Memory Alpha

Talk:Archduk3/Archive 11

Back to page | < User talk:Archduk3

Revision as of 04:35, March 11, 2014 by Archduk3 (Talk | contribs)

40,428pages on
this wiki

RE:Memory Alpha Wiki

Most wiki's use their actual sitename as their mainpage, in this case "Memory Alpha Wiki". Having a redirect from that page to the mainpage would mean better SEO. Mark@Wikia (talk) 14:21, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

United Earth Mirror Universe Logo On Talk page

Just wanted to let you know that your logo isn't always centered on your talk page and causes problems if you want to view diffs...not a big deal just thought you should know — Morder (talk) 16:26, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, wikia sucks. - Archduk3 03:23, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

Appearances of regulars

Moved to Talk:Wesley Crusher

Block appeals

Dear sir,

We might not be Wikipedia, but would you kindly explain how then anyone would be able to appeal a block on Memory Alpha without a block appeal template? -- 08:42, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

Their own talk page. Excepting spam bots, blocks placed on users allow them to edit their own talk page in most cases, unless there is some reason that they shouldn't be able to. Also, blocking someone at MA doesn't block them at wikia central, so even if they're block from editing their talk page by accident, a request to be unblock could be placed there and brought to the attention of an admin here. - Archduk3 09:07, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for Edit

Thanks for putting my photos in a gallery. Neophyte, I couldn't figure out to edit them in and ignored the thumbnail button thinking it meant tiny. Appreciated. --Joseph Steven

That was actually sulfur, I just changed the file extension to the jpg one from the pdf, and fixed the category. Also, images in a gallery don't use the "thumb" markup, since the size of gallery images are controlled by our corporate overloads. :) - Archduk3 02:33, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Scroll boxes and mobile Safari/iOS/Webkit


Cool page. Just an FYI: mobile Safari (and hence iOS devices, such as the iPod touch and iPhone) can't scroll on the scroll boxes. The one of your article creations/overhauls is a good example. I can only see the first several. The collapsable list thing works, though.

Just thought I'd let you know, for you seem to be an advanced Web ML/code guy. I'm the only registered user forced to use an iPod chiefly, so it probably doesn't concern you. Still, thought it'd interest you that I'm "locked out" from seeing them – on many pages, not just yours!

Cepstrum (talk) 12:53, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried this? - Archduk3 13:15, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

That's for the iPad, but I'll try it with the iPod. (The iPod uses a mini Safari.) But thanks for the help!

BTW, you're a great admin, IMHO. :)

Cepstrum (talk) 18:27, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

This might work. Beyond that, all I can say is apple products lead to the dark side. - Archduk3 23:05, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Yeah, no Flash support, which is the worst. They won't even try. (It's all I have, though – a gift for my prolonged recovery.) But thanks for the link!

Cepstrum (talk) 21:17, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Supposedly, there are a few apps that will get flash content to work on the dark side, but I'm not sure if any of them would work in this case, as they seem to be mostly for watching videos. Smokescreen sounds promising, but without trying it I wouldn't know. - Archduk3 21:33, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Man, thanks! I've not hooked my iPod to a computer/iTunes yet (health issues+dead motherboard, though strangely, the router running off it is still putting out WiFi....)

Anyway, I asked this question on Sulfur's page then realized I probably should've asked you: he's so busy fixing errors, and you know a lot about the tech/MediaWiki/MA logistics. Could you take a look, if/when you've the chance? Thanks.

Oh, and I'm really excited about the possibility of getting Flash; not having it locks me out of many sites. :-/

Cepstrum (talk) 19:01, January 25, 2011 (UTC)


Hey Archduk3, just wanted to say thanks for being a polite and understanding admin. Whenever I have had the pleasure of talking to you on talk pages or what not you have always phrased your words very constructively and never ridicule and for that I thank you. Keep up the great work. :) -- TrekFan Open a channel 17:32, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

"Jonathan Archer" no longer in use!

Just to let you know, I've finished what I was doing on Jonathan Archer for the time being. I'll work on some more sections tomorrow or the day after. -- TrekFan Open a channel 03:09, January 26, 2011 (UTC)


Will do. Thanks for the heads-up. QuiGonJinnTalk 16:42, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Bringing this to your attention


TrekFan and I decided to split the astrophysics article, placing some of its content on the new astrophysicist article (formerly a redirect). What I tried to do was separate "events related to astrophysics" (keeping them on the original page) while taking the list of astrophysicists (which was intermingled with the former) onto the astrophysicist page. I'm now not sure if I did it correctly (it was my first time). I'm vaguely aware of "merging" articles to preserve edit history. Should've that been done here? ie, merging the content from the original onto the new (duplicating it), and then edit? Now it looks like I created all content on the new page, when really I merely selected portions from the a-physics article, and did some editing+formatting.

Sorry if I caused a mess!

Cepstrum (talk) 21:53, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

There isn't really any way to "split" a page history, so the rule of thumb is to mention where the info is from in the edit summary when splitting a page, so someone who is interested in the history knows were to look. The main thing you should look at now is the incoming links at the old page, to make sure links that should be pointing to the new one are, well, pointing there. - Archduk3 22:00, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Oops: I already did it, so I can't change the edit summary. Should I do a minor "pseudo-edit" just to leave a note in the edit summary? Or do you think the edit summaries I left in the Astrophysics (here) and Astrophysicist (here) articles are sufficient?

And about the second thing: do I just click on "what links here", check all the pages, and examine the links, fixing as necessary? I'm just trying to ensure I understand! (You actually did a good job explaining – it's just my opacity.) Thanks. Cepstrum (talk) 16:52, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Since it's already done, don't worry about it, what's there is already enough to figure out what happened if anyone is interested. As for the links, yes, it is just going through the what links here page and correcting as necessary. - Archduk3 17:17, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I checked every link and corrected as necessary. I also added a note on the Talk:Astrophysicist page letting people know the list of them needs to be completed by checking the "what links here" page. I found more astrophysicists during my link updating but can't add the rest now. Is that an ok think to post on a talk page? Cepstrum (talk) 17:25, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

You can post almost anything on a talk page, so long as it has do do with improving an article. - Archduk3 17:29, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I asked that because of this, which said I really messed up on this; it's made me cautious/nervous about article talk pages! (check it out) I'll leave you alone now. Job well done, Archduk3! :) Cepstrum (talk) 17:54, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

PS Though it would be nice to get your take on the above; was I way out of line on the Freiberger article? It seemed like a personal attack, but no one said anything about it, so I figured oh'd be nice if some admin could have stepped in to help/advise me on that one. :-/

You are suppose to explain why a pna was added to an article, just maybe not in so many words. You tend to use a far more formal writing style, which takes up more space than a the standard, less formal one. To be honest, I haven't seen anything that would be "out of line," but DC has been told repeatedly not to keep reiterating points with lengthy paragraphs on talk pages, and based on her recent activity I wouldn't be surprised if her posts had more to do with that than anything you did. That said, "concise" is always better than "rambling". - Archduk3 18:14, January 27, 2011 (UTC)


(Trying to be concise)  ;-)

Any chance I could get some help if that arises again? I don't want to, as she preemptively accused me of, go "whining" to people. Still, I could've used some support/advice on how to deal with my brevity problem as well as the hurtful (though helpful, as I replied), out-of-the-blue comments. It was a highly unpleasant experience. Also: I hate to think I've been cluttering MA with my "ramblings" on article talk pages. I want to help, not harm. It's difficult for me to judge properly what/how much to write. Have you any idea how I might know whether my posts are rambling without bothering an admin? (as I'm doing now – sorry for taxing your patience!) Cepstrum (talk) 17:41, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Can a bot fix this link problem?

Time to bother you again. ;-)

I keep finding external links to articles that don't work. I think this is a result of their significant – and recent – overhaul: now the site redirects all the old links to the generic "database" page. I try to fix them when I can (using {{brokenlink}} and the WBM), but it's a tedious process. Moreover, I don't think I (and a few others) have been able to do this to more than a tiny portion of the links, which means readers who are unaware of the WBM won't get to see the linked content. It seems a like a task for a bot. Yes?

