explain to a user why I was removing mdashes -- that extra characters coded like that are examples of an HTML-style code, and to be avoided in the main articles -- maybe we could amend the MoS to clarify that, to make it clearer, because it was something i wasn't clear about right away. And to clarify points where American English (our standard) conflicts with International English, like the punctuation within quotations issue. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Kobi, I agree with you on the fact it might be unwise to do so in lists (punctuate within quotes) -- did you mean parenthetical end-of-paragraph lists or what other kind of situations would you like to make an exception to this rule -- we can clarify this for a policy addition to better synthesize a preferred writing style - -Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
Jeez, now it's hard to keep track of how many levels deep these conversations are. ;)
Anyway, I do agree with Captain Mike on the point of punctuation within quotations, since that is proper American English; however I think it would be prudent to do the opposite (punctuation outside of quotations) in the case of links, otherwise you increase the chances of someone mistakenly making the punctuation mark a part of the link, as Kobe demonstrated. I do agree with Kobe, also, that they should be outside of quotations in the case of lists; it definitely makes it harder to read those lists when done with punctuation within quotations. How's that for a compromise? :D
And Kobi, I do feel your pain — the "-yze -se -o- -er and so on" did certainly take some getting used to. :)
Ian Adams 15:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm suggesting to use the system of "logical quotation", it has just one additional rule: Does the dot/comma belong to the quote? It applies the same rule that is already used in American English with the question (?) and exclamation mark (!) to the comma (,) and dot (.). All other rules stay untouched. That way a list of episode references would look "Episode 1", "Episode 2", "Episode 3". -- Kobi - (Talk) 15:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well then -- I'd like to propose we maintain the standard style for the rarer converstional mentions (where the episode lives as an object in a sentence) -- Spiner played both characters in "Datalore"." (this doesn't happen as much since most episode references are in lists -- but when episodes in quotations are listed they should always be required to operate with a comma or semicolon outside their quotes, even when mentioned conversationally -- ENT: "The Aenar"; TAS: "Yesteryear"; etc. or They were seen only in TOS: "Arena"; TAS: "The Time Trap" and ENT: "In a Mirror, Darkly". -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ehm, almost, according to the logical quotation it is: Spiner played both characters in "Datalore". because the quotation marks belong to the episode name exclusivly. Just think of the quotation marks as another HTML-Tag: you don't intersect different tags, but can only nest them: <i><b>bold</b> italic</i>, wrong: <b><i>bold</b> italic</i>. -- Kobi - (Talk) 16:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just a general comment, please consider that there are contributors who are not fluent in english, like me, who are happy if they can write understandable english, or something to that effect. So please keep the grammer rules as simple as possible. As far as I can tell this discussion was about , or ; when summing up items. I am happy with both versions and as far as I knows it is always put behind the quoted text (not within the quotes itself) in most western languages -- Q 17:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well I still don't like breaking the American English standard -- but I'm willing to compromise for the sake of making these episode citations as uniform as possible. One thing I intend to practice is placing the series after the episode title when it's mentioned conversationally -- that way, there's no likelihood of punctuation ever coming after an episode reference, which means the style wont be broken when the episode occurs as an object in the sentence. For example: (TNG: "Datalore"; ENT: "United") when in parentheses, and when used in a sentence: He played the character in "The Defector" (TNG), and also in "Emissary" (DS9). This will eliminate the possibility for this to happen in sentences or lists. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 22:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I can understand that, and must say it is a great workaround. I have just one minor suggestion for the lists namely that the semi-colon is used to seperate references from different series: (TNG: "Datalore"; ENT: "United", "The Aenar"). How's that? -- Kobi - (Talk) 08:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Awesome idea! that occurred to me the other day as well. If any of this isn't covred in Memory Alpha:Manual of Style and Memory Alpha:Cite your sources, we should add it. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 17:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The advertisements on Memory AlphaEdit

I don't mind the advertisements, but could they be moved slightly so that they don't cover the images? For example, look at the picture of the NX-01 at the NX-class article. -- Rebelstrike2005 16:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"List of..." Edit

I think there might be some value to all of our list of articles shortening their title -- since there is very rarely an article with a plural title, every single "List of" article could have those two words removed and become its root subject, making it easier to conversationally link to ("numerous [[military conflicts]]..." over "numerous [[list of military conflicts|military conflicts]]...," for example), and also easier to tabulate alphabetically (The Cardassian article would list links to Cardassian ranks, Cardassian history, Cardassian starships, etc -- a standard form for associating subarticles -- the lists will fit fine into the shorter and preferably simpler termed article name), and evolve to correspond or redirect to a list category. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 01:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll buy that. Just say 'when' and I'll help with the move. --Gvsualan 20:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A great idea, and helps save time when writting articles. Enzo Aquarius 02:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I must have a look, but if you intend to change all the links and will make those changes "invisible" I can offer the help of Morn. If this really becomes the new style of Memory Alpha he could change all the links of List of military conflicts and turn them into Military conflicts. It should be no problem I must only find the correct program. All I would need is a list of all the lists that were changed. -- Kobi - (Talk) 08:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with that change. As our list categories, list articles could simply have titles in the plural form (whereas all articles that are not lists should then have singular titles). However, I suggest to postpone that change a little and combine it with the creation of a Category:Lists, simply because it is easier to find all existing list articles while they still have a common prefix. -- Cid Highwind 09:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Update on the bot offer: it is really possible: In MA/de Morn cleared a lot of redirects. However when solving a redirect it has to be entered one by one. If you want the changes to be made by the bot, move the pages and post the link on my talk page or at Morn's to-do. Btw: categorisation is DataMA's speciality ;) -- Kobi - (Talk) 18:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input guys -- i think we are ready to go on Category:Lists, and then once we categorize all of our articles that currently begin with "List of," then we can start moving the articles, and then the services of the robot would change all the links. Let's go! -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 18:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One more thing to figure out -- do we prefer List of Vulcans (and all other similarly named articles) to be at Vulcans or at Vulcan people -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 19:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Planets Edit

I suggest we start a list of unnamed planets, in order to accomodate planets such as the one which the Organians were studying in ENT: "Observer Effect" and the planet that was rich in magnesite in "Bound". --Defiant | Talk 18:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article is at Unnamed planets. Any unnamed planets that anyone finds can be added there. --Defiant | Talk 11:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lists of...Edit

I'd like to see a spacial anomalies, temporal anomalies and a medical procedures. Any thoughts? Tyrant 16:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)Tyrant

Feel free to start them or, if you don't want to write them yourself, request them on Memory Alpha:Requested articles. :) -- Cid Highwind 17:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I like to test the water first these days as i've found initiative can put on the defensive around here. heh. Tyrant 17:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)Tyrant

Well, there's no policy to stop you from creating any article you like. However, if the article turns out to be useless for some reason (in the case of a list: if there are too few items, for example), someone else might suggest it for deletion... That's life. ;) -- Cid Highwind 17:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'd suggest spatial anomalies (correct spelling)
Just because someone has input on whether an article should exist, or whether it should be altered or renamed, i wouldn't really see it as being "on the defensive" -- it's part of wiki collaboration when someone corrects some spelling or tries to ensure that an article reaches a higher level of quality -- we're all working on the same project here. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 17:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. However, wording should be considered and insult avoided. Tyrant 17:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)Tyrant

I agree that its very easy to take insult here -- i've been on both sides of that particular coin, and its always regrettable when it causes friction, but I think I've tried to make amends with everyone who I considered to be insulting me, so I'm always willing to work on issues with anyone who feels i've insulted them. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 17:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My solution was to simply stop making major contributions a few months back, heh. (I'm still doing a few hours of link hunting dayly) And for the record I wasn't talking about you. Tyrant 19:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)Tyrant

10,000th article Edit

I noticed after I created T'Pring that it was the 10,000th article (see Special:Statistics), I thought this might be of some historical value. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see the count of the number of articles has stopped at 9999 articles. -- rebelstrike 17:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's at 10009 now. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

¿Should we use Roman Numerals or letters for numbers? Edit

I notice that we currently use letters for numbers. I believe we should use Roman Numerals for numbers thus:

Instead of letters for numbers thus:

  1. I
  2. II
  3. IV
  4. V
  5. VI
  6. VII
  7. VIII
  8. IX
  9. X
  10. XI
  11. XII
  1. i
  2. ii
  3. iv
  4. v
  5. vi
  6. vii
  7. viii
  8. ix
  9. x
  10. xi
  11. xii

MediaWiki is fully Unicode-compliant, so no technical reason exists for not using Roman Numerals for numbers. — — Ŭalabio 22:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, but a practical one exists. How exactly does one enter these codes? Are they easier to enter and remember than Shift-i? I seriously doubt it. MediaWiki may be Unicode-compliant, but keyboards are not. Besides which, the Unicode characters look appallingly out of place next to standard text - Archer Ⅳ vs. Archer IV. -- Michael Warren | Talk 22:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"How exactly does one enter these codes?" That is easy:
  1. The menu "Edit"
  2. The menu-item "Special Characters"
  3. The Unicode-Block "Number-Forms"

¡It is as easy as πr²!

"Besides which, the Unicode characters look appallingly out of place next to standard text - Archer Ⅳ vs. Archer IV." The true Roman Numerals look great to me.

— Ŭalabio 23:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can you do that in Internet Explorer or Safari? I can't find that menu in IE, and I don't recall seeing it in Safari. Besides, with all do respect, three mouse steps to add "Ⅳ" is much more than the two keyboard taps it takes to put in "IV". -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 05:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Since people say that these characters do not show on cellphones and the like, I drop this request for now (I reserve the right to bring this up in a decade or two when our Borg-like implants will solve the technical problems) but to answer your question. I use Safari. The menu "Edit" is the menu between "File" and "View". It is available in most applications. The option "Special Character" is an option on the menu "Edit". Selecting "Special Characters" causes a dialogue-box to appear with a side-bar of Unicode-Ranges such as "Miscellaneous Symbols" which contains these useful symbols:

Sol 0
Sol Ⅰ
Sol Ⅱ
♁ ☾
Sol Ⅲ
Sol Ⅳ
Sol Ⅴ
Sol Ⅵ
Sol Ⅶ
Sol Ⅷ
Sol Ⅸ

— Ŭalabio 11:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, the letters look better than the unicode, and it would be a pain to try to redo all the wikilinks and force everyone to use the same system. The unicode for "eleven" and "twelve" also show up as blocks on my browser... -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 22:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"it would be a pain to try to redo all the wikilinks and force everyone to use the same system." Just moving an article to a new title leave a redirect. "The unicode for "eleven" and "twelve" also show up as blocks on my browser ... " They look great on my end.

— Ŭalabio 23:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) So Memory Alpha will only look great to one user? I'm sorry, but I can't describe to you how awful your Unicode text looks like when browsed on my Linux machine, or my cellphone.

One of the basic principles of a wiki is to keep it simple -- to use the most common and easiest way to present information, so that it is more likely to be intuitively linked to, attract potential editors' attentions and so forth. This is a basic technical violation of our foundation here -- to present the data in a way which excludes some readers from being able to view it. Standard keyboard text is used for a reason, as is wiki markup -- to remove the problems associated with extraneous characters and HTML code. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 23:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree, keep everything simple. IV is clear, easy to understand and to enter into an article. Besides that I find the unicode characters ugly because of there strange font, it looks like someone squased the letters together. -- Q 06:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Unregistered users Edit

Just an open discussion, with no agenda. With the constant vandalism and typically very poor articles and submissions created by unregistered users, are they becoming more trouble than they are worth? Or is the non-registration policy the best way to allow new users to become involved immediately and learn the ropes? Has Memory Alpha reached a stage where it is best that only registered users are permitted, to maintain its integrity and cut down on vandalism? Or is it easier to identify vandalism when ip addresses stick out among a list of familiar users? What are your thoughts and opinions? -- Dmsdbo 00:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Just my two cents -- i think unregistered users are more valuable than registered users sometimes, especially when it comes to fleshing out real life topics like military parlance, elemental chemistry, particle physics, etc, etc.. while they have no concept of or respect for the idea of a valid resource when it comes to "canon" Star Trek, they still know more than I do about a lot of subjects like that, and have no trouble writing about them.
However, I think the vandalism is getting a little extreme -- many blocked IP users are obviously coming back to taunt us on a new IP address a few minutes later -- our block process is far from being useful right now because of the vandals' ability to use a different IP a few minutes after being blocked. I find it especially troublesome thaty they have targeted me, and a few other users, it makes me seem they have a score to settle, even if it just a non-star trek fans' natural instinct to make fun of a star trek fan asserting itself. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 02:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
If anonymous users are targeting your user page (which is 1. what I thought I'd seen in the past, and 2. what I think you're saying here), would it be possible to restrict the editing rights for user pages to the registered user, i.e., only I or an admin could edit my user page, only you or another admin could edit your user page, etc.? (The "Talk" pages should be left open as the obvious way for others to communicate with a user.) Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I don't know how much of a pain it would be to implement that kind of functionality. Anyway, it was just a thought on how to deal with vandalism of personal pages. I don't really see much of a way to restrict the vandalism on the regular pages without losing the advantages already mentioned in this discussion. -- umrguy42 10:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I would point out that our "friend" yesterday was on an AOL proxy - said IP addresses shift regularly, particularly on dial-up, so it is difficult to block those anyway. On "targetting", they obviously knew their way around a wiki, certainly - took a look at RC to get to the user pages of those who were reverting, and VIP, as well as a few pages under edit at the time, then "random page"d their way around. However, in future, I would advise against extensive blocking of these addresses - it can inconvenience other, innocent users. We'll see what happens tonight. -- Michael Warren | Talk 18:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Captainmike's points are all well stated--anonymous contributors also work well as proofreaders... people who may have come to MA simply to look up an article and find a spelling or grammatical error, then fix it. We'd lose that valuable asset if unregistered users were blocked. And if someone really wants to do some damage, they won't stop just because it takes three seconds to register an account. I wouldn't take it personally, either... these are just immature people thinking they're going to be cute. In the end, there are many, many more people here who want to play nice and can help clean up in the wake of a spam attack... one would hope that the spammer will simply realize that it's not worth it to waste their time. However, it would be nice to have a feature which the administrators could use to automatically revert all edits from a certain user within a specified time period, especially concerning things like tonight's events. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 02:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Most registered users gave Memory-Alpha.Org a spin without registering. Certainly most edits from unregistered users are vandals, but it might be better to use mitigation such as watch all anonymous edits, the 3R-Rule not apply to logged in users reverting anonymous users, and have a message show after anonymous users save:

"Due to a few people ruining it for everyone, anonymous users make only one edit daily, thus giving the admins a chance to review edits for vandalism. If you like, you can register and have unlimited editing rights. Understandably, if a user registers just to vandalize, we reserve the right to ban."

If we block the testdrive" new users will become a scarce commodity. We aldready have a natural experiment:

At about the same time Memory-Alpha started, Hidden Frontier started a wiki here. Hidden Frontier decided that it would require people to login. Memory-Alpha flourishes while Hidden Frontier is on its deathbed. We should let people have their testdrive and mitigate the damage:

  1. Watch all anonymous edits.
  2. Have the 3R-Rule not apply to registered users reverting Anonymous users.
  3. Limit Anonymous users to one edit per IP per day
  4. Display a message to anonymous editors stating that they should login to eliminate the limit about editing.

