Weren't a lot of non-canon names assigned to the TMP personnel in the novel Ex Machina? It would be nice to add them in italics if anyone has them.--StAkAr Karnak 23:23, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Here are the Ex Machina author's notes on crew names, including photos.--StAkAr Karnak 03:39, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link, I added all the info I could. You could've added it yourself but no biggie.--Tim Thomason 04:04, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Crewwoman a word? Edit
I don't think "crewwoman" is an actual existing word, it might be better to refer to them as female crew members. I understand that there might be the feeling of having it be equal, but I don't think they were ever referred to as crewwomen?! -- OvBacon(Talk) 20:07, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
Page size Edit
This page is very cumbersome to work with and takes a lot of time to load, is it concievable to split it into more pages? --Myko 13:07, August 5, 2011 (UTC)
- It's worth considering, though I don't know how it could be done fairly.--31dot 20:15, August 5, 2011 (UTC)
- I can see it broken into "eras". Cage/Menageris, TOS, and movies (essentially). -- sulfur 21:04, August 5, 2011 (UTC)
Or into divisions (gold, blue, red shirts), or positions (medical, security, transporter, yeoman). The latter isn't a very good way, just throwing it out there. --Myko 21:38, August 5, 2011 (UTC)
...by division, so there would be a Unnamed USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) command personnel, Unnamed USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) operations personnel, and Unnamed USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) sciences personnel, with this page for those with unknown or more than one division. This should help with the load times and hopefully the parser will be better able to cope with the smaller pages, as originally suggested by 31dot here. I'm also suggesting this for Unnamed Enterprise (NX-01) personnel, Unnamed USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) personnel, and Unnamed Deep Space 9 Starfleet personnel as those pages are also rather large. - Archduk3 00:11, June 6, 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Bring out the ax and split away. 31dot 12:12, June 6, 2012 (UTC)
- I am not really comfortable with the split of the pages. But you're right that the load times will be faster. Tom 14:58, June 6, 2012 (UTC)
- I presume that there are no crossover people at all? My biggest worry is the cleaning up of incoming links. I know that we're not a big fan of sub-pages, but what about something like 'Unnamed USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) personnel/Command personnel', and then including each of those subpages in the same way we do credits on movie pages? -- sulfur 15:45, June 6, 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with sulfur. When I worked on this page (a lot), one thing I noticed was that many times the same people were reused in different episodes, wearing different colored uniforms. Most of the extras wore at least two department colors during their tenure on the show. They even did this with recurring characters, see Kyle and DeSalle for example. -- Ltarex 20:54, June 6, 2012 (CET)
The idea was to keep those with more than one division here, so crossover issues shouldn't be a problem. As for including the division pages, we don't need them as subpages to include them, so I would rather not break the "Memory Alpha is flat" rule. If we do want to include the divisions here, we can use the same extension that was added for archived forum pages, which should let us include just the parts we want instead of the whole page. I don't know if we can get that tab thing to work with that though. I was also thinking we could take a look at how we link to these pages by using redirects instead, which would make finding and changing links much faster and easier. - Archduk3 23:23, June 7, 2012 (UTC)
Since there hasn't been any other comments, I'm just going to assume that everyone is at least tentatively OK with this and outline the plan.
- Phase one is to split the pages, but leave the split off content on the main pages until the other phases are done. Additions or changes for the split off sections shouldn't be done to the main pages after this.
- Phase two would be to change the links to these pages to redirects, using the name of the section for them. For example, links to "Sciences crew woman #5" would use the redirect USS Enterprise sciences crew woman 5. This way if these links need to be changed it's much easier to find them. These redirects will point to the final locations, and the section titles on the pages would actually drop the division where redundant because of the page titles.
- Phase three is removing the split info from the main pages and providing links to the division ones. Those with more than one division would remain on the main pages.
- Now after I can see how this should work I have an idea of this. I would love to start with the "Unnamed USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) personnel" and split the article into sections. I am not so comfortable with the redirects and the new categories. Is this a required way or can I directly fix the links to the new destination? The new pages, split from the main one, do not have the "division" in their title. Is this intended? Rather "Unnamed USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) command personnel" instead of "Unnamed USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) command division personnel". Tom 20:23, June 18, 2012 (UTC)
The lack of the word "division" is intended. The division categories use the same wording, like Category:Starfleet operations personnel. This helps keep the tiles as short a possible, and the word division is kinda superfluous in this case anyway, as the meaning is still the same without it.
While you can link directly to the new locations, it makes it impossible to know what section of the article is the destination when looking at "what links here" page, not to mention a large number of the incoming links, on the episode pages especially, have been broken for awhile now since the page has been updated at some point afterward and no one went through all 250+ links to make sure everything still worked, because that's not something we should expect people to do. Using the redirects solves this. That said, what part of the categories are you having an issue with?
Updating all the links is actually why the page wasn't divided and then split, since I though it best to try and keep everything "working" as much as possible while the split is done. I planed to update all the links I could find for the division pages first before removing that content from the main page, and then going through what's left linking there. Those are already in a division section but weren't moved are because they were seen in other division colored uniforms, or have other issues, or I missed them, and the remain people will have to reorganized anyway. - Archduk3 20:14, June 19, 2012 (UTC)
Section names Edit
What happened to the unnamed transporter victim from TMP? Edit
What happened to the unnamed transporter victim from The Motion Picture? She failed to re-materialize (snark) when the page was separated into sub-pages. Was her removal intentional or accidental with the split? - Starfield (talk) 22:45, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
Academy split Edit
Instead of placing the pages with cadets in the Academy category, it would be easier to move them to the Unnamed Starfleet Academy personnel page and just leave links to there here. This would only cover people with the red cadet uniform color. - Archduk3 13:03, September 19, 2016 (UTC)
Hi, just discovered this page. My husband went to Jr High school here in Southern California, and the actor who portrayed anonymous "crewman #5/8" went on to become his junior high school vice principal in the early 70's - everyone in the school hated him because of his fun hobby of walking around with a paddle up his sleeve to ambush students of his choice with random paddlings...husband recalls watching The Changeling episode with his buddies at home and everyone cheering when mean old Mr. Metz got vaporized by Nomad! I guess they all knew he had done a number of episodes due to him mentioning it at school but that is the only one he could really remember, for some reason. ;-D AnnieBee4711 (talk) 01:25, April 14, 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, please understand that article talk pages are not meant for general discussion, but are for discussing article changes only. 31dot (talk) 01:32, April 14, 2017 (UTC)
- The persons depicted in the images under Crewman #5 are not the same people. --Myko (talk) 07:44, April 19, 2017 (UTC)