I'm guessing the answer is "no", for I'd have thought someone other than I would have suggested this long ago. Or maybe no one has noticed/cared....Should I just keep correcting them, or can your bot (or another's) crawl through MA and do this automatically?

Thanks. (It's a shame ruined everyone's incoming links – not just MA's!) Cepstrum (talk) 12:36, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. There are three types of links really:
  1. Those that "work" and just need to be updated
  2. Those that definitely don't work and need to be pointed at the WBM with link text
  3. Those that definitely don't work and need to be pointed at the WBM, but are used as references
The first pass really has to be done by hand, and while doing that, the other things can be slowly cleaned up at the same time. It's all more than a bit messy. -- sulfur 14:07, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation, Sulfur. I think I now see why a bot can't do this....but

  • I don't quite follow #1. Does that mean searching manually (either using their search or google to search the domain) for that same article on the "new" site, and if it's there, changing the link to the new address?
  • #3 confuses me. How's it different from #2?
  • Anyway, bottom line: should I stop using the broken link template unless I can't find the article on the site? (Up to now, I've been using it whenever a link to redirects me to the generic database page.)

Oh, and one more question: I've noticed that some links to on MA point directly to the WBM. When I "fix" them by converting them to the template, the WBM link displays the usual page wherein you must select the date/version of the archived page. This adds an extra step for the reader, for otherwise one could just link to the desired WBM's archived page and not make the him/her figure out which one to select. (I'm thinking those unfamiliar with the WBM may get confused if a link takes them to the date selection page.) Is there a way to bypass that and have the template link to a particular WBM archived page, obviating the need to make readers choose a page/date? Cepstrum (talk) 18:52, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

1 would be links to pages that still exist, but have moved. 2 are inline links, as in a link like this one, to pages that don't exist anymore, and 3 are links used as reference link to pages that no longer exist.
As to your question about having a template link to a version of the page directly at the WBM, there's no neat way to do that. Right now, you can just use the link already on the page to use {{brokenlink}}. Having it link directly to a version of the page would required a different link entirely, and the purpose of the template is only to show that a reference did exist at one time, not actually point to that reference, since there may be pages that the WBM doesn't have archived. - Archduk3 19:14, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
Better to link to the archive as a whole, since some of the pages have different versions. If someone is confused by the ability to select by date and see when the page was archived, that person has more issues than just that. :)
The different between #2 and #3 is a link that is used as a reference (and shows up as a number, such as [2]) and a link that is over a string of text.
I've been fixing #1 by clicking on the link, and if it finds it, using that link to replace the one we have, and if possible, using the {{}} template. And you're using the brokenlink template correctly. Use it when the link goes to the generic page or says "not found". I'm going to be putting together a new template that can be used for inline references or links, but that's going to be on pass #2. -- sulfur 19:29, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
Short term: I'm working through them all right now. So, give me some time on that. Once the pass is done, then we can start figuring out what we've missed. -- sulfur 19:38, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Great. Thanks, guys. Very helpful! (And I loved your line about people not understanding how to use the WBM. hehe) Cepstrum (talk) 20:14, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

All of the links have now been cleaned up and use either the {{}} or {{}} templates. -- sulfur 19:40, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Kudos on splitting up the display graphics cat

The way all that different stuff just went indiscriminatly into one category has been bugging me for ages, to the point that I've spent quite some time trying to come up with a way of splitting it. But I was always to skittish to actually start a discussion. It's a huge improvement now, thanks! -- Capricorn 22:39, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Wesley Crusher Quote

I laughed when I saw the quote you added to Wesley Crusher. I don't know if that Guinan one or the "Shut up, Wesley!" from Picard is better though! :) -- TrekFan Open a channel 06:43, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Guinan is far more level-headed than Picard, so Guinan > Picard. - Archduk3 06:46, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I guess you're right. -- TrekFan Open a channel 06:51, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

New Category

I have suggested creating a category called "Planetary classifications" on the Memory Alpha:Category suggestions page. Being an admin, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the matter? -- TrekFan Open a channel 23:41, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to take a look at this when I'm done with the Starfleet personnel subcats, as I'm not sure right now what classifications we have in canon and how much this would help. It sounds like a good idea in general, but I need to take a further look at what we have first. - Archduk3 23:44, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

OK, sure. Thanks. -- TrekFan Open a channel 23:45, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Image deletion

Please undelete the file. It is a different product, which will be made apparent when I finish the page--Darth Duranium 07:01, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

It's the exact same image, excepting the background color, so why would we need two images? - Archduk3 07:20, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

Federation Starfleet

Why are we adding "Federation Starfleet" to sidebars? Wasn't it decided a long time ago that Starfleet is Starfleet, and there is no differentiation between "Earth Starfleet" and "Federation Starfleet?" -Angry Future Romulan 19:18, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I am kind of wondering this too (sorry to chime in here), because I had (albeit slowly and not very often) going around and editing the sidebars to say "Starfleet" as a result of this. --Terran Officer 19:33, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

Me too. -Angry Future Romulan 19:40, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

Monkey see, monkey do.
To be honest, I completely forgot about that, and have just been adding them without thinking further on it since I've been trying to change all "Earth" Starfleet references to "United Earth" Starfleet.
So, my bad. - Archduk3 03:23, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
So do we want to just change all of those sorts back, as the community at large considers Starfleet to be one thing, or are we going to do something different on this? In a way, this is why I have come to consider that family and career information should be found within the article's content and the sidebar for the stats about the person... somewhat less confusing. But anyhoo, however you want to do it works for me. --Terran Officer 05:19, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, yes, we should change it to simply "Starfleet" anytime we see it listed as something else. -Angry Future Romulan 15:23, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek Online

You have sent numerous messages etc to me about Star Trek Online not being cannon. However you are in error on that fact. Star Trek Online is considered official cannon by CBS Corp. the parent company of the Star Trek Franchise. The STO development team must have everything they do in the game cannon checked by CBS prior to implementing it in game. This has been discussed on the game forums and videos by the Executive Producer of the game D. Stahl on the game homepage. If the game is considered cannon by the parent corporation then it is cannon. There is also a discussion there about the changes to Earth Spacedock where the game designers admitted to mistakenly making the game spacedock look similar to the 2009 movie spacedock, because they were considering the changes made to the timeline by Nero's temporal incursion. Which they admitted were in error. They were also required by CBS to change this and because of player outcry against it. This took awhile to implement due to the cannon check process and design time. The point is whether people want it to be or not, Star Trek Online is considered to be an official part of the Star Trek Franchise. Unlike prior Star Trek Games, STO has to have each change made to it go through a rigorous cannon check by CBS. Something games like Bridge Commander, Star Trek Legacy and Star Trek Armada did not have to go through, because they were not ever evolving like Star Trek Online is. If you don't believe me go to and visit the developmental forums and watch the videos by the developmental team. They will explain the process they are required to go through by CBS to ensure the game follows cannon. Mikeofborg 12:08, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Just because the game developers are required to keep their story consistent with established Star Trek continuity, does not make it canon. The novels published by Pocket Books are required to be put up to a similar process of approval, but that does not make them canon. -Angry Future Romulan 23:28, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Wrong again Angry soon to be Romulan. The developers have specifically stated in videos, interviews, and forum posts that CBS has plans for a future series/movie involving the 25th Century and the stories put forth inside Star Trek Online. Hence why the developers have to keep up with past, current and future cannon. Just because this is a game does not mean it cannot have certain elements that are cannon to the franchise. I submit World of Warcraft as an example, the entire cannon of that series is based on the RTS games that came before it, and future plans for a movie and the current books have to conform to the game cannon. Just like Star Trek Online has to conform to past and current Star Trek Cannon, but is building on future cannon and cannon created in the 2009 film. With your flawed logic we have to throw out the 2009 film and anything not TOS/TNG series and spin offs as cannon as they do not fit into the established story that came before it. STO is not just another game like the Bridge Commander, Legacy, Armada, and etc. Those previous games had scopes that were limited and many were not required to conform to the standards of storyline that STO is required to conform to. (Really, we all know there was no Elite Force Hazard Team on Voyager) That should tell you something about STO and the plans CBS has for the future of Star Trek. In reality it is smart business, they are allowing a game to use their name, create stories for them to use to further the franchise, and make some royalty money to boot with little to no cost. Every story made by the development team is the intellectual property of CBS Corp. Prior games it was only the game name and ships/characters that were considered intellectual property, with STO it is also the actual stories that are; which should tell you something. I am really starting to hate Memory Alpha due to all the cannon Nazis here that get their panties in bunch anytime they fell a post doesn't fit into their vision of Star Trek cannon. Guess what, most of did not work for Paramount and most of us don't work for CBS so in reality many of us do not know what they consider cannon. I am sure Gene Roddenberry would be applauding the direction Star Trek Online is taking his creation, because it is introducing his masterpiece to a whole new generation of people that might not otherwise see it. Mikeofborg 16:26, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