— Ŭalabio 02:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Memory Alpha has no three-revert rule. -- Michael Warren | Talk 18:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
1) A note on the Hidden Frontier site - maybe the low number of editors to that site could be due to the obscure nature of its content. MA has information on all the series, while HF is only a fan-made spin-off.
2) I think this site should continue as it is. However, I think a section of the site (such as the "Recent Changes" section) which only reflects the activities of unregistered users may be a good addition to this site. Also, user pages could have an option for Administrators to revert any user's edits which an Admin had selected. --Defiant | Talk 10:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree -- that would be great. You have such a range coming from the unregistered users. Some are vandals, and others write brief articles that need rewrites immediately. However, others are good proofreaders and some actuall make excellent contributions. -- Dmsdbo 13:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
OKAY -- Just a quick perusal of what had happened since I last left, and I must say that I'm losing patience rightly or wrongly. It seems that except for spelling and grammar checks, everything that unregistered users submit is either vandalism or useless information that it immediately reverted or pna'd. I'm starting to really question the value of their contributions, I fear, and am questioning the need for them. When this was first starting out, it was great to come in and give everyone a chance to contribute, but we have so much quality material here that it hardly seems necessary anymore. Of all the unregistered users who come and screw around, how many stay and become valuable contributors? If not cutting them outright, we should at least limit what they can do -- maybe time limiters (2-5 mins) per edit. Like they use on - except this would only be for unregistered users. I dunno - I suppose I am tired of seeing people's hard work vandalized, and spending half my time cleaning up after others. -- Dmsdbo 13:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the suggestions you all made - please keep in mind that we're using some standard software here. We basically have the option to allow or disallow anonymous contributors, but nothing more. Thus, we should concentrate on discussing these options. You might want to suggest everything else directly to the MediaWiki programmers.
Defiant: ("However, I think a section of the site which only reflects the activities of unregistered users may be a good addition to this site.") Just click on "hide logged in users" on Special:Recentchanges... :)
On-topic: I admit that I completely missed that last big vandal attack, but already saw several of them. We also discussed exactly this suggestion months ago on the forum. I still believe that we should allow anonymous contributions (as was the result of this last discussion). Just don't give the vandals what they are looking for (attention, anger, tantrums, ...). Another important point, in my opinion, is to actually tell non-vandal anonymous contributors why their additions have been reverted. This is something many of us forget occasionally. -- Cid Highwind 13:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Please see m:Talk:Anonymous users should not be allowed to edit on the Meta-Wikipedia. A lot of good points are raised on both sides, and it is rather illuminating. One major point I get from there - "Most vandals are anonymous users. The converse, that most anonymous users are vandals, is NOT true." (from (moink 19:57, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)). Anonymous users provide substantial improvement to MA - they are our spell-checkers, our fact-checkers, our stub-creators; we have a major anonymous user who has substantially expanded the episode pages of Star Trek: The Original Series with a glorious wealth of background information (albeit, mixed in with a little too much personal commentary). They ask questions that may lead to a major article rework; they link words to create articles we may never have considered. And yes, whilst it appears that all anon users do is vandalise, post copyvios, and spoil the wiki for others, that's only because those users' actions are what attract our attention and get us riled up, as I see User:Dmsdbo doing (getting riled up, that is). Vandalism is just something that any wiki must deal with. People come and try out the wiki - sometimes they stay, sometimes they leave, sometimes they get frustrated when we apply our policies and launch an attack on us. It's what happens. It's what's been happening since we started - hell, it's been the same with Wikipedia since they started, and you haven't seen them restrict users. Why? Because it goes against the very principle of a wiki - that anyone can edit.

On a related note, those calling for restrictions on anon IP edits: I scrutinise every anon edit that comes through (with the exception of the ones I know come from User:Defiant). Your typical anon "regular contributor" may make ten or twenty edits in a day. Your "test driver", only one or two. Your vandal... it depends on how committed he/she is. Our AOL "friend" yesterday is somewhat of a rarity, as most are warned off by test and vandalism notices/warnings. The total average number of anon edits per day is roughly 200, a figure that is easily monitorable - I regularly am able to check through a night's worth of RC in ten minutes or so (more only when a significant vandalism spree takes place). However, our small community means that all of us must work together to deal with any problems. A lot of the time, I see vandalism left unfixed at a time when other users are around - sometimes it's several hours later when I see it and revert it. -- Michael Warren | Talk 18:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

After tonight's multi-hour vandal raid -- I'd just as soon say ban them now. Sorry, just my (humble) opinion. -- Dmsdbo 00:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm starting to get really frustrated with unregistered users and their frequent ignorance of MA guidelines. I also say... "ban them"!--Defiant | Talk 01:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Sash/Baldric? Worfs accessorieEdit

I just read an articel about the star fleet uniform, at the bottom is an image with a text saying "Worf wearing his klingon sahs", is this called a sash though? in Star Trek: Insurrection Picard refered to it as a Baldric (Quote: "Straighten your baldric commander"). what is it called? I've personally never heard of a "sash" Crazy Voyager83.177.11.139 09:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Baldric would definitely seem to be the more correct term for Worf's metal accessory -- but a sash is a piece of fabric material worn in the same manner. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
I just like the word baldric better, seems more regal than a "sash". I don't remember the quote from Star Trek: Insurrection, but I'd be happy changing it. — THOR 15:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
On a related note dealing with militaria, what's the deal with military uniforms that have a belt going over one shoulder -- it was used by officers in "In a Mirror, Darkly", and has been seen on the various Space-Nazis we've seen over the years, so its a "real-life" accessory -- I called it a "brace" since it looks like half of a pair of suspenders, but I think there might be a more appropriate term i'm not aware of. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 20:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
I suggest that the "belt going over one shoulder" could be a type of military decoration, as seen on this page [2]. zsingaya 21:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Adding new images to pages Edit

Sorry to ask this question, there may be an obvious answer.

To add an image to a page I know that you add the text [[File:imagename.png|Caption text]] and whatever else you wish for formatting. But how in the first place do you get an image from your own computer, such as the example 'imagename', into Memory Alpha?

If you look on the left margin, you will see Help. Help will answer all of your questions. Indeed, Ten Forward is for discussing the running of Memory Alpha. As to this question, on the left, beneath Help is Upload File. Upload File is where to go to Upload Files.

— Ŭalabio 01:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Person, Place, or Thing... Edit

Would it be at all redundant to have a subheading for every entry that idetifies the subject as one that referes to a 'Person', 'Place', or 'Thing'? Or is the accompanying text ample enough?

This is a function that is defined by the Memory Alpha:Category tree -- a type of article must be suggested to be categorized at Memory Alpha:Category suggestions -- and then the categorization is performed by adding a tag to every article of that type.
Special:Categories lists all of the different categories that have been created so far. I encourage anyone who wishes to discuss the dynamics of creating Category:People, Category:Places, etc, to discuss it at the suggestion page i linked above. To better understand the dynamics of why we avoid creating incorrect category names, read some in the Memory Alpha:Category suggestion archive. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 18:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I found a collection of fairuse images from Star Trek Nemesis. Edit

Here it is It even has captions. ;-)

I actually like Star Trek Nemesis, but this satire reminds us all that we must suspend disbelieve to enjoy fiction. Suspension of disbelieve is like a trained ceti eel we can put in our ears before enjoying fiction, and then remove when finished. Although earwigs upon whom ceti eels are based do not truly eat brains, some worms do.

¡Enjoy the satire! - — Ŭalabio 05:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder: Ten Forward and Memory Alpha are not discussion boards for topics which do not pertain to the wiki... I believe this falls under the category of "discussion." If you wish to post material like this, you are welcome to do so at the Subspace Comms Network. Thanks! -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 17:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

This is half joke, half serious. Now that we had our laugh (it is good to let down our hair from time to time), we really can use the screencaptures in our articles as fair use — perhaps sans the additional subtitles.  ;-) This really is a good resource and humorous. This is like the biographies of neocons (fascistic chickenhawks) in Rotten.Com; given the tong and cheek nature of Rotten.Com, one would not expect Rotten.Com to be accurate, but the biographies are accurate — neocons do not like Rotten.Com, so Rotten.Com returns the favor. —— Ŭalabio 03:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Pages needing attentionEdit

We are approaching somewhat of a problem point with Memory Alpha:Pages needing attention. Each day, more articles are tagged with {{pna}} and its variants - and yet, they don't seem to be disappearing off that status as quickly. I have just finished classifying many of the standard {{pna}} messages, recategorising where more specific templates are appropriate, removing where no talk page details exist. This is how we stand:

Whilst it seems that some of these numbers are low, a lot of them have been lingering around for a while without resolution. I believe this is because they are tagged and, once off RC, aren't noticed again.

So, I have a few suggestions/points to make:

  1. Please classify articles with the appropriate template: {{pna}}, {{pna-cite}}, {{pna-inaccurate}}, {{pna-incomplete}}, {{pna-unformatted}}. Please try to restrict {{pna}} to where more than one action is required, or where the attention required doesn't fit any of the other four.
  2. Remember to indicate on the talk page what needs fixing. This is only the case for pna, inaccurate and incomplete - the other two have been modified to remove reference to talk pages, since they don't really need further explanation.
  3. If adding a page to one of the PNA categories, have a look through said categories to see if there's anything you can fix. Unformatted and cite are the easiest to deal with - inaccurate and incomplete require more work, pna may depend on what is needed.
  4. Have a look through Category:Memory Alpha incomplete articles asap, and see if there are any pages you know you can help with. A copy of the Encyclopedia, if you have it, is enough to help deal with some of these. For others, with major requirements, try checking the scripts as well.
  5. If you tag an article which you think requires major work, add it to your watchlist. Check back in a few days or weeks to see if improvement has been made. At a later point you may have the time to deal with the problems yourself, or be able to call further attention to them.

I will probably do this tally once every month or two months to see where we stand. Many thanks. -- Michael Warren | Talk 18:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Wiki color schemeEdit

The color scheme of Memory Alpha hurts my eyes. I can hardly read the text against the dark background, in particular the dark blue links. The other skin choices under preferences are no good, either, since they don't have the same layout as the MonoBook. Could another skin be created, identical to MonoBook except that the colors are reversed? (As an example, see the Wikipedia.) —LCARS 23:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

You can have your own skin see Help:User style. I have done it too, because I cannot see the red links on the dark ground, so I brightened them up, same for the changes on the pages -- Kobi - (Talk) 08:36, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
That's perfect! Thank you. —LCARS 21:52, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, it is perfect for those who want to play around skins and style sheets, but it doesn't help the casual user. The blues are not generally a problem for me, (though the "visited" links are slightly too dark). It is the red links that hurt my eyes, I can barely see the words without serious straining. Just my two cents.
P.S. I love this site. I'm so glad you guys are doing this!
T'Play(talk) 04:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

How does a user actually activate a different colour scheme? --Defiant | Talk 20:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Make sure you're logged in, and then go to the page "User:[Your user name]/monobook.css". In your case, User:Defiant/monobook.css. Editing this page will allow you to override the default CSS definitions, which are found at MediaWiki:Monobook.css. With a little trial and error, you can find and replace the specific color codes for various elements of the wiki. Here are two examples to help you set it up: Kobi's is pretty straightforward. Mine is way more drastic a change from the default. Notice the <pre> tags at the beginning and end. —LCARS 21:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

That's great, thanks! --Defiant | Talk 12:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Subject: Alien Identification Source: Ds9 Episode: Business as Usual Edit

Greetings all. Within the season 5 Deep Space Episode : Business as Usual, Quark has dealings with a ruthless human arms dealer by the name of Hagath. Multiple times within the episode, firstly when the Hagath character is introduced to the episode, we see a female alien companion of Hagaths introduced to Quark as "Talura". Might anyone be able to identify Taluras race?

I don't believe her species was ever identified. She was just described, according to the script, as: "a statuesque and disquietingly beautiful female alien (a la the Boslic Captain)." This of course does not mean she was a Boslic, unless a side-by-side comparison indicates otherwise, and that shes just some otherwise random female with a similar stature. That's all I got.--Gvsualan 08:18, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

List of people into categories Edit

Yesterday, a registered user created Category:Klingons based on my supercategory suggestion Category:People -- basically, on Memory Alpha:Category suggestions, there have been no objections to a category based on the list of people

(Cid Highwind started the precedent for using a lists article to seed a list category in the original "category suggestions" talk page. All of these are populated lists are approved to be categorized under the terms of the suggestion.

IMO any group of people with more than 20 known & named members is probably ripe for categorization -- whether it be an organization/unit, species or service.(examples of categories enacted already based on this suggestion are Category:USS Voyager personnel; Category:Humans; Category:Starfleet personnel).

I though it might be a good idea to use ten-forward to run this by the community, since this seems to be the beginning of a major categorization effort, there are dozens of affiliations that people could be categorized under, so I want to see any additional suggestions made now, before we commit to these actions and beginning using bots or archivist efforts to categorize these articles.

Main on my mind is the fact that some characters will be highly multicategorized, if they served in a few starship crews or are members of more than one species (shocking, but true). does anyone see any difficulties, or is this beneficial? (i've found it to be fairly useful -- Spock for example is human, Vulcan, NCC-1701 personnel and Starfleet personnel, so he is extensively cross reference).

If there are no objections, perhaps a bot-operator could begin the categorization effort in a couple of days, or sooner or later depending on the consensus of the community. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 18:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I also noticed someone (an IP user) created the Category:Andorians - I added all of the Andorians to the list, but now, in response to your suggestion of "any group of people with more than 20 known", should we delete it, as there are only 12 named Andorians? --Gvsualan 20:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Not sure on this -- we have a few other categories with only a few entries, perhaps we should allow all 20+ lists to become categories automatically, and call for consensus on less than 20 people categories -- andorians seem to be important enough to warrant this, especially since there will be a few lists of unnamed people still to be categorized (and possibly to fill out an unnamed Andorians list, although a few others will be listed elsewhere (the Andorian Avenger helmsman will be under mirror universe people and the Andorian extras in Star Trek: The Motion Picture will be under USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) personnel) -- for example, there are unnamed vulcans and unnamed humans in the USS Voyager personnel list, so i categorized that under each species also - - the category will provide a link to all ship personnel lists that had an unnamed member of that species. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 20:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Scheduled Down-timeEdit

Will also this affect all wikicities, or just MA? --Defiant | Talk 16:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It will effect all servers of Wikia: Wikicities, Memory Alpha, Uncyclopedia, and Wikimedia to name the biggest ones -- Kobi - (Talk) 17:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At what time period did the warp scale change Edit

I am wondering at what time period in Trek canon did the warp scale change ?

Questions like this belong at Memory_Alpha:Reference_Desk. To answer your question, the early 24th century. Why do not you read for yourself:



— Ŭalabio 01:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Article TenseEdit

Moved to Memory Alpha talk:Point of view

Associate IP? Edit

How do you associate your edits under an IP with your username? -- Dmsdbo 13:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you really need to reassign authorship? Why not mention them on your personal page? --Short Circuit 03:19, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Backround information Edit

MA needs more backround information on production, the actors, the character apperences, ... I want to know in which TNG-episode Data did not appear. I read it was only one episode he didn't appear. Can you help me? I would say, let's make such a list with the appearences like in the article 'Beverly Crusher' at the end of each article on a character. I think I would be good to make a notice to every article of an episode, when it was filmed/produced.

In response to your question about Data, his only non-appearance in TNG was the episode "Family". Randee15 22:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Standards and practices on talk pagesEdit

As a small reminder to everyone, the following are two standards as defined on Help:Talk pages:

Indent posts for organization. The first contributor to a talk page should have no indentation in the message. The next person starts their message with one colon (:), and the third person uses two colons (::), and so on. If the first person replies to the message again, he or she uses the same indentation for their subsequent messages as for the first message. This method helps distinguish who is saying what.
Add new posts to the bottom of the thread. The further down the contribution is in the thread, the later it was posted.

It would be nice if we all could try to use the same set of standards. Adding your reply somewhere in the middle using arbitrary indentation works for small discussions between 2-3 participants, but gets unreadable pretty quickly if more people are involved in a longer discussion. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 18:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I always thought it was standard to use another colons when responding to the paragraph above... Thanks for pointing it out. (I could have just read the rules, of course..) Ottens 18:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Naming images Edit

I was trying to upload an image of Fer'at, but MA was always changing the title of the image to Fer\'at. What do I do to avoid this problem? --Defiant | Talk 13:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just remove the apostrophe and call it File:Ferat.jpg. Other than your typical ABCs and 123s, the only other characters we should use are the - _ ( and ). Its the easiest way to keep the unnecessary characters, like /, from working their way into the files. --Gvsualan 13:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I successfully uploaded the image, but it won't appear on the article page when I preview it. --Defiant | Talk 13:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure, try saving it and I'll see if I can see it. --Gvsualan 13:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've done that. --Defiant | Talk 13:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It must be the filename, because i was able to place an image of something else in there and it showed up fine. --Gvsualan 13:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek uniforms Edit

I think we should add a table of all uniforms shown troughout the series to our starfleet uniforms article like we have for the rank insignia page. We should start today! (unsigned)

Dress unfiroms, variants, ... The material the uniforms were made of for the series and mivies. More backround information like an unregistrated user wants to have for all articles, especially for the characters articles (when the appeared, didn't apeear, ... sa.) I think the starfleet uniform article should be expanded because there is less information about in on the internet and we have to be "THE" Star Trek source on the net. (unsigned)

Files and Data From Other Websites Edit

I have looked at various other star Trek websites and seen a files and artciles that would be nice on Memory Alpha. For example:

  • Pictures
  • Episode Summaries (Most of ours aren't finished or even started)
  • Video Clips
  • Star Trek Music

I am not sure what the policy here is for adding these to the database. It never says in any of the user guidelines or copyright polocies. If these were allowed or were allowed under the right circumstances, Memory Alpha would be greatly expanded, and would have more than just text. (And a few pictures) Could someone please post a reply to this explaning what I can and can not do regarding this matter. I just want to help this website as much as I can.