It's "canon", not "cannon". Just because the developers of the game made it to fit within canon doesn't mean it is canon. If such a future series ever comes about, then that series would be canon- but not the game. As it is now games are not canon- only the series' and movies.--31dot 16:33, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
First and foremost, feel free to leave with your panties in a bunch if you're going to keep accusing people of being Nazis. The project neither wants nor needs people like that, so consider that your only warning. Second, if you want to go on a diatribe about MA's policies, you can do so in the appropriate place instead of my talk page, since right now you're only wasting our time. - Archduk3 16:55, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
This is an interesting little read. FYI. -- sulfur 03:29, February 18, 2011 (UTC)


That's been a persistent problem with both that article and that talk page- either Mr. Mahklouf or a representative keeps removing the content from both, saying they don't wish to have the exposure. I suspect that was the case this time. I had already permanently protected the article- obviously it would be hard to do that with a talk page, though.--31dot 16:07, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, if it keeps coming from the same IP address it would be easy to just block it, but since they don't use the same one, it's not worth it to block an address for long, and I left it so the anon talk page can still be used, JIC. - Archduk3 16:24, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Scottie's second death

Just a note for the Starfleet casualties (23rd_century)...

Didn't Apollo kill Montgomery Scott with a lightning bolt and later revived him in the "Who mourns for Adonis?" episode???

Thanx for all your Hard Work...

ConcreteDragon -- 01:37, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

He might have, I would need to watch it again though, since it's been awhile since I watched that episode. - Archduk3 01:45, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

My bad... It looks like he was just knocked back 10 meters and was only "mostly dead"...

--ConcreteDragon 22:10, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Good thing too, I didn't want to watch Kirk go through his clothes looking for loose change. - Archduk3 22:22, February 17, 2011 (UTC)


I did not realize that George Samuel had been restored in George Kirks sidebar (honestly, I remember having already removed that months ago). Sorry about that, thanks for catching it and editing it. --Terran Officer 19:33, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

CSS changes

Please test them and finalize them on your own personal CSS before putting them into the site CSS and being forced to make 2-3 fixes. -- sulfur 21:33, March 7, 2011 (UTC)


Your block of seemed a bit severe, Archduk3. He/she wasn't necessarily trying to vandalize the site; maybe they just didn't know how to contribute but were still well-intentioned. It wasn't like the sole contribution you let them make was particularly offensive! --Defiant 09:54, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

"It done got broke and we done fixed it." seems less like a test edit and more like a vandal pointlessly inserting text in the middle of the night, but if you want to lower the block, go ahead. - Archduk3 10:08, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

No, it's alright; 3 days doesn't seem like a very long time. If they were committed to editing here, I'm sure they'll return and, if there's damage to be had, it will have already been caused. I'd ask, though, that you don't block users in the future on suspicion of vandalism but on actually doing it. --Defiant 10:59, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

After rereading the policy about this, I realized your block was technically in violation of the blocking policy; the blocked party made only 1 edit and, as far as I can see, there was no attempt to give them a warning. I've therefore removed the block. --Defiant 11:27, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

Template Idea

I wasn't entirely sure where to go, but I had an idea for a template due in part to the new format onto the various sidebars for starships, space stations and soon people. Basically, it would be like using the "Federation" redirect with one exception (thus, I feel for it's important use here), the link will display (and read) "United Federation of Planets" (without the quotes, of course). Why do we need this, you may be asking me, well... as I understand it, templates are used when the same block of text (no matter how small) may be used over and over and over. The only reason I don't use the "Federation" redirect, is because I feel the sidebar text should read "United Federation of Planets" looks more formal that way. The tooltip of the redirect reads "Federation" (otherwise I'd consider it's use), I'm not exactly sure what it could be named, the template, maybe {{Federation}} or {{UFP}} I thought I'd mention it to someone, because I know when it comes to templates and redirects, it's best to bring it up first. My reasoning is also for the large, repetitive use of this format, both in sidebars and in general articles, although mostly sidebars. I'm sure this sounds... well, lazy, and perhaps it is. I guess I was trying to think of a greater good when coming up with the idea and proposing it. --Terran Officer 07:07, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone else would go for this, as our small templates generally add formatting, like {{EnterpriseNX}}. My suggestion would be to make it, put it on a few pages, and see what people say. - Archduk3 19:51, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

Humanoid Figure

It was capitalized in the script. If the consensus is to not use 'Future Guy' and to use the script spelling, the it gets capitalized. -- sulfur 13:00, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

navbox template

Looking at it, it should likely vertically align things to the top. Otherwise, they look a bit odd, especially when put onto the same line. -- sulfur 14:41, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm going to center it as well. - Archduk3 14:44, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

Occupation field in sidebar

I noticed that you changed the "occupation" field in the Demora Sulu sidebar to helmsman instead of Starfleet officer. But wouldn't helmsman actually be a posting, or assignment, instead of an occupation? -Angry Future Romulan 20:24, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and no. Her posting is her job, and that information is far more helpful for readers than just Starfleet officer. - Archduk3 20:34, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I feel it would be appropriate to add a "posting" field to the sidebar, so we could have both bits of information. Is that do-able? -Angry Future Romulan 20:46, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

It might help if you think of Starfleet as a company, and Starfleet officers as executives. Officer is a title, not a job, as officers do something other then just stand around all day being officers. Also, I know for a fact that if you asked members of the military what their job was, you wouldn't get officer or enlisted man as an answer, but rather what they do, which is their posting. Having a posting and occupation call in the sidebar is redundant then. - Archduk3 21:05, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

Re Recent edit

Could you look at the recent changes to Odo? What do you think?--31dot 20:44, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

I would put most of that down as a subjective essay, but there are bit in there that are worth keeping, assuming they aren't already in the article. At the very least that new section needs to be moved much further down the page. - Archduk3 20:54, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

RDM's AOL chat archive


Thanks for compiling/editing the AOL RDM chats – I love reading them. Often I come across useful info that'd be helpful in articles but can't recall which chat number (xxx.txt) it's in. I also have a hard time finding which number corresponds to which date and thus must resort to a (roughly) simple Binary search. Do you know of any way

  1. I could search for keywords in the chats, and
  2. whether we/someone/MA could either put date metadata in the filenames or put date ranges next to the numbered text file links?

It seems like a bot could look for any dates in the text (they're usually if not always in the same format) and output a beginning and – if applicable – end date somewhere? It'd make finding him talking about a particular season (or time during one) much easier. This is a separate issue from searching them though, which I assume may already be possible using the MA search engine.  ?

Anyway, thanks for getting them up there! Cepstrum (talk) 12:52, March 16, 2011 (UTC) (if it's not too much trouble, could you respond on my talk page, so I can see when/if you write back? Thanks.)

We actually just archived them exactly as-is from the original Geocities archive of them. We did not make any changes on them beyond adding in the navigation bars. I'd prefer not to touch or change the files in any way at all. The other oddity is that the dates do not really have anything to do with the name of each file. -- sulfur 13:01, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, ArchDuk3 and Sulfur. When/if I'm able, I'll look into it. I was hoping there would be an easy way. And I definitely didn't mean to imply altering the file names themselves – only creating a meta-data list that would connect the file names with the dates.

I suppose if/when I'm healed (long way out), I could write a script that grabs the .txt files, examines the dates, and creates just such a list for my own use (perhaps even put it on my userpage for others), as well as creating a combined .txt file for easy searching (within the file). Cepstrum (talk) 15:45, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

Navigation template bug?