The true intentions of Memory Alpha is to be as original as possible. We have strict policies about copying the works of others -- such as episode summaries. Several pages cover this, including: Memory Alpha:Copyrights.
The use of images is addressed here: Memory_Alpha:Image_use_policy. Personally, I think it is preferable that the users provide their own images (as far as ones that can be captured from DVD) in the interest of avoiding any conflicts with third parties, but also in terms of keeping it "original". You can also go to Memory Alpha:Requested pictures and Memory Alpha:Requested articles if there is something you specifically have in mind.
Adding video and music (other than the themes) at the moment is not exactly practical at the moment. In fact, on the upload page it explicitly states: "Movies are not currently permitted on Memory Alpha due to bandwidth and file space considerations" -- as well as other copyright concerns.
Above all there is no race to finish this website! So just watch your Trek and contribute from there, perfection is not required. --Gvsualan 19:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mis-use of PNA'sEdit

Just a reminder that when posting {{pna}} and related boilerplates, that you specify what attention in required on the talk page. There have been several pages with {{pna}}'s posted, but with no explaination offered. The boilerplate clearly states to do this, as does the link, also included on the boilerplate, to Memory Alpha:Pages needing attention. --Gvsualan 22:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mind that "pna-cite" and "pna-unformatted" are self-explanatory, and may be used without adding any talk -- but if you feel an article needs attention, any input as to how it could be improved can be added whenever you use the "pna", "pna-inaccurate" or "pna-incomplete" messages. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unidentified aliensEdit

Do we have a page especially designated for all of the various unidentified aliens (either by name or species) we've see throughout Star Trek? Or, should we start a page called Unidentified aliens (comparable to something like Unnamed Romulans)? --Gvsualan 17:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a great plan! There must be loads of them out there somewhere, for example Tiron, and Abdon. zsingaya 17:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It would be nice just to see some of the make up lined up next to each other, for example, I was wondering if how much the blue guy from "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II" looked like Grathon Tolar. Jaf 17:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)Jaf
It does sound like a great idea. I say lets begin now, or does there need to be a vote or something? (p.s. Jaf, I could swear they were, and it would have been great continuity if they were, but I looked it up, and their nose and chins are to different. snap.) -AJHalliwell 18:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Recurring Character Appearances/Article LinkEdit

This occurred to me when I saw Ayala as the featured article this week. Is a listing of a recurring character's every action and appearance really the best idea? I'm not saying specifically it isn't, but why does Ayala get a shot-by-shot summary of his episode appearances and someone like Galloway only gets a list of appearances? Should there be an accepted format for this kind of character?Logan 5 14:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the Ayala format is more or less acceptable -- in fact, i consider the Galloway article to be especially incomplete because it doesn't have the level of detail that Ayala or Leslie does -- and feedback from readers at the reference desk has indicated they feel that MA would be more fleshed out if we continued adding costume, prop and set information for these behind the scene sections we have -- so keeping track of minutiae like someone switching their red shirt for yellow for a while seems to be acceptable for addition here,although such notations should of course be edited for brevity -- i'd like to see Leslie and Galloway and Ayala all strive to present the most information in as little space as possible, so we have time to mention all of those details. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just to note, the Ayala article itself isn't a complete list of his appearances and his actions, only the appearances of note (where he was seen doing something beyond standing in the background or involved in a major event which would be included on any character page, regardless of their importance). He's appeared in over 100 Voyager episodes and there aren't entries to document every single one. I'm not sure about Galloway, but I don't ever recall anyone standing in the way of a rewrite or expansion. If someone wanted to write a larger article, I'm sure they could. I think the reason the Galloway article is shorter could be because no one has invested the time to expand it, or because Galloway simply hasn't done much else besides sit in the background. ;) -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 16:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Okay, so where would a character like Bobby fall in this scheme? I made some changes to that entry yesterday that, based on this discussion, should (maybe?) be reverted, but to me seemed to really present no information at all...I made a similar change to a list of appearances for a Voyager character that I can't recall. Does being an un-named part of an away team qualify for its own reference, but being a repair technician doesn't, etc. ?Logan 5 19:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I think most of the data you removed could've been rewritten and saved, although maybe it could've been less specific. For instance, it could have been written that he was a security guard on the original Enterprise, with that statement backed up by a string of appearances as a security guard. Same for his transporter and technician duties, and his quizzical appearance as a nurse. Specific details of importance, such as Sulu chasing him and his injury during "Tomorrow is Yesterday" should definitely be kept, as that sort of information would be incorporated on any character page, regardless of the character's importance as an important event. Think of it this way: if Bobby were only seen in "The Naked Time," would we create an entry simply stating that he was a member of the Enterprise crew and leaving it at that, or would we include the specific detail that he was being chased by Sulu? -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 02:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Okay, that seems like the best solution. I've reworked some of my edits to Bobby to re-include some of the more specific info from his appearances.Logan 5 15:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Species ImagesEdit

I suggest we get some continuity in how we set up the images at pages for major races. My suggestion would be 4 images; one of a young male, one of a young female, one of a senior aged male and one of a senior aged female. Jaf 23:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)Jaf

I think that is sort of unneccessary. We should have one of each sex, and one showing a child. Additional pictures can be used for variations, such as the green Andorians. Jaz 15:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reciprocal links to WikipediaEdit

An interesting discussion point has been raised at Talk:Star Trek at Wikipedia. Now, I have rebutted some of these points - noting that MA does link to WP where "real-world" people, institutions, etc, are mentioned. However, it occurs to me that our links to WP could be greatly expanded. There are many areas where Wikipedia articles hold a vastly superior content and knowledge base to our own (by its nature alone, as a real-world encyclopedia). Articles such as Earth cities and towns, historical figures, physics and chemistry topics, should really have a WP link contained within them if more extensive information is contained within those linked articles. To aid, I have created {{Wikipedia}}. A simple paste of the template after a * will give the "standard" Wikipedia link. -- Michael Warren | Talk 18:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not the most versed person in the field of wiki, so please forgive the ignorance, but does or doesn't this mean that our article must be given the same name (or redirected name) as the wikipedia version of the article? --Gvsualan 20:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jup, so the template can't be used on de:Europa (Kontinent), because the page in Wikipedia is Wikipedia:de:Europa (simply was the first example that came to mind) I'm quite sure that there are more problems like that. Maybe the template should be modified like the imdb template, so that the correct pagename is specified as well? -- Kobi - (Talk) 20:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Or a second template for when those cases arise. Much like the Wikipedia:Template:Memoryalpha and Wikipedia:Template:Memoryalpha article templates. Cburnett 20:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Said modification has been made. Syntax required now {{Wikipedia|article name}}. -- Michael Warren | Talk 20:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Categorisations Edit

Hello, I find it most annoying that the process of categorisation clutters up the recent changes. For those purposes we have Bots, they handle the needed processes automatically without appearing on the recent changes. Especially if there are already lists of those pages which should be added to one category. Though I originally intented to use Morn for interwikis only I offer my assistence here to make the recent changes show only needed changes. Or we should consider to create a new bot account for this task if someone else wants to monitor the bot. Please consider -- Kobi - (Talk) 12:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree -- and would like to add, it is just as annoying doing it "manually". I wouldn't mind learning to use the bot or having a new one created to use. Otherwise I can provide you with a list of what needs to be done if you want to steer it alone. --Gvsualan 07:08, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I believe i dropped a line to the DataMA bot but didnt get a response (admittedly, i ended up reading that one was specialized for categories, and Morn was an interwiki). there are dozens of new categories already approved but waiting to be enacted, so i definitely welcome the help. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 13:44, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gvsualan: I thought so too, and if you really want to control one I'm willing to help you understand it. Just drop me an email and I tell you what you need. Mike: Yes, that was the categorisation of the Lists if I remember correctly, the problem was that Florian K had only a list of all the redirects which the bot did ignore... Oh and basically every bot is capable of all tasks, it is just the (selfimposed) rule that the main task should be specified -- Kobi - (Talk) 16:54, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Category:Timeline would be a good start -- i added the framework but there are 200+ year articles that need to go in, and most of the decade article. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 05:23, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

518 to be precise. Anymore? What about the production timeline? Based on the size of the category I would recommend to create a subcategory for it -- Kobi - (Talk) 11:57, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Technology In Main Subject Divisions Edit

I noticed that you have a page called technology, which lists some forms. You have other pages that list things like: Military, Propulsion, and other types of specified tech. (under a diffrent heading which only covers some of the general divison) All the specified forms do not cover all topics. The remianing ones are on the page titled, "Technology", which can not be aceesed from the main page. Also, the heading "Science and Technology", does not have any tech under it. The label is incorrect. For oginization's sake, and for an easier way to move aroud MA, We could fix this problem by doing one of the following things:

1. Have one page called "Technology", with subdivisons under it. Rename "Science and tech" just Science.

2. Have diffrent areas of technology listed under what is now called the "Space Travel and hardware section", incldue the links from the current page, "Technology" and rename the catagory, "Technology" Then we can Rename "Science and tech" just Science. (unsigned)

I think there's some value to this proposal, its something that has crossed my mind. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:39, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Images out of scale Edit

I noticed a problem with a lot of the portrait images, such that of Admiral Nakamura. They seem stretched wider than they should be, and I think figured out why...when they were captured from DVD, then cropped, the image size used was that of the original DVD. 767x480, by the examples I've got in front of me.

If you use a graphic editing program such as The Gimp to scale them to their intended 4:3 scale (or 640x480, as the case may be), the images no longer look stretched. Keep that in mind as you capture images. --Short Circuit 03:11, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template formattingEdit

Just a small note: Any formatting regularly applied to templates should, in my opinion, be added to the template itself. For example, don't simply write :{{imageparamount}}. If you want to have that message indented (which looks nice), add it to the message template instead. This makes it easier to change the template later, should there be any need to do so... -- Cid Highwind 12:36, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Oy, there are so many articles already where its already been manually indented its probably more advantageous to configure one of our bots to handle a change like that. — THOR 13:04, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Yes a bot can handle that. It is actually a very important hint, because when we changed our templates to something more prominent (see de:Bild:Enterprise_im_dock_tmp.jpg for example) all the templates were broken, because we did import that style unfortunately I suggest to change it, it is actually a nice job for the bot, though one which should be done when America is asleep... -- Kobi - (Talk) 15:42, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)

OK, then - can you get Morn to do this? Preferably, move any {{imageparamount}} to its own line while removing any leading ":" characters? Or do we need another hack for that? ;) -- Cid Highwind 11:52, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Images to be used on episode articlesEdit

(Copied from Memory Alpha:Nominations for featured articles. -- Cid Highwind)

I didn't really want to discuss the issue of images here, but can think of no better place, as it's quite relevant to some of the comments above. I think we need to decide what kind of images are preferable for episode articles, and what images supplement write-ups. Images of characters, technology, situations? What do you/other users prefer? Please reply to this, as it's probably quite important for future nominations of episode pages and MA as a whole. --Defiant | Talk 12:51, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I for one prefer that the first order of business when getting pictures from the episode is to get portrait quality shots of all characters, props, and most important sets, graphics, models or effects. This should be a first priority. The rule of thumb (basically, our self imposed limit according to policy) is that each article on Memory Alpha should probably have no more than three pictures attached to it (and be of sufficient length and importance to list the pictures), however, episode articles can have many more because each episode links to dozens of references, each of which (under the rule of thumb on pictures) could have one or two pictures used by it, taken from the episode itself.
I try to interpret this as "each episode summary should have no more than two or three pictures on that episode's article that cannot be used by any other article."
This includes a title card image, which is specific to the episode and probably couldn't be used by many other pages, if at all. While it may seem a little limiting to only use 2 or so "reaction shots" (shots specific to the episode where you can see action from the episode progressing), remember that if you choose reaction shots well, you can make them useful to three or so other articles. (If you find a picture of O'Brien shouting with his fist in the air, it might not be useful to any page but the page for "Episode X", as an archivist working for pictures on page Miles O'Brien would prefer it be more "portrait-like" and less "action-like" -- But if you find a picture of Miles in uniform, shouting, holding a(n unobscured) phaser rifle -- then you may find the picture used supplementarily on phaser rifle, Starfleet uniform or Dominion War.
You get the ideas guys -- find pics with context, and try to follow links to articles about ships or technology and find if there's an action shot that would benefit your episode summary, or if an action shot from your episode summary could benefit a technology or character page. Conversely, anyone who uses an episode screenshot to illustrate tech, ships, sets or costumes could follow back to the episode it came from in order to benefit an episode summary someone else is contributing to. (Keeping in mind extra character shots on episode pages have been discouraged by discussion, unless they are placed to specifically note the introduction or landmark of the character in the background info/cast section). -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:11, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
On episode pages, I would prefer that all images on the page serve some sort of purpose for illustration that cannot be otherwise given in the text. For example, the "Force of Nature" article does this with the diagrams of the Hekaras Corridor and the damage to subspace. However, shots of otherwise unremarkable or unimportant action, like the group at the conference table or the viewscreen shots, don't seem to add anything to the article and seem to be simply ornamental. Nothing uniquely special or important is happening. The only place I think these sorts of images are appropriate are the "title card" images in the info table Captainmike mentions; I think that space can be used for an image that would otherwise serve no purpose in the article (and maybe not in any other articles) but capture an important idea, theme, or event in the episode (as I previously noted, the image of Geordi with the Enterprise warp core would be perfect for "Force of Nature"). Also, I don't think we should feel pressured to include all screenshots from a particular episode on the page unless, again, there is a specific need to do so; otherwise it clutters the page and slows the download for those on dialup. Star Trek Generations is beginning to suffer from this problem. I also think efforts should be made to consolidate images whenever possible or appropriate. On "Force of Nature," there are images of Rabal and Serova together and apart, plus other portraits of them at their individual articles. Why not use the image of the two together on all three pages and point out the individuals in captions? Basically, discretion should be used... it's okay to upload images for one certain purpose, but only if there's a definite need for them.
And on a final somewhat related, somewhat unrelated note, I'd like to point out that as of late it seems as if egos are coming to blow around here and short fuses and sarcasm have become extremely common... remember, we're all working for the same goal and there's no need to become upset! Please try to respect the contributions and opinions of others and don't be afraid to use the talk page whenever there's an edit conflict. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 02:33, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)
On the subject of images, I personally think that too many people are taking them from Trekpulse, and that screencaps should be used more than they currently are. This would mean that copyright issues could be completely avoided and that the pictures on this site would be unique. --Defiant | Talk 13:39, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Aren't we all using the same material for our purposes? I don't mean to be difficult, it's just that technically none of us has any usage rights other than fair use. Incidentally, my program gets 576x432px resolution whereas I just visited their site and a screencap from there is 692x530px, so I can understand the tendency to borrow. :) -Schrei 09:14, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Defiant, I don't see any real problem with using images from TrekPulse or from the old STINSV archives because those images are all screencaps of ST episodes -- the site "TrekPulse" doesn't really have any "rights" to them whatsoever -- how could they? the image is still owned by Paramount whether TrekPulse screencapped it or I screencapped it. ITs still nice to owe them a link as attribution for their work getting it, but TrekPulse did the same thing we do: "steal" the images off the DVDs. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:36, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)

The featured image for each episode should remind everyone instantly what the episode was about.


I feel that in episode descriptions featuring breakdowns into Acts, the sequence before the opening credits should be referred to as the " Cold Opening" as opposed to the "teaser". What is the general opinion on this( If any)? (User:Gul Reid; sig added)

I don't have any opinion on it per sé, although I am curious as to the meaning of "Cold Opening", it just strikes me as interesting. — THOR 20:12, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I've heard it on DVD commentaries. I suppose it means the opening is "cold", as without the credits the viewer does not nescerraily know what the progamme is. Gul Reid 21:08, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Teaser is the correct scriptwriting terminology for the brief intro before the opening credits. See [5] or, for use in a script [6]. Cold open refers to the technique, rather than the actual section of teleplay (see Cold open at Wikipedia). The teaser of "Cause and Effect" is an excellent demonstration of said technique - the viewer is dropped right into the middle of the action with no knowledge of how it began. -- Michael Warren | Talk 21:13, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I think that the teaser for "Cause and Effect" is one of the best examples of a teaser - it was nothing short of shocking, IMHO. The teasers for "Contagion", "A Matter of Perspective", "First Contact", "Time's Arrow", "Face of the Enemy" and "Scorpion" are excellent examples of teaser techniques.--Scimitar 17:58, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Well, I guess all the above settles it. Thanks for your input. Gul Reid 21:22, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Although both are correct terminology they maby should simply be left away. (the naming itself not the text) So you only need the Act parts or similar named chapters. -- Q 16:54, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Speculation vs. Analysis Edit

I was reading Memory Alpha:What Memory Alpha is not and #2 on the part about MA articles (personal speculation) made me wonder about an article I wrote. I added a subsection to "Paradise" called Analysis and I might have pushed the envelope of an encyclopedia vs. a critical review... I'm not sure. There probably isn't an issue with that particular article, but I want to clarify for the future, which is why I posted here instead of its talk page. --Schrei 05:50, 13 Aug 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's the wrong side of the line, I'm afraid. It definitely comes through as a review of the episode rather than part of a description of it - very much a critical piece, especially the discussions on symbolism and name origins. I won't remove the section just yet, to see what other opinions are, but I don't believe it is suitable for inclusion here. -- Michael Warren | Talk 19:29, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with analysis as long as it is marked as such. The same goes for speculation, as long as it is clearly. I shall give some examples using the Vorta:


Analysis of the episode in which the Vorta appear leads to the conclusion that almost all Vorta are probably clones.


Since Vorta have no need to reproduce sexually, they might be sterile.

The important thing is that the articles must clearly distinguish analysis and speculation from canon, and the speculation and analysis must follow from canon. The analysis of Schrei definitely adds positively to "Paradise". Imagine how much "The Measure Of A Man" would benefit from analysis of the philosophical questions it raises. —— Ŭalabio‽ 00:28, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

After reading Walabio's post, I re-read my analysis portion and I'm still ambilvalent about its encyclopedianess, if nothing else then for the length/depth. Maybe strike the second paragraph (is Depending on one's point of view, Alixus's name can be interpreted as the embodiment of her self-image as an "elixir" for the colonists' dependency on technology inherently POV?) and keep the first. If you deem the entire section inappropriate, you should add a 6th item to the list of what MA articles aren't. --Schrei 01:46, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I think Tribunal probably gives a good example of a compromise between critique and book report, dunno what other people think though. Other articles' background info looks limited to obvious stuff like continuity errors and "this character didn't appear in the episode." --Schrei 01:50, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I've never seen the episode in question, and reading the brief analysis does not make me form an opinion one way or the other about the quality of the episode, so I don't think we have to worry about the section coming off as a type of review with the intent of expressing a positive or negative opinion. That said, the tone still comes off different from that of a typical MA article. Perhaps someone can rewrite it to save some of the symbolism speculation but remove the critical tone? Bullet points may help. Much of what is there is no different than some of the notes which can be found in many of the TOS episode background info. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 17:53, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)

IE glitching Edit

I worked on the Henry Starling article for quite a while, and have even nominated it for FA status. However, on my talk page Tough Little Ship noted that there was a problem in the page. I'll copy that conversation here:

Hi. In the Starling article, I moved a couple of the images so that there wouldn't be so many gaps. Its better now, but theres a big gap between the Nixon info and the rest. Tough Little Ship 22:34, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)
That is strange. I couldn't see it at all, and since I couldn't figure out what you were seeing, I brought up the page in Internet Explorer and could see the glitch. That's really odd, as I don't know what would be causing that, the page parses properly in both Firefox and Safari. I'll drop a line in 10F and see if anybody has any ideas. Thanks! — THOR 23:06, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

This is the article as it appears properly in Firefox (shown) as well as Safari

This is the article as it appears in Internet Explorer from my work computer

(my apologies for image quality: mspaint)

Does anybody have any ideas as to what the problem could be, and better yet, how to fix it? — THOR 23:06, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

If you place the images together like this, at the top of the page,:
[[File:HenryStarling1967.jpg|thumb|Henry Starling (1967)]]
[[File:RichardNixon.jpg|thumb|Starling with President Nixon]]
[[File:HenryStarling1996.jpg|thumb|Henry Starling (1996)]]
you get an IE page that looks similar to your Mozilla page. I'm not sure how it works on Mozilla or Firefox, but it looks alright on my Internet Explorer. The only downside would be that the images wouldn't be connected to the section of text it's about, but the article is small enough, that it won't make a difference.--Tim Thomason 00:10, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Yep, that's a well known problem, appeared also in an old version of "Broken Bow", see Talk. One way to solve it is to stack all image links at the top of the article - but this causes problems with Opera, because if there are headings and subheadings the "[edit]" buttons on the right end of them are pushed down to the bottom of the page (don't ask me why, I don't get this). That's not the case here, but if, you have to arrange it like the "table-gallery" on Dixon Hill (holonovel) (Intrepid-class is another example I've found right away). Maybe an update of the wiki software might fix all this some day. --Memory 00:20, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Thanks everybody! It hadn't occurred to me that since all the images were top-right aligned anyway that I could just simply list them in order at the beginning of the article. I wish we could drop them down a line w/o futzing everything up, but all's well in the end I suppose. Again, thanks a lot youse guys! — THOR 01:25, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Actor vs. Actress Edit

IP user (See: User talk: has been neutering articles, changing "Actress" to Actor, specifically on female pages. Does our policy say anything about gender-neutral words having to be used? Cause it seems to me that Actress pages should be called actresses, etc. - AJHalliwell 19:28, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)

You used the argument that actress has been used for a long time on the talk page, but so was poetess, and we don't called Maya Angelou a poetess. Words where the primary word is masculine and there is a female variant are inherently mysogenistic, and as such, they should be changed. I don't expect the people here to agree with me since you're 90% male, but yeah, I'm right. :-P
I suppose it is the right way to go. For example, Wikipedia's categories now feature "Category:Star Trek actors" for male and female stars. Tough Little Ship 19:39, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
But that's a category. As proven above, "Actor" is non-gender specific, so it's good to use as a cat. like we use performer. But this isn't like cat's where it has to be the same for male and female to be listed, this is just as mentioned in an article.
Ensign Brooks was played by actress Tina Fey.

So I don't think this is the same thing. I still support the use of actor and actress. Also, for someone who doesn't want to be gender-derogative, " I don't expect the people here to agree with me since you're 90% male," could be taken offensivly... - AJHalliwell 23:05, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)

The IP user's attempts are noble, in that the term "actor" should be used to encompass both male and female performers rather than seperating them. However, I personally believe the term "actress" should continue to be used on M/A so as to clearly distinguish between a male actor and a female actor. Also, the term actress, unlike poetess, is not a dead term: female performers have almost always refered to themselves as "actresses". Also, major film sites such as the IMDb still distinguish between actors and actresses, as do major film ceremonies such as the Oscars and Emmys. For these reasons, I believe we should stick with the differential terms "actor" and "actress." --From Andoria with Love 23:10, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Hey! What's with linking my name to Tina Fey? :-P --From Andoria with Love 23:12, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
If you say the attempts are noble, perhaps we should carry on in Gene Roddenberry's tradition of a better vision of the future by using the "ideal" version of the term instead of than "Well, everyone else says abc, so I don't want to look weird by saying xyz." Also, don't revert edits until someone makes a consensus here. But I don't think "played by actor/actress" is necessary at all, considering I think it's OBVIOUS the person is an actor/actres/performer when you state they played someone.
  • I suggest to avoid an edit war (as seems to be going on the recent pages) as of the timestamp of this post, please DO NOT edit anymore pages concerning this until it's settled. If any pages are neutered or de-neutered (what an incredibly odd sentence...) revert them to the timestamp on AJHalliwell 23:19, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC).
Actually, the IP user does have a point. Perhaps, instead of saying actor or actress, the Morn bot can replace those words with "performer"? --From Andoria with Love 23:42, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
That is good suggestion but would it be foiled by fact that people still say actor? We would have to be always changing it back. PCPatrol 23:46, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it may cause a bit of a problem. For one thing, there are terms used frequently in the articles -- such as "veteran actor" or "veteran actress" or "character actor", etc. I'm not sure we can say "veteran performer" or "character performer", as those terms just don't sound right, at least in my opinion. Also, the terms "actor" and "actress" are more commonly used. I dunno... I think we're just gonna have to let the topic rest for now until we can get another admin's opinion. --From Andoria with Love 00:36, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I see no reason for changing them from actor to actress. When writing articles, you can call the females actor, actress, performer, or whatever. I would rather stick with actress when it applies; no need to change it. -Platypus Man 00:46, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • I personally feel neutering actor/actress references is needlessly complicated, and even a bit silly. But then, I also feel some people are too sensitive and go overboard with some so-called "PC" issues. I therefore think we should just leave "actor"/"actress" the way they were originally, since it's widely accepted and isn't confusing to anyone (especially non-native English-speakers here).
I'm female, btw. As if the name didn't tip you off. ;-) -- Miranda Jackson (Talk) 01:06, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • To echo most of the above points, there doesn't seem to be any negative connotation with "actress" any more than there is a negative connotation with the word "female" or "woman," so I don't see how political correctness even plays a role in this discussion. To me, changing everything from actress to actor is akin to changing every instance of "man" or "woman" to "person"--much too broad and general. "Performer," too, seems much too generic and only used in categories to simplify things as an individual can appear in an episode in a capacity other than as an actor/actress. Furthermore, we do need to establish context by saying "Gates McFadden is an actress" due to the fact that the actor and production information is meshed with the main content and is typically not disambiguated with (performer) or something else in the title. Finally, it is suggested above that changing "actor" to "performer" would not work because people would always be changing to "actor" or "actress"--the fact that this would happen should say that those terms are widely accepted and present no problem to those browsing the site. This is a community, and while the opinions of the individual are often important, I don't think we should be making policy based on the opinions of a few. To me this whole issue seems a bit too much like hair-splitting and something which shouldn't cause offense. I don't think "actor" or "performer" should necessarily become the new standard leading to policy, however editors should feel free to use whatever appropriate term when creating or editing an article. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 01:43, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)

This probably doesn't help, but am I the only person who sees the whole issue as somewhere between mildly pointless to utterly ridiculous? :P --Schrei 01:55, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)

You're right, Schrei... that didn't help. :þ But, yeah, having read all the points here, I do have to agree with A.J. and SmokeDetector; changing the terms "actress" to "actor" would go against some of the descripting and contextual policies already established on M/A. --From Andoria with Love 02:54, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Frankly, yes, this is pointless, that is why everything is back the way it was. Everything was fine the way it was before this all started, and there were no issues with being gender specific what so ever. It should be noted, too, that some names of actors and actresses are so gender neutral that clarifying that they are male or female is almost necessary, especially if there is no image clarify what gender the performer/character is. Take for example Synon, the performers name, Blake Lindsley, almost needs to be clarified, as I would have never suspected that Blake was a female, nor would the reader. Anyway, it seems quite clear that the consensus is to remain gender specific, and as well, going through and changing pages wastes a lot of time, space in the system, and basically just clogs up the recent changes page to the point of being annoying. Let's just let things be left be, and let bygones be bygones. --Alan del Beccio 04:08, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Here, here. ;) --From Andoria with Love 04:22, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Who is to say what the "ideal" term is?

Audio and Video Clips on MA Edit

On memory alpha, almost all of our Data is in the form of articles or pictures. I say almost because I found an audio clip on the page: Battle of Sector 001 If you click on the quote (Of what the Borg say) it should play. (Although it did not work on my computer) I was wondering what this was about. Can anyone put audio and video on MA? Is it fobbidden? Does it take up too much space or not work? I think that audio and video would make huge additions to our database, and make MA more visualy pleasing. Tobyk777 18:55, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • There is a notice on the upload page that states the reasons (mainly bandwidth and server space) video is not permitted. I wonder about the audio thing, because the copyright vs fair use thing is more jaded with the way we have the main themes to several shows stored on our server. But I think the reason there aren't more audio clips is that 1) it just doesn't occur to most people and 2) it's a lot easier to hit the screencap button in WinDVD or Windows Movie Maker or whatever program than to extract the audio, find the part in question, crop it, choose what format/bitrate to save it, and spend the time uploading (if you're on dial-up). ;) You're right in a way - audio and video would make huge additions, at least to the amount of server space we us. --Schrei 19:49, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think that putting Audio and Video would be a copyright violation just becuase someone could alter the recording. Also if they arnt premiited becuase of server reasons, than why was the one clip I mentioned premitted on MA, and on A featured article for that matter. Tobyk777 01:06, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • I didn't mean any clip is a copyvio - I was referring to the theme songs. People in the USA can legally have a 30 second clip of a song (not sure about video) and distribute/store them however they want, since hypothetically this is not causing any loss of profit to the copyright owner. That's why places like iTunes, Walmart, and other digital music places have them. On the other hand, if you have the whole thing, it becomes a Napster-type situation. I don't think a fan site is in much danger though. Anyway, the clip you mentioned is permitted because it's audio, whereas video is prohibited because it consumes a lot more space. --Schrei 23:23, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, if Audio clips are premitted how do you put them onto MA? Tobyk777 23:46, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Seems audio clips have to be accessed with the Image tag, they're uploaded like any other file though. I added a couple of quote sound files to Tribunal (maybe woulda been a good idea to do it on a non-FA article), but it's weird - the upload page claims mp3s and oggs are both allowed, yet when I tried to upload an mp3, it said that extension isn't allowed. --Schrei 07:33, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Line diagrams/technical drawings Edit

Do any of the articles on the site have technical drawings of the objects they describe? I have looked at several starship articles, but they only have photos. It would probably be a nice addition to have 3-way projection drawings for important ships. Presumably, all previously published plans would constitute copyright violations on the site? Would that include model kit instruction sheets? --Nineworlds 00:49, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I probably would. We include only book jackets and cover images from licensed products like novels -- so if it wasn't included, so i assume the same holds for collectibles -- we are probably prevented by copyright law from reproducing images of their documentation, like complete plans and decals (as opposed to simply using the images to display their packaging and the collectible itself).
If archivists takes it upon themselves to create their own technical reference, and upload it here (by default granting this community the right to display or edit the image), then it could be included.
The images would have to be accurate however, as Memory Alpha:Policies and guidelines requires of all information in the database -- in the past, I've removed or altered images i've drawn (in flags and banners and Starfleet ranks, if you must know) to comply with reminders from other archivists of details which might not be true to the original canon episodes and films -- this is another reason we avoid using pages from licensed (or fan-based) sources, like comics or Star Trek reference works -- many of them aren't true to the actual show or movie, which is our boundary of what we are supposed to be contributing.
One exception that has come up is graphic art used for episodes -- for example, line drawings of the Ptolemy class were projected onto a monitor in Star Trek II, so the original artwork is visible in a Star Trek production -- and can be reproduced on Memory-Alpha -- classified as fair use, just as screencaps are -- but this is a rarer case. Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 01:30, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)
That brings up an interesting point--since the Doug Drexler-produced encyclopedia drawings have shown up as background graphics in DS9 and VOY episodes, does that make the original artwork fair game? -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 01:52, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)
As long as it was shown onscreen, i'd say this probably qualifies -- i think this is exciting, and am ready to start helping to catalogue which artworks are appropriate for inclusion (as well as establish others that are not -- however we should try to stress maintaining the style it was viewed in (just as i changed the colors of the Ptolemy image to match the Star Trek II appearance rather than the black and white FJ SFTM version -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 03:39, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)
You should have a look at Shisma's Userpage -- he designed a lot of vessels already -- Kobi - (Talk) 09:07, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
LOL Kobi - that link didn't work as you want ;-) --Porthos 22:36, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Character relationshipsEdit

I think we should make pages for the relationships between major characters. We currently write the information out twice and it seems kind of pointless. If you take the relationship between two major characters, say Jean-Luc Picard and Beverly Crusher as an example, there is easily enough to be said to justify an article. By duplicating all info and putting it all down on each character page we make character pages unnecessarily long and waste space. Jaf 21:56, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf

On the major charcter pages, we have sections for personal relations. Tobyk777 23:17, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's kind of my point. Jaf 23:20, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf

hi, i read this and wondered how you plan to make relationship pages. is there a romance page per show, or just Beverly_Crusher_and_Jean-Luc_Picard? sounds a bit overly complex, i think every coin has two sides so maybe tell the same story from a different PoV? Makon 03:01, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

In response to your question about PoV: Because this is a television show using characters as oppose to "real" people, we are not caught in a world of subjectivity in terms of "How is the captain looking at this?" unless clearly demonstrated that by the show itself. An episode is filmed and therefore has only one point of view and in that sense it is objective and can be recorded as such. Jaf 03:47, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf

I don't mean for it to be limited to romantic relationships. I see this as a natural move for this wiki. It's similar to the process we seem to be undergoing of creating pages for species' history, philosophy, religion, wedding or sexuality, instead of keeping it all on the main species page. Except with character relationships there is even more reason to break them from the parent pages (ie avoiding repetition). Jaf 18:10, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf

Good idea, but as the history pages it should be limited to cases where really extensive information is available, e.g. William T. Riker (this page is just too long) and Deanna Troi (somebody just copyedited it to Deanna from Riker). Then we can substitute these sections with a link to William Riker & Deanna Troi (arranged alphabetically for the surname, R ... T). --Memory 21:47, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I absolutely don't like this idea. I think that any relationship should (and can, regarding the scope and POV) only be described in the context of the person having that relationship with someone else. It is not comparable to "SPECIES history", which is a well-defined topic of its own, while "X's relationship with Y" seems to be rather unencyclopedic. I also don't see the problem of content duplication here - as stated above, there's always the possibility to focus on the person having the relationship on each of the characters' pages. -- Cid Highwind 22:50, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Ok, but e.g. the duplication on William T. Riker and Deanna Troi is just pointless, especially regarding the fact that the Riker page is daunting long. --Memory 23:14, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Why not just incorporate the information into the article instead of pointlessly separating it? - 23:16, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Besides which, isn't it also pointless for the Federation to have secondary back-ups, as pointed out by a Cardassian in some episode? - 23:17, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Maybe we could separate big pages, like Riker and Worf, into section pages. Like on some big Wikipedia pages (e.g. George W. Bush) you could have a short summary of Riker's relationships with other characters and a see Relationships of William Riker for main article or something similar. It wouldn't stop "duplication" but it would shorten some of the big pages so that some people's browsers can read the page easier.--Tim Thomason 01:42, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)

moved from Talk:Jean-Luc Picard-William T. Riker relationship (deleted)

I think, in creating this page, the talk page should be utilized in either justifying, explaining or redirecting the reader to the discussion of why this page was created separately from the Jean-Luc Picard and William T. Riker pages, rather than creating a uniquely named (and somewhat nonconformed in style) page. --Alan del Beccio 16:53, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The answer to that would be quite logical. The following warning sign appeared to me when editting the Jean-Luc Picard page.
WARNING: This page is 52 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections.
And that's exactly what I did. I figured that the sections related to Picard's life and career were important to stay on the page itself, and thus I decided to create seperate pages for his relationship with others in case enough information is available to justify a seperate page. I currently created this page and Data-Jean Luc Picard relationship, and I think that another page about Picard's relationship with Beverly Crusher should be made too. Ottens 17:22, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Just because editing the whole page is large, doesn't mean users can't edit smaller sections as the warning suggests, not entirely separate pages. I dont' think we need these pages. Logan 5 17:42, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
The concern about large pages isn't for those who edit it, but for those who want to read the page, but have to wait for long periods for it to load on slow connections. Ottens 18:00, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
The warning you cite as justification specifically says: "some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb", nothing about accessing a page. Logan 5 18:02, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
You're right. Well, adding to that, some may have troubles viewing the page on slow connection also. ;) Either way, let's move the discussion to the related section in Memory Alpha: Ten Forward. Ottens 18:10, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

So Ottens started with Data & Jean-Luc Picard and I "copycreated" William Riker & Deanna Troi to show the two possible variants, a complete outsourcing like you can see it on William T. Riker and Deanna Troi, or the "Thomason-Variant" on Data. --Memory 17:15, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Considering I iniated this (I felt someone had to make the first step), I logically support the creation of such pages. Currently, these are the pages we're talking about:
I was cleaning up the Jean-Luc Picard page, and because of its immense length, I felt it was appropriate to move particular content to other pages, in order to decrease the size of the character page. Logically, I decided to move information regarding the character's relation with other characters, reasoning the best place for information regarding to the character itself would be on his or her own page.
Although the naming of pages like this could be debated, I feel it's only the logical next step in the always expanding nature of Memory Alpha. If all information related to one subject, especially in the case of characters, were to be put on the subject's page, several pages would become enormous. We already apply similar practices on pages like Federation, with, for example, a link to a seperate Federation history page. Such breaking up of pages should, of course, only be done in case a considerable ammount of information is available on the newly to-be-created page, which is the case with Federation history and which is also the case with the four pages listed above. Ottens 18:08, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I really don't think this a good idea. Also, shouldn't there be some form of consenus before making such drastic changes? --From Andoria with Love 20:38, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, if we did this, there would be far too many relationship pages. You would have to create articles for Kirk & Spock, Kirk & McCoy, Kirk, Spock & McCoy, Geordi & Data, Tom Paris & B'Elanna Torres, Archer & Trip, Archer & T'Pol, Mayweather & Sato, Sisko & Kira, Kira & Odo, Bashir & O'Brien, and oh, so many more, and that would just be ridiculous. PLUS, nobody's going to be looking for an article about a specific relationship -- they'll be looking for an article about a character that can tell them about that relationship. --From Andoria with Love 20:49, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Shran that this should not be pursued any further without community input. Someone indicated above that there are two POVs to every relationship, and that's exactly why I think this is a horrible idea. I don't know anything about TNG, but let's use DS9 as an example.
  • Julian Bashir and Jadzia Dax should have entirely separate descriptions for their relationship - he was chasing her and meant well; she was annoyed but enjoyed the attention. Benjamin Sisko and Dax - he was glad to see her but a little unsure at first; she tried to remain friends while differentiating herself from Curzon Dax. Nog and Sisko - Nog was eager to get into Starfleet because he didn't want to end up like his father; Sisko thought Nog wanted to apply as part of a scheme. Jake Sisko and Nog - perhaps one of the best candidates for something like this, but they still had different takes on their developing friendship, coming from Human and Ferengi backgrounds. Then of course we have Odo and Kira Nerys, where she was basically clueless for four years while he tried to be a good friend, listening to her talk about Bareil and later Shakaar.
  • My point is that, unless character development was completely bland to nonexistant on other series, consolidating a relationship into one page shouldn't work in that the only way to do this accurately would be to have a page for Beverley and Picard, another for Picard and Beverley, etc. I strongly prefer getting a holistic view where I can browse the page and see information about the person without clicking 500 times. Even our Riker page, the longest on MA, isn't "too long" - that's why Wikis are equipped with a table of contents. :) --Schrei 21:05, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
That's no point, we're writing articles not from the perspective of one person, so both versions of a relationship section e.g. at Julian Bashir and Jadzia Dax have to be identical and written from a NPOV. (The TOC doesn't solves the problem for modem users) --Memory 21:34, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
NPOV, when talking about one person's relationship with another, still allows for variety. I was mostly addressing the part about Riker & Deanna's relationship information being duplicated. I'm not sure how slow it goes on dial-up though. --Schrei 21:37, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Guys! This is TV, the only point of view is from the viewer. The only subjectivity comes in when we apply ours and MA is not about fan interpretation. And it is not that hard to say "Bob chased Amy, Amy didn't like it'. Relationship pages are the best solution to information duplication and unnecessarily long character articles. Jaf 23:35, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)Jaf
    • I admit I was on a tangent earlier, and I made some unnecessary points. However, the fact that this idea solves absolutely nothing still stands. It adds to the time one has to spend (loading extra pages makes it easier on dial-up users?) to view the same amount of information. It's not worth arguing the POV thing, since like you said, it's TV (I'm right :P). --Schrei 00:18, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
The advantages of doing this:
  • Articles of main characters will be less long;
  • There won't be the same information on two pages.
Now what are the disadvantages? Ottens 13:01, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
If I want to learn more about, for example, Riker's relationship to different people, I can now do so on one page. After moving all the information elsewhere, I'd have to read several pages ("... and Picard", "... and Troi", "... and Guinan", ...) where, on each page, I might even read more than I'm really interested in, because relationships often are "asymmetric" (trust me, I know ;) ). -- Cid Highwind 13:08, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Ok, so if I understand correctly the disadvantages are:
  • Too much clicking;
  • Both characters POV will be on one page.
Jaf 13:12, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)Jaf
Yes, the pages are quite annoying. I am something of a mergest by Wikipedia terms, I still stand by my original statement that these pages complicate a simple process. Whilst I don't quite understand the "They need separate pages" argument, two PoV's are still preferable, for shaving off maybe five kilobytes of text and one or two pictures at most doesn't improve the load time enough to justify the fragmentation in my eyes. Makon 15:00, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I thought that having to click on links to read more about a certain subject was the whole point of a wiki? Anyhow, in regard to the different POVs. If a relationship is indeed written on one page from that character's point of view, and written from another character's POV on his or her page, then sure, they should be seperated. In the cases we're talking about, however, the exact same text appears on both pages. I think that's a little ridiculous... Ottens 22:19, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • It's the whole point of wiki when you are reading an article about Picard and you want to click a link to learn more about his artificial heart, not more about Picard on another page about Picard. With regards to these relationship pages, they should be written from the perspective of Picard OR Riker and therefore should not contain the same content as the creation of these pages forces upon the reader. --Alan del Beccio 22:35, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I quite frankly don't care very much whether the information is on the character's page or on a seperate page. It just seems somewhat awkward to me to have the same info on two pages. And while perhaps information should be written from two perspectives, they aren't. Ottens 09:09, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The Trouble with Templates Edit

Between the accidental duplication of the episode infobox/sidebar and the recent change to the DS9 nav template, I think we need some place to discuss templates similar to the suggested categories section. I'm as guilty as anyone for doing this -I created and applied the nav template without any outside input, and look what happened when someone else did the same. --Schrei 19:20, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

For the act of fixing these templates i strongly suggest you enlist the help of a bot rather than adding the template to new episodes, and try to clean up the ones you are in the middle of fixing.
Manually going through all of them could have been avoided, so lets not start any more changes until we've
  • fixed the links in all the current uses of episode browser templates
  • add them via a bot, to provide some lag time, so users can size up the nav templates to be added, find any potential problems, and finally, cut the edit load down by having the bot do the massive numbers of edits necessary.
I realize everyone is willing to pitch in to get it done, but with so many people trying to make a mark on the template scene, its getting a little confusing, and this is where the mistakes are coming from. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 22:52, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I am trying to help clean this up, and if anyone would like to do so as well, i believe everything before the DS9 Season 4 episode "Homefront" is done. and yes, in the future let's use bots (robots? i'm not familiar with the term, but it sounds good.) Makon 00:02, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I Strongly agree that we need a Template suggestion page. These are popping up everywhere, and any (even new) users are creating them, I'm not sure their legit. - AJHalliwell 23:36, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Ya... Btw, did all the episode pages get done? Coke 23:41, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Has anyone contacted Kobi and asked him if he could have Morn fix the templates? --From Andoria with Love 23:44, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Can a Bot handle things like this? It's one thing to just tag something onto the end of the page, but dunno about sifting out the syntax. Coke 23:55, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Plot types Edit

I personally think this is a great idea, but I wanna see what other people think first. User:Ged created it and put it on episode pages like Babel. So what do you guys think? --Schrei 01:05, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • I like it. I've definitely gotten deja vous a few times while watching Trek. Coke 01:10, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Frankly it's a little too 'meta' for me. I think MA should be limited to discussing documented elements of Trek, not this type of dissection. Logan 5 01:27, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping to work my way through all of The Original Series episodes indicating the plot types, but this met with displeasure from User:AJHalliwell, who undid the changes. Two others have already voted against it.

User:Coke has already expanded the Curable disease plot with episodes from other series, so the idea resonated with someone.

Is there no way in which I can link to the plot types from episodes or do I have to wait until I complete all the TOS episodes before I could do that?

Is the issue that I put in the table? Should I link from the summary section or another section instead? --Ged 02:02, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I dont' think it's any of those things, it's more that this type of article may be outside the scope of what MA is trying to do: namely to document on-screen and production related elements of the show, not just to take them apart in a fan-discussion sort of way. What you've put isn't accurate, just maybe not really what the community is after. But that's why Ten Forward is here, to discuss that. Logan 5 01:36, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • We've had people do edits to many episode pages at once, only to find that later they had to be changed for one reason or another. Also, this has been suggested in category form already at Memory Alpha:Category suggestions. I know I'm not fond of this idea-- it seems too non-encyclopedia.- AJHalliwell 02:11, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Sets/scenery Edit

I noticed that most scripts i've read have a list of different sets or scenery the scenes will take place in. Perhaps this list would be well adapted to episode articles. Not only could we list a complete roster of locations visited in an episode, we could use it to cross reference which sets were reused as other locations. For example, "Encounter at Farpoint" would list all the sets introduced for TNG, and the fact that the battle bridge was a reuse of the USS Enterprise bridge, main engineering was the movie era engineering set, etc. "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II" would list engineering and the battle bridge being seen, but that this time around the battle bridge was a reuse of Data's laboratory. This colud also mean a list of each time the various "Planet Hell" sets or locations were reformatted or reused (Vasquez Rocks in TOS, the TNG rock stage, the DS9 cavern stage, VOY's eponymous Planet Hell, ENT's CGI locations, etc)

This has great potential to expand MA, perhaps even by an index, category or reference table, or a separate article (or background section, if its an article that already exists, like battle bridge) for each set piece we've seen being reused. If we standardize a style for this note first, it should be easy to systematically add it to many articles or list the data somewhere. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:04, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • In the long term this could lead to articles about popular set and/or locations. Jaf 02:44, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf

Centuries and Years Edit

A new anonymous user ( has brought up an interesting issue over years and centuries. By the looks of it, we used to use the '2300-2399' (As an example) method of measuring a century (Thus that would be the 24th century). However, brought up a fact that people rely on the method of measuring a century as so: '2301-2400'. So basically the question is, which one is correct for use in MA? - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 16:02, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)

That's odd, since the later is, IIRC, correct. The 1st century was from the year 1 'till the year 100, 2nd century from 101 to 200, etc. So the 24th century would start in 2301 and end in the year 2400, hence naming it 24th century. Ottens | SITE TALK | 10:33, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Pirateopedia Edit

Today on MA, a strange logo has been in the corner of my screen. It appears to be a pirate (or rather a one eyed potato) with the word "PIRATEOPEDIA" under it. It links to the main page. Does anyone know what this is? Jaz 16:10, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT)

I'm not seeing it, could it be some kind of wiki-virus? Also, as almost no one has edited a page in two hours (wow) is anyone else having trouble loading MA? Mine is loading really slow then screwing up, I figured it was just mine, but maybe not. - AJHalliwell 20:52, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Mine is slow too, and this text appears blue. Images are not appearing, and links are not working. Something is seriously wrong.Jaz 21:45, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT)
Woah... This was so trippy, I thought either someone slipped me something or I was in a time travel episode. The Pirateopeda logo randomly started appearing instead of MA, and every time I hit submit to add a comment here, it'd just show a preview except my timestamp kept going off by a few minutes or hours. Then the most random stuff kept happening. Not to mention the recent changes claimed a change I'd submitted to Odo five minutes earlier had happened five hours ago. All I can say is, woah. --Schrei 21:28, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)
The blue text is what happens if someone messes up his custom signature. I think Ottens did in the section directly above. As for the rest - Wikicities apparently has been "slashdotted" today. :) -- Cid Highwind 17:03, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT)
At the risk of further exposing my non-Trekkieness, what's slashdotted mean? :P --Schrei 17:10, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT)
That only exposes your general "non-Nerdieness"... ;) describes itself as "News for nerds", and a link on that page works like a Distributed Denial of Service attack for most sites. Today there's an article about the Uncyclopedia on the front page. -- Cid Highwind 17:16, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT)

I can see the "pirate-potato" too. Strange. -- 17:20, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT)

  • Mine's got a radio-controlled car on it, with the words "Radio control wiki" on it. Does anyone have any idea how long this goes on for? I can't even sign in! 22:01, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • We got hacked. BTW, where does the name-server for this site sit? And who controls it? Logan 5 22:29, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Checking to see if things are fixed yet. My I've let my life become to connected to MA. We were hacked? See, that sounds more probable to me than that slashing thing. Although I have yet to see the dinosaur-pirate-potato-wiki. - AJHalliwell 18:12, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT)
Believe it or not, we were not hacked. :) You can still see the pirate logo on, which is their logo for today... -- Cid Highwind 22:55, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Wait a second, what the hell is I just went to it and it looks almost like a wikipedia virus. Tobyk777 14:59, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Believed, just understand what hacking is better. Any idea when we'll be back up? Hm, I wonder if this'll get a foot note in the history of Memory alpha page, "The Talk-Like-a-Pirate Day Blackout." - AJHalliwell 19:38, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT)
Things seem to be back in working order now. I hope... --From Andoria with Love 07:12, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Then again, maybe not. --From Andoria with Love 07:13, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Things are working sporatically for me, and the times of my edits are appear at random hours. Edits I made now appear edits I made several hours ago. Other than that my browser keeps timing out, I haven't experienced anything else ya'll have been talking about. --Alan del Beccio 07:19, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)
This is getting really weird. When I log in, I'm unable to upload anything or even edit a page. When I try to edit something, whenever I klick "save page", I only get to see the preview. When I want to upload something, I get all kinds of strange errors. Now, I'm not logged in, and I can edit posts, but can't upload new images. This is getting really frustrating! Well, at least now we know, what is causing this: (scroll to the bottom). --Jörg -- 12:03, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Well I did not see any logo, but then again (yesterday) I could not even reach MA. Although reaching the DutchMA was no problem, I've got a DNS error back from the proxy server at Wikipedia(Cities?) so I think the problem was on their side. Today it the first time I can reach MA and read anything. -- Q 15:43, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I see the logo still. The fact that it's "pirate" and the overall bad response, etc lead me to think the site had been high-jacked and we were being denied entry, a common hack move. Glad to know I was wrong. Logan 5 12:19, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Also, there are still major bugs. After I hit Save it shows up as Preview only, and then about an hour later actually DOES save. Logan 5 12:19, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)
  • Ahah! I'm finally back, after trying for a day! This is the first time it's let me sign on. 14:16, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)
Yeah, if this wasn't a hack, its simply the site running like it was reprogrammed by some kind of stupid person... -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 17:58, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Is it just me or does it put things in the recent changes in random order? It claims the images I uploaded over the past 5 minutes were at random times over the last hour. --Schrei 19:35, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Discounting Infomation from Canon Material Edit