As always, I'm grateful to you and the other good folks at MA for making the RDM chats so accessible and easy to read.

I think I may have come across a bug, though: in chat 97 (or 98 – I can't go back to check w/out starting this message over), the "next chat" link at the bottom leads to 67/68. (Again: sorry for lack of precision).

I don't know whether the bug is on my end, but I've tried many things and keep skipping back thirty .txt files each time. (Even the link tells me it's going to go to the wrong place.)

Maybe it's a one-time thing. Still, I thought you/Sulfur might like to know in case there's an error in the navigation template, the .txt indexing, MediaWiki, or Wikia. Meanwhile, I'll manually skip to the next one. Cepstrum (talk) 09:51, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

It was just a typo in the navbar. It was on Ron 97 and is now fixed. Thanks for pointing that out.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 09:58, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Cleanse!

But this puzzles me: did Archduk3 (or someone) actually manually put together the nav bar? If so, that's a lot of work....I'd have thought a bot would do that sort (no pun, heh) of thing. ? Irrespective, you admins/MA "gatekeepers" (a suitable name escapes me – devotées, perhaps?) are invaluable! Cepstrum (talk) 12:46, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Morder was the guy who manually added the nav bars to the chats, all I did was some touch ups after they were moved for the last time. - Archduk3 12:58, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Mirror image

Thanks for flipping this image back. I must have accidently flipped it when I was editing it. The silly thing is, I even looked at it when I had uploaded it and thought something wasn't quite right, though I couldn't put my finger on it! --| TrekFan Open a channel 11:10, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

Screwed up text

What are you trying to "unbreak" with this: the'' ''{{USS|Kelvin}}'', ''was? -- sulfur 20:18, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Is it the link being split into two? That's occurring because the italics at the start of "Kelvin" are closing the italics at the start of the sentence. Then the italics after Kelvin are opening the ones to the end of the sentence. The proper "fix" for this is not to introduce double italics garbage around it, but rather to find a new formatting method for the entire section. -- sulfur 20:20, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I also know why it's doing that, and I agree that a better solution needs to be found, but until that happens that "garbage" is maintaining the link behavior one would expect, in firefox at least. It seems that IE doesn't have that problem, but a decent number of users and readers are on Modzilla browsers. I was going to use a template to keep track of locations where this problem occurs, so they can be fixed quickly when a better solution is found. - Archduk3 20:30, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't know if a template is worth it, since we'll have to remove the template after the fact anyhow. And we have that construct used all over the place due to stupidity with the RTE previously when it was enabled here. -- sulfur 20:37, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

And tbh, I'd be tempted to not worry about it, but still look for a proper workaround fix for the situation (such as a note similar to the bg notes we already do). After all, we have such ship links in italics all over the place on MA, so why fix 6-7 of them and leave the rest broken? -- sulfur 20:41, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

I guess I have to not worry about it, since you're done a bot run to remove them all. - Archduk3 13:03, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

Step one toward reworking things. There were only about 20 instances where we used it, and a quick glance at the data suggests at least 200 places where it occurs. Grand scheme of things, the fact that the link appears broken is not a huge disaster, since it only occurs on Mozilla based browsers. -- sulfur 13:25, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

Mozilla based browsers make up a substantial amount of the user and reader base, so while it isn't a huge disaster, it is certainly something we shouldn't leave as is. I was wondering if there was something that could be added to the template to clear all formatting, or if a js fix could be implemented to stop the extra <a title> from being added. - Archduk3 15:13, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

I've played around with the formatting on a test wiki, and I've not found any way around it (other than to not use italics at all). The biggest issue is the way that the mediawiki software actually handles the italics calls. That's all happening well before we even get to the point of being able to toy with stuff in JS. Now, that creates a double link because that's correct and proper HTML. That's why Mozilla and WebKit based browsers show it as a double link. The IE browser does a "clever" and merges the two separate links into one link, since it sees that they point to the same place. According to the HTML spec, both types of behaviour are actually correct (it's a very loose and poorly written spec). So, our choices really seem to be as follows (since I can't find any way of telling mediawiki not to break the link up):

  • Add in fake-out italics into all of our templates before and after anywhere that might include italics.
  • Suck it up until we can figure out a CSS/JS way around it

I really dislike option #1, since the template code is already awkward enough, and does also introduce the possibility of accidental bolds and incorrect italics in there. -- sulfur 15:25, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

If there's no way to clear formatting before the template, I guess we should put the list of known problems locations somewhere on a talk page or forum, and then report this to bugzilla. Removing the requirement that alternate text be italicized should solve a good number of these without some complex back end solution. - Archduk3 15:40, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, most seem to be found in bg notes or quotes rather than alternate timeline notes. At least, as far as I can tell from my cursory glance. -- sulfur 15:50, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

Links to episode pages

All links to episode pages should use the eplk templates. We should not be doing things like [[The Best of Both Worlds, Part II (episode)|2366]]. One of the big points for the episode linking templates was the ability to move all episodes easily if need be. Putting in piped links like that breaks the logic behind the design. -- sulfur 15:29, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

Then the {{e}} template should be changed to add an option to force some different text to appear. - Archduk3 15:40, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

That was discussed when the template was being designed (though I cannot find the discussion for the life of me), and the feeling by all involved at the time was that hiding episode links in other text was undesired. If we are to link to an episode, we are doing it by citing it appropriately.

That's the other issue with the link noted above, specifically that the expected link is to the year, not to an episode. -- sulfur 15:50, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

I remember seeing more than a few bg notes that have awkward wording to facilitate the "need" to use the episode title, so this is hardly just a problem with citing opening quotes. Also, the amount of episodes linked for those quotes hardly constitute a large enough number for it to be a major problem if the episode pages get moved again, which seems very unlikely. - Archduk3 16:00, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

Quick question

Under what circumstances to we add "NOTOC" to an article? -Angry Future Romulan 20:29, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

I generally add it if all the headings are "outside" of the article proper, in the appendices. - Archduk3 20:33, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
The other reason is when the article is very disjoint with the table of contents because of the layout. Layout is a big issue, especially with the new layout that anon users see. -- sulfur 20:39, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of file

I'm not sure why you've deleted this (File:Buoy-Valiant-off.jpg) file 5 min after I've put it up. I believe having both images, of the light on top on and off, gives a good idea of that the top part is indeed a light.-- OvBacon(Talk) 04:00, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see how someone could miss the light with the image that's already here, and having two images to show something as unnecessary to the article as that light is overkill. - Archduk3 04:46, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

I guess we have a very different opinion here. I can bet you that there are many people that will miss it. I find it interesting that I find many images that are very similar and do not seem to have any distinct reason for existing here are still here, but you are willing to delete a image 5 min after upload without even asking me why I put it up. I would have preferred a little more courtesy.-- OvBacon(Talk) 14:47, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Getting to this now since I've been busy offline.
Similar images are used for a variaty of reasons, including:
  • To show the process of something happening on the page about that process.
  • To avoid having all pages, or most pages, about a subject use the same image.
  • Croping a section of another image to highlight a object/person/etc.
  • Because a change to something is importaint to the plot or the article, and the images just happen to be similar.
Showing the difference between a light being on and a light being off in this case didn't fall under any of those, so the second image was just a duplicate. In the future though, I will make a point to list these images for deletion first, since at least you do find a purpose for them. :) - Archduk3 talk (on an unsecure connection) 03:26, April 11, 2011 (UTC)


Hey, just a quick do you get your name to be a different colour? :3 XNERZHULx 18:13, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

By using two subpages: User:Archduk3/Sig/nature has the formatting on it, while User:Archduk3/Sig is what my signature is in the preferences menu, so I don't dump a ton of HTML coding onto every page I sign. - Archduk3 18:20, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

AMT Kit left out of the mix...

There is a 1966 Klingon "Alien Battle Cruiser" as it says on the box that has been left out. The large box kit is numbered S952-250 and has what appears to be a planet with rings on the lower right and the box is dated 1966 Desilou Corp. The 1968 version, which has it's box on Memory-Alpa page has different wording and has only the S952 stk# and no planet with rings. Can somone verify for me. I saw this kit on Ebay for sale and it's an open bob kit and i asked the seller to give me dates he could find but all he says he found was the 1966 Desilou Corp. on the box and the stk# The ebay item # is 320681455696. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I'm not very familiar with the model kits, so I couldn't tell you if the '66 version is legit, or if it's just the '68 version with an early copyright. - Archduk3 06:09, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

Vulcan salute

Hey Archduk3. You added a PNA-pov to Vulcan salute, but the point of view on the page looks fine to me. Since the template refers users to the talk page, it might be a good idea to leave a note there :-) –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 10:49, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I see Sulfur fixed the problem. Regarding pna-pov more generally, I was wondering if you could have a quick glance at Memory Alpha: Pages needing attention. I did a small write-up regarding when pna-pov should be used, but seeing its brand new and you created it, I wanted to make sure I accurately reflected what kind of situations the template should cover. –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 02:09, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

That was pretty much what I had in mind. Good thing you remembered to do it, cause I've been so busy it completely slipped my mind. Thanks. :) - Archduk3 02:26, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Good work for creating the template and cat in the first place; it's something that we should have had years ago. I'm pretty busy myself with real life, and probably should be studying rather than debating the finer points of templates. ;-) Anyway, keep up the good work. –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 02:39, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

Double image upload

I Upload a new version of the File Neutronic storm approaching Enterprise.jpg before realizing that you had just done the same. I did not refresh the page before uploading hence the not noticing of your upload just minutes ahead of me. I apologize for that oversight.-- OvBacon(Talk) 20:01, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

No big deal, it happens. - Archduk3 23:39, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Spelling Errors


Sorry for the spelling errors on the articles (ENT: "The Catwalk" and ENT: "Future Tense") that I wrote. I didn't realize the text was so "atrocious" as you said, haha. I had some "cautions" when I was writting, I used the orthography correction from Microsoft Word and watched the episodes with english subtitles, but it seems that I wasn't able to make up for the fact that I am not native english speaker. I guess that the differences in the semantics and sytanx between english and portuguese (my native language) are too big that I can't get over them (portuguese semantics) to write in "full engilsh".

But I really did not think that was soo bad... really is it so awful? haha Do you think that I should stop to write?

As Enterprise is my favorite series I was thinking to write some episode articles that are very little, but if my english is that bad... haha

Thanks, and I apologize again.

Commodore Palma 19:45, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Bot work

Doing all of those minor changes as a bot would make things faster and far less obtrusive to those people who watch the RecentChanges you know. Please take that into consideration next time you want to make 2-300 changes in an hour or two. -- sulfur 10:42, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to let a bot finish if your willing to do the run. I need to explain the changes anyway. - Archduk3 10:44, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

Let me know, and it'll happen. -- sulfur 11:05, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

Now is as good a time as any. - Archduk3 11:20, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

Split-off of Miranda class studio model

For your consideration: I think that the Miranda-class studio model section has become sufficiently large to warrant a split-off akin to those previously done...Kind regards--Sennim 11:20, June 1, 2011 (UTC)

SATCOM 5 cite

sorry for forgetting that, such a rookie mistake. It's indeed from Paradise Lost. -- Capricorn 07:21, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I do that at least once a month. ;) - Archduk3 17:28, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Move section

I was wondering if it is not more proper to place the Galor class studio model section in the TNG studio model page. The model has been used to represent two classes of vessels and the format used is that in that case they are posted in the "Studio model" pages. Yet I'm a bit hesitant to propose it considering the size of the section. What's your take on this ?--Sennim 08:22, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

I say move it to the studio models page. I don't see any reason to change how we deal with models that get reused. - Archduk3 17:28, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Memo update

Thanks for updating the memo, I put a note in the summary but for some reason it didn't take. — Morder (talk) 02:36, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

No problem. It wouldn't surprise me that there are still issues with the uploads. - Archduk3 04:07, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

Just a small thing...

But I would recommend against blocking anyone with whom you are having trouble with. Always have another admin do it otherwise it looks bad. Also, you should have probably warned him and left a message on his talk page first. :) For the record your move was correct - the article contains a lot more information than that which pertains to the conflicts with the Federation... — Morder (talk) 06:15, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you're correct, but the zero tolerance part doesn't require a warning as I see it, since this is a cooling off period only, and I wasn't sure if anyone else was online. I'll block myself for the same period if it helps. ;) You should also read the TrekBBS forum, since the rational for his move wasn't even what he claimed, and he all but admits to trolling us anyway. - Archduk3 06:43, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
I completely agree with your decision and I think you kept your dignity very well. I do believe it might have been better if another admin had preformed the actual block of DeSoto (it might just throw more oil on his fire). But I wanted to let you know that you have my support. -- OvBacon(Talk) 17:45, June 16, 2011 (UTC)


'a' not 'e' :) -- sulfur 00:38, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

Blarg! It's been a long day. ;) - Archduk3 00:40, June 23, 2011 (UTC)


Sorry for for all the ?##%% load of work I've caused in stirring up the MSD stuff--Sennim 04:11, June 25, 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I most likely wouldn't have gotten around to standardizing the image names if you hadn't, and that was a pet project of mine anyway. - Archduk3 04:19, June 25, 2011 (UTC)

I again feel the need to apologize for the extra work I've caused you with the VCD stuff. I'd wished I'd could have done it right in the first go. Thanks by the way for being so close on my case, the blu-ray nav template was something I was really looking for...Methinks between the two of us we pretty much updated the DVD/Blu-ray sections quite nicely...On a side note I'm pretty much impressed with what you've done with the LaserDisc sections. I used to be one of the collectors and I was preparing myself to do some editing on that, yet you beat me to the punch and did a marvelous job too boot, KUDOS!!!. On a second sidenote, how did you get rid of the background of this File:TOS - The Collector's Edition.png? Esthetically, it is extremely pleasing, and I have several instances were it could be applied...Kind regards--Sennim 18:35, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I would have hit this format back when I did the other if I knew it existed. I've found info on several more VCD releases, but "official" info is hard to come by, like the product numbers, release dates, etc. If you have any more info on the Laserdiscs, it would be appreciated. I don't even want to talk about some of the places I had to go to get those Voyager covers. As for cropping out the background on images, I tend to use this when I'm not on my computer with photoshop. It works pretty well, but I would check to make sure it looks good on a #222222 background before saving, since getting that to look good is harder then you might think. It helps if the file you started with was of a better quality then the converted gif used in the VCD logo. - Archduk3 18:50, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, bro...I'll be sure to look into that! I've to admit, I admire your guts to look into the other "region" VCDs. One of the reasons the format didn't take hold in the US and Europe was that there were no copyrights protections embedded on the discs (region coding and such). I choose to leave that out of the main text because it could have been construed as being contentious. But we all know piracy or bootlegging is a big problem over there (for which the format lends itself perfectly), making it so much more problematic to distinguish between "official" and "non-official"" releases...And as far as the Laserdiscs are concerned, you've covered pretty much I knew (I abandoned the format at the beginning of VOY)--Sennim 19:12, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

Most reputable sites will list the distributor information, and images will contain copyright info if you're lucky, so I try to go by that. I've found plenty of VCDs from Deltamac in Hong Kong, but it's very hard to find any info about them from a reputable third party source, so I haven't add that stuff yet. - Archduk3 19:29, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

Again, nothing but my admiration, sincerely...but your entry Star Trek: First Contact (VCD), might this not have been a South-American edition? Again, this is meant to enlighten the problems that exist with this format.--Sennim 19:47, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

It could be. The quote on the back was from a newspaper in Spain, so I went with that. Hopefully some more information will fall out of the Google egg if I keep hitting it. - Archduk3 00:43, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

You know, I'm of a generation which actually had to physically go to a library...Google {or rather Wikipedia} rocks !!!--Sennim 02:04, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

asking permission

is it ok to rename a page?