I saw in a did you know on the main page a few weeks ago, "The prodcers themsleves discount the events of the Voyager episode "Threshold" becuase ofd how sceintificaly inacurate it is." (or at least something like that) On "Threshold"'s backround info section, it says the same thing. I researched this, and found that it is true, that both the writters, and producers of Voyager agree that the information is invalid to the Star Trek universe. So, does this mean that it is invalid on MA? (I'm not making a statment with this remark i'm asking a question) If we have info on MA which although comes from a canon source, but the makers of that source discount it as true, then is it cannon, not cannon, true, false, etc.? I was just wondering about that. Tobyk777 04:26, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

...What? It comes from a canon source so it belongs here. Ben Sisqo 05:12, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
What the writers and producers of Trek interpret as canon is not the same as MA's canon policy. Two examples that are not considered canon by Paramount are The Animated Series and information from these computer screens - File:Jonathan Archer personnel file.jpg and File:Hoshi Sato personnel file.jpg, taken from "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II". However, they are both featured on this site and are considered canon by MA. --Defiant | Talk 12:02, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
They are considered valid resources by MA -- which means we will use them here as information -- because they were featured onscreen. Many times, even entire episodes or movies will be, in the producer's mind, not relevant, and they will disregard events and information from a previous production in favor of a new interpretation. This is an example of what is referred to as a changed premise -- the producers originally use one story, but then ignore previous information to allow a different story later.
For example - the Trill makeup. There was an original version, but they later decided to make it simpler, resulting in two very different types of Trill. Klingon blood was first seen bright purple, but was made much darker by later productions.
Data was originally considered as a character of alien origin "found" by the Federation. Only the later revision of "Datalore", 16 episodes later, made him the product of a Federation scientist, because they ignored their original idea (although no references to "alien Data" ever made it onscreen, making this a pure piece of background information. (as an aside, this is why we have background information as a subsection -- to ensure that we separate what appeared onscreen from what didn't appear onscreen -- this way we can list all of these canon references but without having a visible contradiction -- and a note that it has never been explained why something is "inconsistant" or "disregarded" in that manner, from what the producers call "canon").
I've changed the title of this subsection -- its a lot people for people to know you are talking about canon if you write canon -- as cannons have little to do with this. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 12:22, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

New language version of MA Edit

What do you guys think about the prospect of a Spanish MA? Before I say anything, don't get the wrong impression - this is just an idea, and I think AJHalliwell's the only person I've even mentioned it to. I'm curious if anyone here speaks the language and would be interested, assuming such an expansion is feasible. The thing is, I don't have the time or skill (my Spanish is mostly street slang) to hammer out the details, grow the Wiki, etc. I also don't know about the potential audience. But if someone else was interested or at least didn't mind a partner whose contributions would be mainly DS9 articles in need of copyediting, I'd be glad to help. And like I said, that's assuming MA is ready/able to expand. Any thoughts? --Schrei 02:19, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Has all the series been translated in spanish? Because I think in the case of my native language, they have not. What do you guys think of adding a Translation info to the series page? Maybe this way, we would know what language version would be nice to start. If its the case for spanish (or any other language), only adding a skeleton (with bots and the like) would be a enough to attract some spanish-english people that could translate articles all they want, I think. --Rcog 03:27, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)
If only your native language was Spanish instead of French, we might make beautiful music (or at least articles) together. ;) But seriously, I think it's best to just leave things as they are with the links to other language versions of pages. Not sure if Trek has been released in Spanish either - I was just curious if anyone was interested.
Oh, and it turns out that all it takes for MA to expand is for someone to fill out a Wikicities application (and of course translate the critical pages). I suppose I could start my own Spanish Wiki with cobbled-together barrio talk and then let it go dormant like 90% of Wikicities... --Schrei 04:20, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I think if you track down spanish speakers here and look at editors in the spanish wikipedia who contributed to the Star Trek pages (if they exist) it would be a nice idea. However I would not like to see it go down like the Polish MA. As for translation: the Dutch MA is a good example that even undubbed Star Trek can have a good encyclopedia -- Kobi - (Talk) 07:20, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I've seen the Spanish Wikipedia pages before, and there's little to nothing. The truth is that Trek is mostly nonexistant in Hispanic countries (or at least Mexico). There are probably Spanish-speaking Trek fans in the USA, but they'd just as soon use the English version. :) What happened to the Polish MA? Did it never start, or was the content erased? --Schrei 07:59, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Memory Alpha talk:Refit of the Week (from the defunct talk page)Edit

As this is still being discussed, I assume that none of these "rules and regulations" have been approved? - AJHalliwell 01:01, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, correct. — THOR =/\= 01:07, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Right, I wrote it on my own and it's all subject to change. I figure people can edit it as they see fit and what takes shape will be the policy. Sorry if I wasn't supposed to do that, I didn't think there was any question about the name being right. Weyoun 01:42, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Why would anyone vote neutral or oppose for something like this? Voting for something with a signature is enough of a vote. Coke 20:39, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but it doesn't look like there's enough interest for anyone to care how the voting goes, let alone vote. Unless they're just not voting because it's not "official" or something. Anyway, it's meant to bolster community support, but without support to begin with... I mean, come on, double nothing is still nothing. Weyoun 05:49, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Community FA effort (moved from TF)Edit

Maybe we could add something similar to the Improvement drive in the Star Wars wiki? --Defiant | Talk 13:48, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Additionally to the peer review? --Memory 19:38, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I see no problem with running them simultaneously, does anyone else? --Defiant | Talk 19:53, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if only because I don't like being similar to Wookiepedia, maybe we could have general "Community MA effort", to improve several things, along with featured articles. Some things the community could work on collectively, are the (I was recently flabbergasted at the) gargantuan number of stubs and uncategorized pages. Also, unused images could probably use some cleaning. - AJHalliwell 21:12, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I think that's a great idea! If we nominated a specific article every couple of days to a week for everybody to contribute to and focus on we could certainly get rid of a lot of our {{pna}}'d and {{stub}}'d articles. And we would be collectively enhancing the community effort. — THOR =/\= 21:43, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)
This is a good idea because, whereas Peer Reviews are for articles people have worked on when they want opinions from the community, Refit of the Week (I want royalties if you use that title!) would be for articles that need work when it's too big a task for one person. Could we make Quark our first Refit of the Week?
Things to do include personal relationships - all he has are some bullets under the heading "social interactions" and a list of relations - elaborating on personal details such as how torn he was between Ferengi/Federation values, interests such as tongo, obviously more and better pictures, and his life during the occupation. He also has no timeline, which may or may not be necessary in this case. If you'd had this idea a month ago, I could have suggested the Stub of Bajor, but I think it's come a long way since then. --Schrei 23:19, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)
"Refit of the Week", great title, Schrei! — THOR =/\= 01:54, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I like this idea and the name, but I do have some reservations. I had typed a cautionary response about how many stubbed articles could be de-stubbed with little effort when I remembered someone mentioning that many history pages are incomplete or missing. Perhaps this will work as a long-term project if we step outside the box to work on pages like Romulan history (I could find no Klingon history page), Bajoran religion, and Hail, which is particularly dismal with one sentence that broadly cites "Star Trek." All of the articles I have mentioned could be impressive some day, but they are more difficult to write then the more popular pages such as starships, main characters, and episodes. —Makon 03:27, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I had doubts that such a concept could work on a Wiki until I found the Star Wars example. They have nominations for their "improvement drive", an idea I think we should also adopt. --Defiant | Talk 07:06, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea. I took the liverty of creating the page THOR linked to cuz it seems like nobody really opposes the idea so far. Nominate stuff and we can see how it turns out. Weyoun 23:46, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Given the number of articles on MA, I think that anything done to enhance an existing article is more important than just creating new ones. Any suggestion to achieve that goal gets my support - I'm just not sure if this one really will. For example, what exactly is the difference between this suggestion and either the existing "peer review" or the existing pna-messages (especially "pna-incomplete")? It seems to be a mix of both with a complicated voting process added to it. What "community effort" could this page muster that one of the existing can't? Would it be possible to at least combine this one with one of the existing ones to avoid several completely independent structures? -- Cid Highwind 12:03, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

To Cid's comment: I think what Schrei said above is correct because peer review articles you think are ready to be featured but suggest it there if you think it needs more work than one person can handle. The voting process can be simplified to just vote for the article you want and the one with the most wins. And I completely agree about improving existing articles -- Have you seen Category:Memory Alpha stubs? -- which is why I think this might help. As far as combining and all that, I'm open to suggestions. I think if nothing else this might get attention because it could be on the front page or wherever since people obviously forget to fix their own stubs. Weyoun 00:30, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm starting to rethink it and this might not be necessary. Once I started thinking about what Makon said, I realized ala Klingon history there aren't that many pages where a massive amount of effort is needed - it's just a matter of time in most cases. And God knows we're not short on Featured Articles. :P --Schrei 03:18, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)

It can only muster as much community effort as we (the community) give it. Vedek Dukat 16:09, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)

So... Is this going to become part of MA, or what?
I say we go ahead with it since no one spoke up and said we shouldn't. Coke 20:41, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The fate of Memory Alpha:Refit of the Week Edit

Well, this isn't something you would normally do on VfD, but if the idea is a flop, we'll have to delete the page anyway. Let's just make this a vote on whether or not Refit of the Week can work on MA; it doesn't seem to have attracted much attention during the Ten Forward discussions, so I'm skeptical right now. Weyoun 05:18, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

A request: Vote here, but discuss on "Memory Alpha talk:Refit of the Week". We don't need to have the discussion spread out across three pages, so I also moved the initial discussion from TF there. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 09:26, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete/(Rewrite). Obviously, the way it is now, this one doesn't work. It also seems redundant, as I mentioned in the discussion. If it stays that way, delete. I'm willing to withdraw this vote, should there be any good changes to the suggested policy. If the page gets deleted, talk page content should be moved back to TF. -- Cid Highwind 09:26, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I never understood the point of it in the first place. Users should just take it upon themselves to "refit" an article if they feel so inclined, otherwise, what is the point in making a special page to announce something that would otherwise fall under the suggestion: "be bold". Myself, I added pages I would like to be "refitted" in the form of "personal projects" on my personal page without really drawing any attention to it whatsoever. It's a big universe, just pick something and write. --Alan del Beccio
  • Delete. I agree. I never actually payed much attention to it when it was first created, as I thought it likely wouldn't last long since it is, to be frank, rather pointless. However, I mean this in no offense to Weyoun -- the attempt to further help and expand MA is always appreciated, and future ideas are greatly encouraged. You know what they say: If at first you don't succeed, blame Berman & Braga. Everyone else does. :P --From Andoria with Love 05:47, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

LCARSource (Wikisource) Edit

I had the idea the other day, for use as the long detailed summaries, to have a Wikisource like thing for memory alpha. That way the "Summary" is a summary, and they can go to the much more detailed Memory Alpha Wikisource page for the Defiant-class summaries. Now that I think about it, this could also be used for other things; things like the letters written to Picard in his Picard family album are kinda long to be on the Jean-Luc Picard, Picard family album, or Star Trek Generations background section; maybe we could have something like this to put down all the really long text on Star Trek. (Other examples coming to mind are Rudolph Ransom's bio-file, from "Equinox, Part II", currently housed on Talk:Rudolph Ransom. Another example would be Captain Janeway's file from "The Killing Game", and I'm sure there are countless others. Thoughts? Opinions? - AJHalliwell 20:51, 30 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • Not a real thought but maby some sort of 'Personal logs' or Ship or Captain log category, were policy could/might be enforced less strict from POV or dictionary standpoint ? -- Q 21:04, 30 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • You could do an LCARSource if you wanted to archive scripts and other useful information, although the whole "don't submit copyrighted work without permission" would have to be modified for its purposes... --Weyoun 00:15, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • In my opinion, it would be better to break pages up. For example, Federation history is on a seperate page, with a short summary of its content on the Federation page. That, to me, makes more sense than creating a whole new wiki. The same could be done in regard to relationships between several persons, for example a page dedicated to the relationship between William Riker and Deanna Troi, summaries of its content on both respective pages and links to the relationship page. If a background information section of a certain movie becomes way too large, then create the page "MOVIE TITLE background information". Ottens 16:22, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

External link(s) vs. External Link(s) Edit

  • Do we capitalize the "l" from links or not? From the relevant help doc, it appears that we do not, but it's done on so many articles. Also, do we pluralize "link" even when we have only 1 external link? - Intricated 18:49, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • I've always capitalized the "l," but I'll stop if it's deemed incorrect. As for pluralizing it, I say that putting "External link" points out the fact that there is only one of them. I know that that sounds stupid, but for standardization if nothing else, they should all be pluralized. -Platypus Man | Talk 19:27, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • This seems trivial. What's not to say more external links won't be added in the future? Linking to Wikipedia is always an easy first external link, more can certaintly be added if someone knows of more relevant or useful external links to add. And it has also been my understanding that each subsection heading is like that of a chapter or a heading, which is generally capitalized in a novel or textbook. --Alan del Beccio 14:47, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree with the "link(s)" issue, in that it should be "links" at all times. However, the capitalization issue is still vague to me. I personally prefer to capitalize the entire title for "External Links", but it seems to go against the rules:
You should capitalize the first word of a header and any proper nouns, but leave all of the other letters in lower case.
Example: == Example header for Memory Alpha's manual of style ==
I can go either way on this matter; I just want to ensure that I and everyone else is clear on what is expected of them when they edit/write articles. -Intricated 17:22, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Starting a Real Starship Development Project Edit

Considering that Trek is going to be off the air for a few years and real technologies that will pioneer space flight are approaching, wouldn't it be prudent for us to create a series of pages that actually give the basis for developing a working space craft?

IE: The space elevator will be operational in about 5-10 years. It's seems feasible for one to build a dayship that has it's own power and life support with manuevering thrusters to tool around orbit and ride the elevator down until we create "warp" ships. ;-)

All of this is in promotion to getting off the rock of course.

Ideas? Suggestions? Support?