Efas45 17:38, June 29, 2011 (UTC)efas45Efas45 17:38, June 29, 2011 (UTC)

Depends what page and why. -- sulfur 18:16, June 29, 2011 (UTC)

New wiki

come check out --Efas45 16:10, June 30, 2011 (UTC)efas45--Efas45 16:10, June 30, 2011 (UTC)


I was wondering if you would be willing to offer your opinion(regardless of what it is) on this discussion?--31dot 21:46, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

stuff added

i added some pics of a defiant class brig i have 5 immages im not sure which one you guys want you can keep which one you want and delete the others also i have found a window in the defiant class ready room not sure which i will add it too so again its up to you guys. glad i could help. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trekguy1 (talk • contribs).

I would suggest uploading them all to the same file name, we can just choose which one is the best then. This can be done by clicking the "Upload a new version of this file" link on the image description page. - Archduk3 23:17, July 11, 2011 (UTC)


Hey Archduk3, when I want to do some more extensive editing of a page, should I put in the "{{inuse}}" message template? (its on a very low traffic page). -- OvBacon(Talk) 01:09, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Not to step on Archduk's toes, but it is largely up to you- it is meant to deter others from editing the page while you are working on it, but if you don't think that will happen, I could understand not using it. If it was me, I might just in case- but if you don't use it, it is not a problem. :) --31dot 01:20, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks 31dot. -- OvBacon(Talk) 01:26, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much what 31dot said. I would still mention in the summary that the page is in use if you plan on making more then one edit, if only to stop someone like me or sulfur from making a minor format change between your edits. - Archduk3 04:09, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both. Is it ok if the "{{inuse}}" is on the page for a day? -- OvBacon(Talk) 14:58, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

As long as you remember to remove it when you're done, there shouldn't be a problem. - Archduk3 18:48, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Menage a Troi

Do you have any problems viewing the "Ménage à Troi" page? When I try to view it a blank white page comes up. That page seems to be the only one I can't view.--31dot 20:53, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

When logged in as myself, I can view it, but I get an error when trying to edit it, and a permission error when trying to roll it back (due to nitpick and poor linking). Using this account says the main datacenter is down when I try to edit the page, or it doesn't load at all, which is what you're seeing. I figure there's something wrong with the server my area uses, since there seem to be edits still happening. - Archduk3 (on an unsecure connection) 21:14, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
But it seems I can edit this page. - Archduk3 21:16, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be OK for me now. Some temporary glitch maybe.--31dot 22:10, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Works fine for me. --Defiant 22:21, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems like it was just another bug in the system. - Archduk3 22:23, July 13, 2011 (UTC)


Sorry, I didn't know, I don't know much about this wikis policies, since I don't really visit often, mostly because I have Administrator and Bureaucrate duties on other wikis. --AnyGuy 06:07, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

No big deal, it happens. In the future though, it's never a good idea to just keep reverting an edit without explanation, for any reason. If there's a dispute over the content, it should either be brought up on the article's talk page before any further changes are made; or in this case, on the user's talk page because it involved a policy issue. - Archduk3 06:14, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
All right, I'll do that. --AnyGuy 06:25, July 14, 2011 (UTC)


Good grief, there is a lot of stuff that goes wrong here that I don't know about. And I only added the photo because I don't like seeing unused photos. -- 04:09, July 15, 2011 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to log in. --AnyGuy 04:11, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

Input requested

Would you be willing to give your input here? -- OvBacon(Talk) 20:34, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Chelsea Bond

The anon user who posted the long, flaming post has now removed it. I didn't restore it since it didn't have to do with changing the article; but I didn't know if you wanted to restore it since you responded to it. I put a placeholder note on the page where the comment was for now.--31dot 09:20, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

I restored it since apparently there was a point, though I'm not sure what it was suppose to be. I wouldn't be opposed to dumping it all on the anon's talk page so Google doesn't associate it with Chelsea Bond, but we should try to stick to the "don't delete talk page posts" rule if we can. - Archduk3 18:47, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Boy satyr

Thanks a lot for so quickly uploading File:Boy satyr.jpg. --Defiant 09:31, August 10, 2011 (UTC)

It was easy enough, the image was on Trekcore, and I was already on the site. - Archduk3 09:35, August 10, 2011 (UTC)

That was convenient! :) Thanks. --Defiant 09:56, August 10, 2011 (UTC)

Captain Sam

leave my images alone!

You may only be capable of repasting crap you find on the internet that every body in the world has already seen but some of us are capable of alot more. Dont be jealous get a life and leave others alone The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captain Sam (talk • contribs).

Marking alternaty reality bits

You've undone my edits concerning Star Trek's alternate reality. I think we should refrain from using alternate reality/alternate timeline images as title images for any year (especially if there is an alternative from the "primary timeline"). They should rather be moved to their respective section... With regard to putting an "(alternate reality)" remark behind the film I have to concur, this is truly unnecessary. --36ophiuchi 14:07, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

There is no distinction between realities for the title image, as you put it, since that's there to help a reader easily identify the year. In the case of the 2233, '55, and '58, the most identifiable events are from the alternate reality, so they are used as the title image. All the timeline pages have POV problems, so there's no need to make the page less informative, not to mention break the page format, simply to quarantine alternate reality info. Also, never use "Image:" instead of "File:", as the former is broken and causes errors. - Archduk3 14:15, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

That's true, nevertheless, we should prefer imagery connected to the primary timeline. After all, Star Trek 11 is openly depicted to be an "alternate" timeline, clearly different from the "main" universe ;) I know, this is a tricky discussion... I see your point when there is no fitting image available other than one from Star Trek 11, but otherwise we should put priority on pictures referring to the "prime time" :p --36ophiuchi 14:45, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Well, since currently there are only a handful of dates covered in the alternate reality, I don't think there's any reason to choose one over the other right now, since there simply isn't that much overlap. If that changes in the next film, we'll have to update the timeline anyway, and it could be dealt with then. - Archduk3 14:55, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah we're only talking about 2233/2240s/2255/2258/2387. 2255 seems to be the only year, where there would be an appropriate image referring to the primary timeline... By the way, perhaps you would be willing to assist me in assembling a major event-section for "24th century". So far, I've created them for the other century-articles in order to better separate between events without any exact year specification and a summary of decisive occurrences (which got mixed up in some cases). I'm also thinking about whether to put such event lists on the decades-articles as well. On a few pages this has already been done, so it would be matter of standardizing things...--36ophiuchi 15:08, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother with major events sections in the decade articles, as only the ones where there was a series have enough information to create those sections without downright copying information from a year article. Also, maintain your indent on talk page, per Help:Talk pages. - Archduk3 15:50, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

The circumstance of information being covered on various other articles does not negate the sensibility of having it displayed in a re-focused, re-organised manner. All the history-pages (e.g. Federation history) are doing exactly the same thing. Concerning the century-articles we should ask ourselves if they sould contain a section listing their main events, not whether this info might already be mentioned other articles. --36ophiuchi 19:00, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

If this continues to be a discussion about content, not about personal actions and reactions, I suggest to move this to a more public place. -- Cid Highwind 19:35, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. --> Forum:Major events-section on centuries&decades-articles --36ophiuchi 20:38, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Raven-image on 2353

Hey there again ;) So, if that's disputed, why is the remark on the Raven left as a normal event, and not moved to "Notes"?^^ I mean, after all, you've managed to remove the picture :p --36ophiuchi 09:37, August 17, 2011 (UTC)

Missed that, it shouldn't be. - Archduk3 16:28, August 17, 2011 (UTC)

Blocked user

The anon you blocked seems to be using IP addresses in the pattern of 92.11.X.X and have made that type of edit a few times on a few different pages. I'm fairly sure they are attempting to remove the names of actors who don't appear in an episode, not realizing that the credits are lifted from the episode(and thus are the same regardless of actual appearances) I'd hate to do a range block on them, but I've told them twice what they are doing is not correct and gotten no response. Just thought I'd fill you in on what I know.--31dot 21:07, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I also don't want to do a range block, but I doubt all, or even any of the edits are in good faith after the removal of LeVar Burton from First Contact. That's clearly vandalism, and I don't see a reason to treat it as anything but unless we get a response. - Archduk3 21:18, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

I agree(and missed the First Contact edit you speak of). I guess we'll have to see what happens.--31dot 01:34, August 27, 2011 (UTC)

ISS Avenger fighting rebels picture

I want the picture for the article "Terran Empire rebellion" which doesn't yet have a picture. - Mitchz95 21:53, August 27, 2011 (UTC)

There is no good image of that, see here, and we have shots of the Defiant fighting the rebels that will work. - Archduk3 23:05, August 27, 2011 (UTC)

I found one that will work ( but I can't upload it for some reason. Could you please do so for me, or tell me someone else who can? - Mitchz95 00:41, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Before uploading that image, can you tell me why none of these will work. - Archduk3 00:50, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed one of those. - Mitchz95 01:13, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

USS Melbourne

The ship I saw was clearly a Nebula-class (without a recognizable label). The Melbourne is an Excelsior-class starship. I do not understand your objection. I just do not understand the objection in the article. This can never be the same spaceship. Where is my misconception? -- 17:56, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

The background section of the Melbourne article covers that ship, with the reasoning on the talk page and in the archive. For the record, it isn't my objection, it's the community consensus. - Archduk3 18:10, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

Your community says elsewhere in Nebula class that the Wreck is later nameless. And thus no longer the USS Melbourne. Somehow confusing. -- 18:18, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

Since this conversation is already elsewhere, we should stop here. That said, yes, it is confusing. - Archduk3 18:23, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

I understand. From my side everything is actually said. I'm not a Star Trek freak anyway but only occasional viewers. I just wanted to add a missing fact. That it now might be a major discussion was not intended. I think it's still nice that my change was helpful to you. -- 18:47, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

Memory Alpha is for everyone, not just the über nerd. If a casual viewer can't come here and find what they want within reason, then we have a problem that needs fixing. We'll see how this round shakes out. - Archduk3 18:59, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

Abusing admin privileges

Moved to Forum:Abusing admin privileges?

User page

Hi, Archduk. I hope it's alright for me to say that I think you have an amazing user page. I especially like the rating system for episodes and movies. Great stuff all round, IMO! :) --Defiant 10:30, September 16, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. - Archduk3 22:46, September 16, 2011 (UTC)

Several Issues

Dear Duke,

Boy, you weren't kidding when you said the article might be as long as what I've did previously on the Constitution-class model page Talk:Galaxy_class_model#Merge_target_change. But as the Galaxy class model article, finally finished, now stands, I'm extremely proud of what I've written and I'm considering it to be put up for FA nomination...but before I do that, I'd like to know your take on it...Furthermore I'd like to propose a splitting of in order to beef out the category "Studio Models" of:

...for reasons that those sections occupy close to or more than 50% of the respective article...well, just for your consideration. Furthermore, I've grown skeptical of the following entries:

-Incorrect, as per main article
-Incomplete (there is so much more info available)

In essence the same faults that were exhibited on the Constitution -class appendices section (I've taken those under my wing as you've noticed, but I'll leave the others to others). The FA status was awarded way back in 2005, but standards have been upgraded since. I'm quite loathe to do this out of respect for the original contributors, but the BGinfo isn't just up to par anymore...What do you think?--Sennim 20:06, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to get back to you, but I've been pressed for time the last few weeks. So to respond:
  • I would put the Galaxy-class model article up for a peer review first, since I'm sure Defiant, at least, will want to make some changes to the wording. I think it's pretty good already, but a few things will likely be tweaked, and since it's a long article, those few tweaks might add up in a FA nomination. That said, I don't think there should be any problems with getting this to the nomination.
  • I suggested the splits, since those sections do seem like enough for separate articles. We'll see how that shakes out.
  • Any model that has it's own page should only have a brief blurb on the studio model pages, if not just a link to the page, so I say scrap the whole entry for the Galaxy-class.
  • I would suggest trying to save the Enterprise-D's page before demoting it. That said, if a PNA on a FA doesn't get a response within a few weeks, either the info should be removed, or the page removed from being a FA. In this case, since it's most of the section, I would suggested it for removal if and add the PNAs it needs, though it does seem to be a "if you have the info, add it, since we all don't" issue. The sources for any missing info should be listed on the talk page at least.
Once again, sorry it took so long, and let me know if I missed anything in there. :) - Archduk3 02:37, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

Dear Duke,

No worries, as always, your input is very much appreciated, no matter at what time:)

  • Peer-review fase was intended; since the article is now done, I give it a rest for a few weeks, then give it a once-over one more time for grammar, format and stuff like that and then invite the others to take a look at it, but I appreciate you looking at it...
  • Cool; let's wait and see.
  • Will proceed accordingly
  • I think a PNA is in order, removal of the whole text is a bit too "partisan" for my taste.

Kind regards--Sennim 11:29, October 3, 2011 (UTC)


Look... You have no possible idea how irritated I have become. You are constantly blocking me and the only thing which I am currently doing is editing the list of armaments of a starship since they are usually inaccurate. I would very much appreciate it if you would just for now on, let me correct the armaments at least. Thanks.  :) Sincerely, fleia262 AKA Andrew.

If you're talking about back in July, then that information is not canon, and will be removed from articles, and you will be blocked again(?) if you continue to add it. There is plenty of information on your talk page about this, so I suggest you read that first, and if you have any questions then, feel free to ask them. - Archduk3 19:22, October 19, 2011 (UTC)


Dear Archduk3, I am new to this website. I tried to use the help page but it was no good. I began searching for administrators and I first came across your page. I was wondering if there is something I must do before I make some MINOR edits, like asking permission from you or someone els? Anyways, I did want to know about this since I saw an edit icon before reading some of the articles and noticed it was inaccurate information. Thanks so much for all your help to come. Sincerely, Dreadnaught063

No you don't need any permission to edit here, though it is recommended that you have a general idea of the manual of style and canon policy are first beforehand. - Archduk3 04:29, October 23, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this user is a vandal; his/her only edit seems more like an attempt to remove the vandalism of–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 01:09, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

That may be true, but undoing the edit is what should have been done, not blanking the page. I did block that user for less time and left them able to use their talk page in case they had something to say. That said, I'm fine with lowering the block to an hour and seeing what happens. - Archduk3 01:35, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

I think this comes under assuming good faith. The user may not know about page histories and how to revert, or that there was meant to be something there before the "LOL". I lifted the block since its been about one hour.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 02:05, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

Citations for Earth spacedocks

Hi. Thanks for adding the 2 citations to the Earth spacedocks page, especially this webpage. Since the other cited webpage doesn't state anything about Star Trek Generations, the drydock in that film or even the USS Enterprise, the connection suggested here wasn't sufficiently backed up; just looking at the pics doesn't disprove the possibility, for instance, that the drydock from Generations was merely a copy of the TMP one. Thanks a lot for finding a webpage that does confirm the connection more firmly. --Defiant 21:14, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

The best place to start looking for missing citations, or further citations, is any other page that covers the subject. In this case, both those citations were already on NAR-30974. The original citation actually references the other as well, which might be why I only used the one when writing that note. - Archduk3 22:16, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm hardly gonna check every single page the cited webpage links to; far too much other stuff is taking up my time! Anyways, my main point was: thanks for finally adding the correct citation. :) --Defiant 02:04, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

Hello, sir

I am Anakin Skyobiliviator. I just recently made a new wiki called Star Wars Vs. Star Trek Wiki. I am wondering if you could make this wiki an official friend of this wiki? I am planning to go to civilized way by Fact-vs-fact, not fan fiction, but debates could be made. I feel that it is important to make a treaty between my wiki and yours. I will be doing the same thing to the Star Wars wiki. Thank you for reading. \\//_ Anakin Skyobiliviator (talk) 21:18, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

Reply here. - Archduk3 11:26, November 3, 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for the follow through on my comment. :) Unfortunately I don't think it will do much so it looks like the next block will have to be longer; he has shown no history of being willing to adjust his behavior, both under this and his previous username (User:TREK & C.S.I.3)--31dot 04:10, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really betting on this block solving anything in the long term either, though it does stop the immediate problem. We should also keep a look out for a "new" user making the same kind of edits. - Archduk3 19:35, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

messing up categorization

Hey Duke,

I've made a boo-boo in categorization in Star Trek: Communicator issue 148, could you take a look at it and correct it? I assume that as a user I've no rigts in editing cat's I guess, I was trying to have the article sorted out correctly on the magazine page: what is the correct template for future reverence? Thanks--Sennim 14:40, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it- take a look. I'm not sure why you wouldn't be able to edit a category; anyone should be able to.--31dot 14:51, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