  • However, on the same note, it would be prudent for archivists to deposit blueprints and schematics for said buildings. Much like a hall of records that contain blueprints for buildings that represent building codes or construction detail. Considering much other information is included into this database relating to space travel (since it is the premise of the ST series), it would seem the logical place to incorporate such information. - JFalcon 23:00, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Right idea, wrong Wiki. I'm all for finding some way to expand MA (like my profile says) but I think we all know what's gonna happen to MA in 5-10 years, it's gonna kill itself because the well of "canon" info (which is all MA allows) will go dry and we'll have nothing to do. Sorry if that sounds pessimistic but it's true. Vedek Dukat 03:02, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • In all of the material I've ever discovered for which there is much not listed (such as a series of Starfleet Academy like publications I've seen when I was a young child and never been able to find again - no longer in print or in circulation). I think the bias towards canon information that only originates from Paramount and "official" ST writers causes much degrasion in terms of completeness. I feel that in the spirit of the intent of the writers who created the concept of MA within the original series, it's prudent for us to encompass all material and knowledge possible in regards to space travel and xenobiology in addition to other matters in the fields of engineering, sciences and politics. Having cross referenced information in regards to ST related material isn't bad as it covers the actual intent of what it is. However, for a true MA wiki, expansion of knowledge and information is necessary for real use of this information. It's hard to believe that writers and archivists would not be excited with such an idea. In regards to the advancements within the next 5-10 years, in the past year of this posting, we've seen the launch of the first private spacecraft and it's successful flight, the launch and successful flights of Chinese spacecraft, the successful test of the crawler that will eventually create a space elecator allowing low cost with little polution access to orbital space. Not to mention other privately funded spacecrafts and what will come afterward. MA could be utilized as a repository for any and all information that would allow development of a truly working spacecraft including information on life support, propultion, navigation and orbital mechanics. -- However, it's just a thought. - JFalcon 3:00, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • You make some interesting points, although it would require a major policy change to make what you're talking about happen. Weyoun 05:50, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • That would be fascinating... ironically it would be anti-greed since nobody could patent a building design since it could be documented that a certain Wiki already laid out the plans ;-) --Funkdubious 22:44, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Template:TV Series Edit

This template was created by Ben Sisqo and probably inspired by our German version (see de:DS9). It's a good idea I think, but when I saw Defiant's reason for moving it to the bottom - MA traditionally puts stuff there - I realized how different, and potentially controversial, having this at the top is. However, I don't think it should be at the bottom since nobody's going to see it there with seven seasons of episode listings between them and the navigation. I think Enzo had a good idea when he suggested placing this in the middle of the article, right before the episode listing (see Template talk:TV Series), but what does everyone else think? --Schrei 21:04, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • First of all, I think the bottom of an article is the best place to place such a navigation template, if we would place it on pages at all. People go to a certain article for the content of that particular article. They move down, and when they're finished reading the article, then they move on to another one. When they're finished reading, they're at the bottom. Hence this is the best location to place templates such as these.
  • Besides, I think the width of the template could be reduced in using something like the following format:
Star Trek television series
The Original Series | The Animated Series | The Next Generation | Deep Space Nine | Voyager | Enterprise

Ottens 21:11, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • The stylistic issues can be dealt with later, right now I want to focus on whether to include it and, if so, where. But yeah, that does look a bit better. --Schrei 21:23, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I think it is more logical to generally put it at the bottom, since one doesn't want to scroll all the categories and other generics stuff before seeing the effective article. Maybe we could put a link to the episode listing instead of having the whole list on the main serie page? What do others think? - Rcog 01:57, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • That's an excellent idea and one I thought of when I first came to MA but never wanted to bring up since I was still new. --Schrei 02:10, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
What does that mean? Just having links to individual listings of seasons on each series page? For example, Star Trek: Voyager would link to VOY Season 1, VOY Season 2, etc.? --Defiant | Talk 02:16, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
No, at least not if Rcog is thinking what I am, which is to do it like Wikipedia and have a comprehensive list page instead of separate season pages and a list that bloats the series page. --Schrei 02:21, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I definitely say bottom. But not all templates should be like that, "this is up for FA status" for example is something you want to point out right away. And I don't see a problem with the list, and isn't wikipedia's format a really long table, with many pictures? Kinda like has; - AJHalliwell 02:34, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

You gotta hand it to the Wikipedia people, the TNG episode list is color coded and everything, and their sidebar leaves us in the dust. Dunno if we wannt go about trying to emulate their stuff, but if it's at the very bottom, you definitely need to remove the list. Ben Sisqo 02:39, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I think we should get rid of the season pages and just put as much info as we can on each series page beside each episode - hopefully, it would start to look like the wikipedia pages or, but slightly different too. Also, I think we should consider displaying different information beside the episodes. For example, I think single "FA"s could signify featured articles and the image at the top of each episode page could be displayed next to its link on the series page. That way, it would be easier to tell which pages still need images at the top of its table. --Defiant | Talk 03:16, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I support that. In fact, this already exists at the German MA like the series template, for example here. It can be very useful to have such a numbered list. --Memory 22:56, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
What do users think about adopting the method used here - Star Trek: The Animated Series/temp? Any ideas on how to improve the table? --Defiant | Talk 23:13, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)
That page shows a lot of promise and would be a great idea. The Wikipedia TNG list is well done, and I think something similar like what you've got in mind would be perfect. If you look at the Wikipedia pages for some of the early TNG episodes, you can see they've already begun to implement what I was aiming for with the ill-conceived episode sidebar template: a standardized placing of the info, which can be uniformly applied and altered cosmetically as desired. Anyway, one thing at a time - I like it. :) Putting the list on a separate page still sounds like a good idea though. --Schrei 01:18, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I'm slightly unsure of how to proceed with implementing the changes. Is there a waiting period? Is the MA community at large even comfortable with, or in support of, these modifications? --Defiant | Talk 12:55, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)

As no-one opposed this idea, I've just went ahead and changed TAS accordingly. --Defiant | Talk 14:15, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)

One thing: I don't like these "micro-thumbs" on the left side, "Memory Alpha is not an image gallery" (quote) --Memory 23:26, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
It adds to the experience since nobody's ever actually watched TAS. You should just link to the Wikipedia page though since it's already been done. Vedek Dukat 23:39, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
The images could show which articles are missing episode images, if users make sure that the images on the episode lists match those in the articles. This is just an example of what the other series pages might be changed to, so VD's comment that a lot of people haven't seen TAS is not really relevant. Also, I think the episode list and actual episodes themselves should be all internal, not on Wikipedia. --Defiant | Talk 00:33, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)
The problem with the pics is: if there are some missing on the ep. pages the table will look unsymmetrical (unacceptable), and if all articles have one, we don't need it as indicator. So MA is not an image gallery ;-) --Memory 18:36, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Well, my idea was... keep it until all the episode articles have an episode image and then remove the "micro-thumbs". Also, I think the statement, "MA is not an image gallery" was probably added to discourage users from uploading too many images, as the sentence is pretty much presented in that context. I don't think it means this kind of activity, using images that have already been uploaded. --Defiant | Talk 18:48, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Memorable Quotes and other things Edit

Is there a standard for where to put memorable quotes sections? They're placed right before the background section in some articles, but others put them inside the background section. I think that's silly, since they're not background information at all, but I don't want to change it without getting input from others. Sloan 18:54, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

While not strictly speaking a style guide, there is an episode template at "Memory Alpha: Template for Episode" that should probably be the first word on episode article layout. It has "Memorable Quotes" as a subsection of "Background Infomation", which is the first section after the summary. --9er 05:11, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

This leaves me wondering, because according to this, many episodes do it wrong with the reference lists, which link everything regardless. However, that part I can live with; my real issue is the fact that, as stated, quotes have nothing to do with background/behind-the-scenes/trivia type information. Shouldn't it be changed? Sloan 06:17, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Quotes were added to the template as a second-level section by Redge on 13 May 2004. Captainmike switched quotes from a second-level section to a third-level section on 7 Dec 2004. Whether there was discussion about these changes beforehand I don't know. Personally, I'm slightly in favor of them being a separate section, but I don't feel too strongly about it. --9er 06:34, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I actually thought it was standard for them to be above tha BG info section, and I moved them accordingly on a couple pages only to realize there's no standard. It seems logical to have it right after the summary though, since that's part of the summary in a sense. --Broik 01:35, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I agree. It should be the first section right after the summary. --9er 02:08, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
As do I. That's the disadvantage of a Wiki format, though; no centralization unless it's self-enforced. Makon 02:14, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
As I indicated in my edit summary when I changed the template to the order you guys are talking about, this seems to be the consensus unless there are a lot of people who simply haven't been on MA to see the convo yet. We'll see what happens. Weyoun 02:29, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
My plan to standardize the DS9 episodes (there were some other people who did it, but I focused on DS9) seems to be going against the grain when applied to other episodes... Other series (and DS9 episodes, although I've mostly removed that trend) place quotes after background, at least on the episode pages that have a quote section. I'm not sure I want to go around arbitrarily changing things... Does anyone have feelings to the contrary, eg you think quotes should be after background? --Vedek Dukat (Talk) 01:11, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I don't feel too strongly either way at the moment, but have a suggestion. Why not concentrate on content instead of formatting for the moment? Apparently, there are many different opinions about where to put that section (or even subsection). It might simply be best to create new articles the way the template suggests and keep old articles as they are. If we can at least agree on one section title, perhaps a bot could do the reordering later. -- Cid Highwind 12:27, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but for the bot to reorder them, we'd have to have a consensus (that's the idea of Wikis) of what to tell it. And BTW, "content" is what User:Vedek Dukat/Episodes is all about. :P --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 05:53, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Is there or has there ever been any objection against the section title "Memorable quotes"? I think not (except, perhaps, the capitalization, but a bot should be able to handle that). -- Cid Highwind 13:42, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Episode ratings Edit

I just had another thought... episode ratings. This would be included most likely in the actual Episode page. How about a rating system of 0-5 stars, 0.5 increments. My suggestion is to rate an episode, you must be registered, one step to ensure single vote. Not sure of how you'd go about doing this via a wiki...

Just throwing it out there to see if it sticks ;-) --Funkdubious 17:46, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • Absolutely bad idea on a Wiki. Episode ratings are just too subjective. If there was an automated system like a BBS or something would have, maybe, but here it just wouldn't work, especially since there are such broad differences of opinion on this kind of thing. --Vedek Dukat (Talk) 19:27, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Memory Alpha is a wiki and needs to support neutral comments not reflecting any personal preference. There are countless forums or episode guides out there in the web, we don't need this here -- Kobi - (Talk) 20:40, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Neutrality is key to a wiki i agree. If there was some way to list the episodes in order of their MA pageviews it would be interesting though -- it would be a rating based on how many people have read each episode here on MA - and which is sought out the most. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 21:04, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
For the record,
  1. "Trials and Tribble-ations" (14928 views)
  2. "These Are the Voyages..." (12864 views)
  3. "In a Mirror, Darkly" (11820 views)
  4. Star Trek Nemesis (10577 views)
  5. "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II" (9851 views)
  6. Star Trek: First Contact (9830 views)
  7. "What You Leave Behind" (8455 views)
  8. Star Trek Generations (8432 views)
  9. "Endgame" (8046 views)
  10. "Affliction" (7574 views)
  11. "Broken Bow" (7535 views)
  12. "All Good Things..." (7182 views)
  13. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (7087 views)
  14. "The Way of the Warrior" (7059 views)
  15. Star Trek: The Motion Picture (7025 views)
  16. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (7021 views)
  17. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (7003 views)
  18. "The Visitor" (6980 views)
  19. Star Trek: Insurrection (6163 views)
  20. "Far Beyond the Stars" (5839 views)
  21. "Demons" (5779 views)
  22. "First Contact" (5773 views)
  23. "Encounter at Farpoint" (5620 views)
  24. "The Aenar" (5544 views)
  25. "The Cage" (5340 views)
  26. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (5293 views)
  27. "Threshold" (5219 views)
  28. "Emissary" (5217 views)
  29. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (5201 views)
  30. "Divergence" (5169 views)
  31. "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (5061 views)
  32. "Yesterday's Enterprise" (4943 views)
  33. "Bound" (4868 views)
  34. "United" (4758 views)
  35. "Azati Prime" (4604 views)
  36. "Court Martial" (4371 views)
  37. "Regeneration" (4361 views)
  38. "Sacrifice of Angels" (4175 views)
Even that system would be prone to systemic bias. ENT episodes are all high in page views for the simple fact that they were on the air (and main page, when the "latest episodes" thing was there) after MA was created. But yeah, no ratings system is necessary. --Broik 03:17, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Copyright and the other language versions of MA Edit

I just started the french version of MA and I want to know how to deal with the copyright rules and the different language versions of MA.

In other terms, do we consider all the language versions as part of one site or are each version considered as separate websites. This question deals with using the content of any version for another.

So, how far, can we use content from english MA (translated of course) ?

  • When using texts (translated) from english version, shall we aknowledge all the authors of the original version and put a link to the MA english Main Page, to the english article concerned, to the History pages (contributors) and the licence term of MA english (in that case some references will figure twice with the Interwiki interconnections)
There are pages that need to be translated exactly from english version (copyright, help pages, policies...). For those, I think there should be no controversy (otherwise there will be probably rebellion in all the other languages versions)
But what about great articles, if someone edit the english version, copy it into the other language database and simply translate the text, what should we do ?
  • When using screenshots or similar images, found in the english MA, shall we indicate in the description page "Source of the image : Memory Alpha english, uploaded by userX".
  • If a fan grants permission to english MA, to use his original artwork, does it also permit another language version to use it (with the appropriate credit for the author of course)
  • For other media (sound for exemple), in order not to upload them into French database, I put a direct link to the english database :
    Thème principal (composé par Jerry Goldsmith) on this page TNG fr

Should I make a reference that this link links into the english database ?

I didn't found details about this in the MA english help. Maybe I didn't look enough but as I'm about to translate all these pages, I'll find it one day. Philoust123 22:33, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Many of the Dutch pages are just translations of the English ones, and the Swedish ones... Well, I don't know what's going on there, but the German ones seem to be original from what I've seen. Anyway, the point is that, as they say on Risa, "All that is ours, is yours" (I think that's how it goes). It's all one site, and in the case of copyright permission, giving permission to "Memory Alpha" would presumably mean "Memory Alpha English, German, French, Swedish, Dutch, Polish, Spanish, and Igpay Atinlay." --Broik 22:42, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Finally, though I don't speak a word French, I'm eager to have a new place to play with Morn. Somebody please activate the interwiki links. As for the original question, Memory Alpha is Memory Alpha. By setting the interwiki link any author can compare the other language editions and see the original contributors there -- Kobi - (Talk) 23:04, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I wish I could help with the new French version of MA (Saw it a few days ago, before it had a valid link on the main page), but my knowledge of French isn't enough for me to speak it fluently. However, if there is the odd thing I can contribute somehow, I'll try to help ;) - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 00:55, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
The same goes for me, although I don't know much French outside of what I learned during Moulin Rouge and Casablanca. :-P But I would suggest (I know it's tedious) making episode pages a top priority - even if they're blank templates. Once you lay the foundation down, other people will build on it. Good luck! :-) 01:05, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think it is a Good Thing (tm) to create automatically the episode pages (for example) with only a skeleton. As a user, when I click on a (blue) link, I expect to be directed to a page with _content_ (at least a summary). For the interwiki linking, is this sufficient to be an administrator or does it need more "powers" to do it? -- Rcog 04:02, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Mailinglist Edit

Hey everyone. Continuing the small discsussion from March 2005, I'd like to push forward the idea of a Memory Alpha mailinglist. One list for all languages should fit our needs at the moment, for international related problem we could write english, otherwise svedish, dutch, german, frensh, polish, or a mix of all with a little spice of klingon. The problem is that I tend to lose track when I'm offline for a few days. So I missed the start of our new sister project, the french MA. This mailinglist could announce such news and MA-related problems such as vandalism or technical problems. — Florian - talk 13:44, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Isn't that where the Memory Alpha:Announcements page is for? Truly, I don't think we need a mailinglist. Ottens 13:52, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Well but you only look on the Announcement page if you are online at Memory Alpha. In case of vandalism you need to be alerted via email. I'm very much in favour of a mailinglist -- Kobi - (Talk) 13:57, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Mailing lists are so 90's. :) There's an RSS feed for recent changes, though recent changes have too high a volume to monitor only certain things. Perhaps someone can weigh in on whether it's possible to create more limited feeds, say for Announcements only? --9er 14:08, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

The Expansion of MA Edit

After looking at some of the things going on here lately, such as:

  • Deletion of MA which Trek is your favriote
  • Rejcetion of expansion of canon
  • Rejection of episode polls

I see that people are stuck to the idea that a wiki is souly an infomation source. The fact is, a wiki is the most interactive type of website there is. I think that we can expand MA far beyond a Trek database. If people change their idea of what a wiki is supposed to be, we could make a totaly interactive Trek site. For example we could:

  • Use talk pages as actual discussions of Trek
  • Let readers write POV articles on what they think of an aspect of Trek
    • For this idea we would need someway to devide the encyclopedia from the other stuff.

The possiblities of the level of interaction we could have on a wiki the size of MA is enormous. MA can be so much more than a simple database. It could be a way for Trek fans worldwide to congreagate. I know it's a huge change in policy, but it would be great if we could go past a database, into larger things. Tobyk777 03:01, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

It is true that a wiki can be more than a database - but this wiki was created with the specific goal to become a complete "canon-Trek" database. There are tons of websites focussing on discussions, polls and fan fiction related to Trek. Why should Memory Alpha try to become yet another one of those sites, if it can be a relatively unique site if it stays the way it is? -- Cid Highwind 11:40, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Use talk pages as actual discussions of Trek
  • Let readers write POV articles on what they think of an aspect of Trek
We have this: on user pages like Tim's, Shran's or T smitts'. And there's also the "background information"-section where you can add small essays about interesting meta-trek-stuff (e.g. constitution class). For other things there is Trek BBS. --Memory 18:55, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Another skin for Memory Alpha Edit

I know it might be somewhat overused, but an LCARS-like skin would be cool. Or one similar to

Another thing: white background with black text with a serif'd font for body text is easier to read then the black/dark bg with white/light text... just FYI (its the reason paper is white, years of psychological analysis of these) Its probably why the main Wikipedia is white/black too. The most "space efficient" skin is the default, so kudos to whoever created that one. Is there a way submit a skin? --Funkdubious 23:29, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)

You can create your one via a homebrewed Monobook.css stylesheet. With it you can make changes to the standard skin and so create your own MA look. Keep in mind that paper is something entirely different that a computer screen. You don't want to read black letters on a white background. Before you reach the end of the page you will need snowglasses. -- Q 13:54, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Episode summaries Edit

So I'm seeing two different types of Episode summaries, as I move through the Voyager series: 1) a very terse version of the episode, 2) a very verbose version of the episode, almost blow-by-blow and scene-by-scene.

I've written a couple of summaries already, and I'm leaning towards a middle ground between the terse version, which technically could be the episode description, and the verbose scene-by-scene version, capturing the essence of the episode, like a book report. The great thing about that is hitting the Wiki-style documents that will hit the keywords of the episode, and continue to build our canonical knowledge.

Good, but short summaries:

"Longer"/more in-depth summaries:

  • "Warhead" (FYI:written by Me)
  • "Endgame" -great episode article. (I'd nominate it for Featured Article)

...And then theres a few that are really too short:

  • "State of Flux" -what was the Federation technology that damaged the Kazon ship?

I'm curious as to what the community would like to see? --Funkdubious 00:21, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

You should have been here a few weeks ago, because you would have seen that there really is no consensus. The "really short" ones are probably people who just saw the "SUMMARY" filler from the template and put something in there, but anyway... Okay, so the final episodes of DS9 Season 2 and ENT Season 4 have really really long summaries because they were getting featured on account of that, but not everyone likes the uber-long summaries, some want it like "Trials and Tribble-ations", but if you want something to model it after, look at "Emissary" as I think that was the Great Compromise of Memory Alpha. I personally think the Tribble one is perfect - I don't like the whole act thing... --Vedek Dukat (Talk) 00:26, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

"Broken Bow" is another Featured Article. The size of the summary is based on "Emissary", as the community seem to prefer it short. Whatever size the summary is, information (be it sights, sounds, specific words used, etc.) will be missing as it is adapted between media. Personally, I think the summary should primarily concentrate on main plot elements. Nowadays, I'm always thinking "story, what's the story" to myself as I write. Other types of articles can be used for more detailed information. Hope that helps. --Defiant | Talk 17:56, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)

That's a great way to describe how I'd like to write the summaries "story... what's the story" That's the way I'll write some of these missing summaries. Thanks Defiant --Funkdubious 21:24, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Spelling corrections and "massive-edits" Edit

Any way to fix all the misspellings of "recieve" and "recieves" in a massive edit? And I thought I saw some kind of spell checker bot... The rule is "I before E except after C and sounding as an A as in neighbor and weigh" --Funkdubious 02:14, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Memory Alpha:List of common misspellings is the root file, the function itself is located at "Special:Maintenance". -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
LOL... Is that some kind of inside joke that the link for Pages with Mispellings (on the Special:Maintenance page) has "subfunction=mispeelings" ? And I'm curious as to why that's not implemented as a bot (for the purpose of that special edit flag for mass edits) -- 21:07, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I've been meaning to start a bot project to go through it. Any takers? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
I'll be getting cable internet here within the next couple weeks when I am able to have full access to the site once again (versus sporatic lunch visits at work). I had intended on starting a bot when I returned just to have another able body to help me out with various projects Ive been working on, such as this. --Alan del Beccio 19:17, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Memory Alpha on Wikipedia Edit

Hi all. I love MA and have used it on several occasions to corroborate facts I was unsure about, so I figured I'd give something back by giving it a good page on Wikipedia. If all goes well, I'll eventually get it featured and MA can be on the front page of Wikipedia. Maybe someone wants to help? It's at Wikipedia:Memory Alpha. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Narco 02:04, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Captain mike and Platyupus 22 (as well as a couple others), but as the exact start of the Swedish version is not listed on Memory Alpha:History, I hope someone knows it and will add it to the page. It's turning out really well thus far, still a work in progress though. Narco 18:18, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Episode link titles Edit

Just curious: Any reason why the episode link isn't the S#E00 format? Then you don't have to distinquish Caretaker (Nacene) from "Caretaker" (which would be Voyager: Caretaker), and Emissary from "Emissary" (which would be Deep Space 9: Emissary). (And does anybody find it ironic that they're both season pilots?)--Funkdubious 04:28, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Because "Emissary" is the title, and "DS9 S1E01" is just a cryptic abbreviation. If I want to link a specific episode, I can just use its title - and even if I'm missing a necessary qualifier, the link will still at least lead to a disambiguation page which has some connection to the episode page. This is simple - using an abbreviation where I would have to look up the correct one every time I want to link an episode is not. -- Cid Highwind 15:02, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

After thinking about this a little more, how about prefixing VOY/TNG/DS9/etc to the episode name... solves both problems. The only reason I'm bringing this up is because of the namespace collisions that will continue to grow. "Caretaker"/Voyager: Caretaker, "Emissary"/Voyager: Emissary, and thats just the Voyager series. Anyways, what do y'all think?--Fundubious 18:18, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Ain't growing now. And no two episodes have the same title. --9er 18:26, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)
We would still need a piped link every time we want to link to one of the 600+ episodes - now, we need a piped link for about 20 (probably, haven't counted them). This number isn't going to grow much, either, because all or most episode articles exist, there won't be any new episodes in the near future and most "collisions" have probably been dealt with already. -- Cid Highwind 19:26, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)
There are actually 53 episodes with the qualifier "(episode)" on them, from "Miri (episode)" to "Terra Prime (episode)" there are a few like "Arena" or "Conspiracy" or "Contagion" that may one day need to be moved, but I find that easier than what you're proposing. If, one day, five-to-ten years from now, an episode from Star Trek: Series VI uses up the same name then maybe we can have an "The Cage (SVI episode)" and "The Cage (TOS episode)." There are some similar names like "Emissary" and "The Emissary", or "The Muse" and "Muse," but it seems the producers have made it easier on us.--Tim Thomason 16:10, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Here's another instance: Maneuvers whereas even the article top has a "disambiguation" notice, that could be easily fixed by having a "VOY_" prefix. Just trying to prove my point ;-) --Funkdubious 00:17, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

But you're not... ;) Your suggestion wouldn't "improve" the situation, because we would still end up with an article title that is not the episode title. It would in fact make the situation worse, because you seem to suggest that all episodes should get such a prefix, even those that don't need to be disambiguated. Also, "Title SUFFIX" is better than "PREFIX Title", because it doesn't affect any form of alphabetical sorting. -- Cid Highwind 13:35, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Dude, well argued. You're right, I hadn't really thought about alphabetical sorting. -- 05:15, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
OK, I'm maybe a little bit too late on this discussion but I thought I should throw in by two bits... Instead of prefixing the episode title, why not only creating a redirect page for each episode, it's easy and it doesn't affect the way the episodes are at the present moment. For instance TOS S1E00 could be redirected to "The Cage" as well as VOY S1E01 could be redirected to ((e|Caretaker}}. Anyway, that's just my two bits... --MstrControl 01:41, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Actor/actress articles Edit

Okay, so last night (I think it was last night... coulda been this morning), I was expanding the John Glover page, and I just got to thinking... is this too much? Although the info is Trek related in that it references and links other Trek performers he has acted with ("building the web", as it were), is there such a thing as too much info in this case? Should there be a limit on how much info can be placed on, say, a guest performer's page as opposed to a regular performer's? Should the extent of this kind of info be limited at all? I've been doing these actor pages for quite a while and I seem to be making them longer and longer, so I just want to know what everyone else thinks about all this. Thoughts? Comments? --From Andoria with Love 05:10, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right... That article looks more like a game of "Six degrees" to me. I don't think there should be a hard limit of how much info a specific page type should be allowed to contain, but still, all of the information should be relevant. Extensive name-dropping of other actors that a specific one worked with in Non-Trek productions doesn't seem relevant to me. Additionally, I start to believe that we should cut back on the direct Wikipedia links (like, for example, Wikipedia:Emmy Award in that article). We either want to have an own article about something (Trek did get some Emmy Awards, right?), or we want to have "external links" about relevant topics in an own section. Direct links to external sources, especially "wiki links" that don't get the "external" icon, are just confusing in my opinion. -- Cid Highwind 17:39, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Ha! Hmm... indeed. The problem is the brunt of my contributions have been "six degree"-type articles, lol! Oh, well. Don't get me wrong, I'm quite proud of some of them (i.e. Rene Auberjonois, Robert Picardo, and the smaller John Fiedler, which I think was my first actor article). Anyways, I have a T-day dinner to go to, so if you're not too busy, could you show us, perhaps with the John Glover article, what you would prefer (or maybe create a temp page for it)? I personally don't have a problem with Wikipedia links in the article, because it allows ppl to see what a non-Trek item means, but yeah. If you could do that, it would be great. :) --From Andoria with Love 18:11, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I think that it's been getting to be too much with the long lists of filmography on the actors' sites. I think it should only list major roles and minor roles that have other Trek actors. A long list with everything they've ever done and years is crazy- that's why we give links to IMDb on the pages. It is fine to mention what they are probably most famous for doing, or their biggest role before Trek (like talking about how Scott Bakula starred on Quantum Leap, full on with a Wikipedia link), but too much is just too much. -Platypus Man | Talk 18:23, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
While personally, I think it might be excessive to list EVERY SINGLE PROJECT an actor has done, I kinda like making the connection between Star Trek actors in various projects (the Six-Degrees-of-Seperation, if you will). I have no problem with noting projects a little-known Star Trek actor has done with someone more popular who has never done Star Trek. I mean, if "Red Shirt No. 2"'s career amounted to nothing but uncredited appearances in hand soap commercials, give the guy a break. If he was Clint Eastwood's body double, give the guy the credit (what little it is) he deserves, ok? It really comes down to personal judgement. I don't think any hard rules ought to be set on this, except suggest keeping most of it within the realm of Star Trek if possible, and brief if not. It will probably be edited and re-edited over time anyway.--Mike Nobody 23:23, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I don't want to create a temp article for that, but I would simply remove everything starting with the third paragraph, except the "External links" section at the end. From the remaining text, I would remove all direct links to Wikipedia (with Emmy Award changed into an internal link). Of course, there could be more content, but I think we should concentrate on the 2-4 (rule of thumb!) most important non-Trek appearances of an actor. If such information is available, there could be more about the actor himself, family, perhaps his hobby or whatever... -- Cid Highwind 23:32, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I think what we should do is, for one-time guest actors and infrequent guest stars (i.e. those who have only apepared a few times, as opposed to those guest stars who have appeared frequently, i.e. John de Lancie), biographical and filmographical information should be limited to the movies/TV shows they are most famous for or, if they're not really famous for any role, the most popular/most acclaimed movies they appeared in. The regular actors (main stars), on the other hand, can have unlimited info as long as it is directly related to the actor. How's that? --From Andoria with Love
The more rules to memorize, the more M/A will dissuade people from contributing.--Mike Nobody 00:03, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I think common sense and judgment rather than rules ought to apply here. Don't add anything that's not interesting or relevant. Actors' Trek roles and most-famous-for roles is relevant and interesting. That two Trek regulars also co-starred on Benson or a movie is interesting (somewhat). Awards are interesting. That a one-off guest-star co-starred with another one-off guest-star in some movie people have barely heard of isn't interesting. And we can never (and don't want to) compete with IMDb, so completeness is not a goal. --9er 00:14, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, wait a minute, when writing these article, I don't try to include their complete filmography - I only include those films they are either most famous for or that have other Trek actors in them. The problem is that there are so many people who have appeared on Trek, most of their filmography is bound to be listed. That's one of the reasons I brought this up here, because I thought it as getting a bit too excessive.

By the way, anybody got any suggestions for James Cromwell? I think it's a pretty well written article, despite the excessive name-dropping. --From Andoria with Love 14:34, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you were trying to include every film. But when you include every film that happens to have included some other Trek actor, it seems like it. Take the Cromwell article. That he co-starred in a movie with "one-time Star Trek: The Next Generation guest actor Matt McCoy" isn't interesting. That he appeared with "Star Trek: First Contact co-stars Jonathan Frakes and Alice Krige" in another movie is more interesting, beacuse Frakes was a regular and the three of them all appeared in the same Trek film.
There's editorializing in there too (I don't know who added these): "...a role for which many believe Cromwell should have been nominated an Oscar." Who are these many and why are we noting their opinion on this? Sounds like an opinion masquerading as a statement of others' opinions. "Unfortunately, the two have recently filed for a divorce." Says who? Maybe filing for a divorce was the best thing to happen to those two. (Also, everyone should watch out for "recently" or "soon" in articles. They may remain unedited for quite a long time. Include the date of the event instead.)
While I'm on my editorial high horse, there's a phrase in there that appears in a bunch of actor articles: best known to Star trek fans as and its variants. I made a little stink about this in the Andy Dick article because I believe that often it's just not true. In Cromwell's case it might be true, but I doubt that Andy Dick for instance is best known, even among Trek fans, for that Voyager episode. I realize that the phrase is just a kind of shorthand and isn't necessarily meant to be taken literally. But cliches should be avoided (good advice, I'd aver, for any piece of writing). --9er 16:35, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the lists of the more extraneous guest star connections should be made less verbose -- a bullet list of projects with comma separated lists of Trek actors.

This way, we can separate a description of the person with their biological data, from a list of their Trek related performances -- without making claims that King Abdullah is "Best known" for his walk on cameo in VOY. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 04:30, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Ha. That's actually a good compromise though. --9er 05:25, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I've made this format applied to an article (Stacie Foster) -- i found that every single acting job she ever had was with at least one Trek related player. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 18:31, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I've just done a similar Stacie Foster-type edit to the Clegg Hoyt page, and with his long filmography moved, the body of the article looks better, and it still contains some useful info in the filmography. I think this should be applied to most performer articles--Tim Thomason 06:43, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I've made it a habit now to only include an actor's major works and those works in which he or she either A.) co-starred with major Star Trek actors (regulars and regular guest stars) and B.) those that feature many Trek actors (the films Madigan and Ghosts of Mississippi are good examples). The same can be done for James Cromwell, I just have not gotten around to him yet (for the record, McCoy co-starring with Cromwell in L.A. Confidential is listed on McCoy's page, so it should also be listed on Cromwell's page and we can't very well get rid of the reference entirely, since its one of Cromwell's best-known films). The line about many thinking he should have won and Oscar for something... yeah, that should go. But I, personally, do not feel that a listed filmography is necessary. A description of the performer's most well-known works and those works with major Trek co-stars is enough. --From Andoria with Love 21:17, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Merchandise? Edit

I don't know if that has been discussed before but has the idea of merchandise (hats, shirts, pins, etc) with the MA logo been considered? What about working on conjunction with star to offer some stuff? I love t-shirts and this is totally a site I would support by buying one. I really like the logo. It's subtle. Kind of an inside thing. Sorry if this isn't the right place for this but I wasn't sure where else to stick it. --DannyBoy7783

Though completely up to the MA leaders, I think this would be a nice and quaint idea that could also bring up some money to run the site (unless I am mistaken and that Wikicities does all the pay, but meh). - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 03:18, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Impossible, sorry. Because Star Trek is owned by Paramount, the MA project must be noncommercial because if it is not, PP can demand license payments for using the Trek content (especially the images). The MA logo isn't exactly affected by this because it's a free modification of the PP owned Federation logo (ok, in fact we don't even know who made it and what license he had in mind as he published it, but MA in general is licensed with this), so everyone can use it to make his own MA merchandise, but if we start to make this "official" and organized, it could be interpreted as a commercial attempt. Even the Google ads at the right could be interpreted in this way, the only thing that prevents us from trouble is the fact that they come from Wikicities and are part of the hosting/traffic financing.
@Enzo Aquarius: There is nothing "up to the MA leaders". MA has no leaders, like every Wiki it's a collective (Uhhh... ;-) project with founders (Uhhhh...), administrators and developers that (may) have some special abilities like deleting pages, but all other things are up to you, me and "the rest". --Memory 21:58, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Our license is non-commercial dealing with our content -- therefore we couldn't sell anything that has been submitted by an archivist, and we especially can't sell "fair use" or "review purposes" material which is retain as its original contributor.
We have done fundraising in the past, but i'm not sure if we would have to do that through our Wikicities hosting nowadays. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 16:37, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I'm really only referring to the logo. While I am new here, I've found I already have a loyalty to the site and I would love to show it off in some way. If there is a high resolution version of the logo available, could it be put on a page for download so individuals could make their own iron-on style t-shirts if they wanted to? I think it is a great logo and I'm sure it is possible to work something out so people who wish to can go forward with this. --DannyBoy7783
Ok, the license thing is cleared up now by Harry Doddema, see here --Memory 20:27, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)