Ah great, thanks! I remember I used to be able to edit a cat in a previous skin, but I don't seem to be able to access that anymore...It might be something I overlook...--Sennim 15:22, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

If you're having trouble with categories, you most likely need to disable the category module in the editing tab under your preferences. This should place the categories back where they belong, in the editing window, instead of in the rail, which is stupid. - Archduk3 18:08, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

Great, That did it...Thanks Duke--Sennim 18:26, November 16, 2011 (UTC)


I'd just like to thank you for taking the initiative on so much policy reform at once. You've definitely come up with something more coherent than my ramblings. ;-) –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 00:57, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

Don't mention it. ;)
The only reason any of my ramblings may seem more coherent then yours is that I've been thinking on these problems for the better part of a year, if not longer. Trust me when I say I didn't plan to be doing "both" of these at the same time, or this soon, as I don't think I'm nowhere near that self-destructive. :p - Archduk3 01:45, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

FA/AotW changes

It's pretty late and I have to get up early tomorrow, so this will just be a short note: as already stated on User talk:Defiant, I don't think there's "enough consensus" to go around and change two processes we have completely. There has been some discussion about changes, but those were controversial and should have been followed by a temp page for the new policies. Please stop changing more pages until we could discuss that. -- Cid Highwind 23:22, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

It's already done Cid, the only pages left to change are the peer review pages (which should have "enough consensus" by everyone's standard), restoring the rest of the replaced FA AotWs, and then continuing discussions about changes to the removing FA policy. A temp page was created for the reconfirmation process, and no comments were left after that. No reply was given about the AotW suggestion either for a over a week, so I considered the issue resolved and accepted, as much as all the rest of the "no continuing input consensuses" around here get. I'll wait for the PRs just in case, but I'd rather finish restoring the FA blurbs since that doesn't impact anything and can be merged back if necessary). - Archduk3 23:36, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
Finished restoring the other three old AotWs that are still FAs. Other things left to do that I forgot the first time around: cleanup Category:Memory Alpha article of the week templates, merging MA:AotW with MA:FA, suggest prioritizing reconfirmation of recently suggested FAs for removal that survived, cleanup of old AotW archive (most likely a merge to one page or leave as is). - Archduk3 00:40, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
Disassemble Memory Alpha:Nominations for featured articles/Archive. - Archduk3 07:16, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

New "category"

Hey. Following your recent moves two new "wanted pages" appeared in the wanted pages list, "Template:Titles/I AM ERROR" and "Category:Memory Alpha images by episode (I AM ERROR: I AM ERROR)". When you check which pages link to them there are only episodes where the talk pages have been updated. Any idea why? Tom 18:45, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

They didn't refresh in time for the updates that fixed those. They should be sorted out now. -- sulfur 19:36, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

Gorkon FA

Should I take from the fact that you took the trouble to update a link to the Gorkon discussion on my page and to leave an edit summary that my presence is again required on the Gorkon FA page? I don't see any real movement on that page in the past few weeks. Do I need to respond to the bit that's been added since I was last there?
czechout@Wikia    <span style="">00:21: Thu 01 Dec 2011 

Actually, I left the link in case you wanted to see how it all shook out, since the nomination is over. You might be interested in helping to write the main page blurb here though. - Archduk3 00:31, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

WikiLabs extensions

Please never never never never turn on any of those WikiLabs extensions on MA without talking with Cid and I first. Some of them, once turned on, cannot be turned off non-destructively. Thank you. -- sulfur 11:26, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

It seems comments are on either way, which is why I tried resetting it. We might want to get on that. - Archduk3 11:28, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

They're not on any other Wiki I've seen where they are no explicitly set. That's one of those destructive features. Once on, you cannot actually turn them off. I'll talk to staff though. Next time? Report it, don't screw around with those WikiLabs features. -- sulfur 11:34, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Where do you see article comments in action? -- Cid Highwind 11:34, December 7, 2011 (UTC)
All the talk page links I see are links to article comments. I'm currently looking at James T. Kirk. A few others in the wikia IRC channel seem to see them as well. - Archduk3 11:38, December 7, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, seeing them now. Wednesday is patch day, so probably a bug of the weekly update. In any case, like sulfur said, please don't mess with any of that stuff without prior discussion! -- Cid Highwind 11:39, December 7, 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to go around turning on Chat or Achievements willy-nilly, though if we're now saying Bureaucrats only, we should actually say it somewhere. - Archduk3 11:44, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm saying -- TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS FIRST. Don't change them willy nilly. It's the same conversation that we all had about the CSS/JS stuff. Regardless, I've put in a report about it. I don't expect to hear back until noon ET (since 90% of the support staff are on PT). -- sulfur 11:51, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

I do. If you want me to get your approval for every "fix" required every god damn week when wikia changes things, you could just do them yourself from now on. We might actually need some other admins using the skin the readers see to know something is wrong though. The last time I didn't fix something it was still "broken" a few weeks later when I finally got to it. We could of course just admit wiki owns the site and strip out the custom CSS, since we are after all just another wikia. - Archduk3 12:02, December 7, 2011 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Yeah, I wasn't saying "bureaucrats only", either - although I wouldn't mind that, as it would clarify a lot. What I was trying to say is that things that are admin-only are that for a good reason. Sometimes because they are potentially dangerous to the wiki and/or hard to revert. In any case, there should be a good reason for changing any of it - which probably means "get a second opinion, first" in most cases. I thought that was common sense, but I'd be happy with adding a item about that to our admin policy. -- Cid Highwind 12:04, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Got a response:

Thanks for reporting this. It's currently being looked into, it seems an error caused it to be enabled on a number of wikis it shouldn't have been with today's code release. It will hopefully be fixed soon.

So, hopefully it'll be sorted out in the near future. -- sulfur 12:51, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be fixed now. -- sulfur 13:59, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Not yet, as the buttons still say Comments and don't link to talk pages. Wikia also seems to have disabled all comments, even on central, so yeah...still way broken. - Archduk3 14:25, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

I checked before posting that, and with a full cache refresh, it was indeed fixed at the time. -- sulfur 22:22, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Considering I changed computers, don't run with a cache and still purge it periodically, was talking to staff who were seeing the same thing, and the comments "reactivated" for a bit in there, I'm sticking with this actually got fixed within the last hour or so, not before, assuming it doesn't re-break itself later. It might have worked for a few minutes before, but people had been reporting that all day as a side effect of switching comments on and then off. Go figure. :) - Archduk3 22:29, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Table bug

Hi, I looked at that table bug you mentioned... it's very strange, but I think it's to do with the width calculation and the sortable class - if the page loads more slowly (or faster?) than usual, then the one affects the other to make it seem as though the table is too wide. That would explain the intermittency. I've ticketed it - although as it's (so far) one table on one page and not all the time, it's going to be low on the list. But hopefully someone can look and see if my guess is anywhere near right -- sannse WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 17:57, December 8, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. - Archduk3 19:49, December 8, 2011 (UTC)

Hi archduk3!

thank you very much for your welcome message. I assure you that I'll take seriously your offer to make a log-in. However I must say that the time I can spent in memory alpha is not a lot.

Long life and prosper.

Ps.- My nickname is 'otger', and my e-mail is The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

collapsible listing

Hey Duke,

I've just added a credit list for Michael Minor with a <div class="appear"> template, but much to my dismay that has been copied to the subsequent captions, which was not the intent. I've run into this discrepancy before and I was wondering is this a glitch or is it something I do wrong? I do not know if this is the right venue to bring up this matter, feel free to transfer it to the right one--Sennim 17:55, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

You need to close the div tag with a </div> at the end of the list. These aren't templates but HTML tags, which is why they need to be closed. For more info, see here. - Archduk3 18:02, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the forward slash, that makes sense, thanks for clearing that up--Sennim 18:05, December 16, 2011 (UTC)


Sorry for the transportation-history adds. Thought they might be interesting. No offense intended. -- 22:06, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

No offense taken, just pointing it out. - Archduk3 22:24, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki