Memory Alpha

Capt Christopher Donovan

1,560 Edits since joining this wiki
March 24, 2006
Recommended LayoutYou are currently viewing Memory Alpha without recommended changes to the standard layout. To apply these changes, please click on the following Apply link - to just get rid of this notice, click on Reject. In either case, click Save page on the page that follows.

Gral and Shran call a truce


Welcome to Memory Alpha, Capt Christopher Donovan! I've noticed that you've already made some contributions to our database – thank you! We all hope that you'll enjoy our activities here and decide to join our community.

If you'd like to learn more about working with the nuts and bolts of Memory Alpha, I have a few links that you might want to check out:

One other suggestion: if you're going to make comments on talk pages or make other sorts of comments, please be sure to sign them with four tildes (~~~~) to paste in your user name and the date/time of the comment.

If you have any questions, please feel free to post them in our Ten Forward community page. Thanks, and once again, welcome to Memory Alpha!--Alan del Beccio 08:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sovereign class Edit

You've made a lot of really good edits lately to the Sovereign class article. There is a little bit of stuff you have removed that needs to go back. The information on the Quantum torpedo launcher located near the captain's yacht (the "fore" turret). You removed it because you believed it to be non-canon. Problem is, it is seen on-screen in Star Trek: First Contact. The rate of fire (or at least minimum rate) is also seen in that movie. Actually, that information was already discussed in the talk page for that article, specifically at Talk:Sovereign_class#Designation_and_other_Canon-issues. Any chance you could put the info back (I would, but I have had a lot of work this weekend, and I am really tired)? --OuroborosCobra talk 18:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to put them back anymore. I woke up more, and just did it. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, the debate over whether tubes can only fire either photons or quantum, or both. I actually happen to agree with you, there is no evidence that I know of that they ONLY fire one or the other. The article still needs to talk bout that nifty launcher forward of the captain's yacht (the so called "turret"), but we can just call it a torpedo launcher, rather than a photon or quantum.
Honestly, I don' know where people got the idea that they can only do one or the other. --OuroborosCobra talk 08:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"Warsies" Edit

I saw your comment on us "warsies" at the votes for deletion page. I take that as an insult. Please tell me what you find to be so horrible about Star Wars fans like myself. Adamwankenobi 18:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't talking about you or any other normal Star Wars fans. He was talking about a certain small sub-group of Star Wars fans (and their hangers-on) from a certain website's forum. This type of Star War fan insults and berates others (now including Star Wars authors and VIPs like Karen Traviss and many others) for failing to make the SW-verse as big and bad as possible to make it a better comparison against Trek, among other reasons. Board invasions, wiki-wars, and other such nonsense are commonplace, and the smallest example of the lengths they'll go to. They have also shut down or attempted to shut down opposing views via personal harassment, death threats, and so on. Nowadays, such parties are also known as "Talifan", a play on "Taliban". - DSG2k 23:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I know the type. We don't want them at Wookieepedia either. Adamwankenobi 02:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Galaxy class torpedo thing Edit

OK, thanks for saying where the info was from. I had reverted it after talking with other people on the MA IRC channel (so it was not my decision alone), and none of us could think of a canon reference that specified 10, and while "Arsenal" FX showed that,it could only be taken as an "at least that many", not a specific number. I honestly have not read the TNG TM in about ten years, and the other people I was talking to may not have either. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if people confuse the aft launcher from the stardrive (in the neck I think) with that of the aft saucer. I certainly don't remember seeing the saucer fire aft torpedoes. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Cetacian ops? Edit

Just curious, where in "Yesterdays Enterprise" do they call it that? It is not in the script... --OuroborosCobra talk 22:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In the Ten Forward scene onboard the "battleship" Enterprise-D, as part of the background "paging" chatter is the following "Dr Joshua Cambell, please report to Cetacean Ops..."Capt Christopher Donovan 22:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks again. I don't have any of the episodes on DVD or anything, unfortunetly, so I'll take your word for it. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Um, I think we need to discuss this again. Stating that it is an alternate reality is NOT hairsplitting. THere is a lot about that ship, especially terminology, that was DIFFERENT in that timeline than from the main one. For example, rather than stardate, they used combat date. I think that it needs to be stated as an alternate timeline reference unless you can come up with one from the main timeline. Or are we also going to start saying that the Enterprise-D was rebuilt after it was destroyed and had a third engine mounted on it? --OuroborosCobra talk 07:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, yes I DO feel you're "hair-splitting", and it's not the first time you've engaged in it Don't take this as an insult, it's just an observation. You WERE the one who gave as an example that you would insist on a canon quote to define something as uncontroversial as a "Bajoran chair". It's being overly picky to insist on making that note "other universe speculation." The Bridge was still the Bridge, same with the Transporter Room and Engineering.Capt Christopher Donovan 07:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not insist on a canon reference for something like "Bajoran chair". What I insisted was that IF there was such a reference, and IF that reference said that it was different than a regular chair, then we would have to follow the canon reference. --OuroborosCobra talk 08:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Jeffries vs. Jefferies Edit

Oh, it can get quite a lot more official... the scripts, the Star Trek Encyclopedia, DVD special features,, and Wikipedia all list his name as Jefferies and the tubes as Jefferies tubes. It certainly wouldn't be the first time the NY Times misspelled a name in an obituary... --From Andoria with Love 09:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Cloaking deviceEdit

I shall attempt to reply to your comments to the best of my ability. :)

  1. On Memory Alpha, we do not simply accept more recent information as canon, we accept everything on screen as canon. In canon, according to Star Trek: Enterprise, cloaking technology was encountered by the NX-01 Enterprise. Yet, also in canon, the technology was deemed only theoretical by the next century, as established in TOS: "Balance of Terror". Yes, there does seem to be an as-yet explained contradiction, but both facts were established in Trek and therefore both are accepted as canon.
  2. I agree that it wasn't established where the Klingons got the cloaking device, so that can probably be removed. However, a background note should be added stating the possibility that it was aquired during their alliance with the Romulans.
  3. I can't even recall a Klingon ship since Star Trek III: The Search for Spock that didn't have a cloaking device (then again, I'm pretty tired at the moment). Maybe just saying it was utilized aboard many Klingon ships will be enough.
  4. I'm glad you agree with the last paragraph, since there is a theory going around that the writers intended the holo-technology used by the Romulans during the Babel Crisis as a possible way to explain the apparent cloaking capability (and apparent continuity lapse between "Minefield" and "Balance of Terror"). I agree, though, that the transportation thing needed to be removed... even though it is an intriguing bit of speculation, IMO. ;)

Hope that helps! :) --From Andoria with Love 03:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:"Scrunched" Edit

By scrunched, I mean the image appears have been squeezed, crunched, or flattened. Not by a whole lot, but definitely enough to tell. Anyway, Ottens also seems to feel that the present image is inferior (understandable, given the distance of the Enterprise from the camera), so I will upload an un-scrunched version of your image and see what everyone thinks of that. :) --From Andoria with Love 22:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Supply ship Edit

Hiya, Captain. The list at starship classification is for generic starship types, not for specific ships. Regardless, the supply vessel article was already located at Federation supply ship, so I merged the supply vessel article's history to that of Federation supply ship, and added your info to that latter page. Just thought I should let you know that. ;) --From Andoria with Love 11:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Supply ship has been added to the links. As for the broken links, any links to "supply ship" should now appear red since we don't yet have an article explaining what a supply ship is. When the supply ship article is created, it should have a brief description of what a supply ship is and provide a list of the different types of supply ships (i.e. Federation supply ship, Cardassian supply ship, etc.) --From Andoria with Love 07:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I had just finished tweaking your article when I got your message. The article was very well done. What I did, though, aside from a few spelling corrections, was remove background information that didn't really pertain to the supply ship article, but rather belongs to the specific starship articles (which I believe already has it). Also, I limited the "types of supply ships" list to just generic types of supply ships and removed the specific ones, since those are already found in the articles of the generic types. It could probably still use some work, but it looks pretty good. I hope all that made sense. ;) --From Andoria with Love 09:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan "Summary" Edit

Please stop by Talk:Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, thanks. Ottens 09:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sovereign ClassEdit

[quote}Do I have to get out the plans and color mark them all and post it to put an END to this?Capt Christopher Donovan 10:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[qoute]

Yes you do because I have the same drawings and my count shows the one large array on the saucer dorsal plus SIX smaller ones. Watch the opening shot of the Enterprise in Nemesis as the camera pans over the saucer and pay attention. The torpedo launcher that was shown in some drawings at the bow is in fact NOT THERE, and the number of phaser arrays can clearly be counted as well. Modelshipbuilder

Kzinti ship image Edit

Hey, so that you know, I am voting to keep the picture you uploaded. I still think it is in the wrong article (see my vote for more details), but I am for keeping it. I like having information about what was being considered for season 5, and it is great to have a visual to go with it. Thanks for finding it, and thanks for defending keeping it. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Aeroshuttle Edit

Hello Captain. Sadly, I must report that I allowed myself to get side tracked from the real problem I have with that image, which is that it is from a published work, namely Star Trek: The Magazine. Previous images have been deleted solely because of coming from that, because taking images from there seems to not constitute fair use. While originally I had been cursing the fact that we do not archive image deletion discussions, so I could not reference them for everyone, I realized they are still stored in the edit history for Memory Alpha:Files for deletion. I went digging, and found a couple of relevent discussions, which I have "archived" at User:OuroborosCobra/PageII#Image Deletion Discussions. Please take a look, it might change your vote. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Misunderstanding on restricted validity resources Edit

Hi Donovan. I noticed a little disagreement over whether the TM can be used. Sadly, you are wrong on where it can be used. The content and resource policies lists the TM under Restricted Validity Resources. Here is a quote from the very top of that section:

The following resources may be referenced in Trek Universe articles, but should be formatted as background information as described in Memory Alpha's Manual of Style.

They are right, info from the TM should be bakground information, not main article information. Hope that helps you understand these recent edits. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Enterprise image Edit

The reason for the revert was because people wanted an image that prominently featured the Enterprise in spacedock. The previous image, featuring Enterprise at a larger distance, didn't really accomplish that, hence why it was replaced. Sorry for the late reply, btw, meant to answer this last night. Anyways, hope that helps. :) --From Andoria with Love 19:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Damage Control team Edit

How did we not have an article like that? Thanks for adding it, nice job with it. P.S. I realize this was entirely random and not discussing any changes or issues with articles or some such, but that is the mood I am in. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Power packs deletion Edit

What I did was a merge of the articles' histories, not just a copying of information from one article to another. This way, the history of both articles are available for future reference (see MA:MERGE‎). That is the proper way to merge articles; whether it was necessary or not since info from one was already added to the other, I'm not sure, but I figured I'd do it anyway. --From Andoria with Love 19:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Constant EditsEdit

I've noticed that you've been doing a lot of edits on the Transporter article over the last hour or so (13-14 I think at last count). This is likely because you've been editing the article by section. When there are a lot of sections as such, it's actually best to edit the entire article at once so as to not hit things up with so many changes in such a short period of time. -- Sulfur 00:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

tweaked img Edit

hey. was just curious why you reverted the image of the enterprise-e (Sovereign_class_enterprise_1701-E_nebula_bckgrnd.jpg) back to a washed out version. the previous img worked well and its colors were true. Deevolution 04:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

yeah it didn't show up with any note, just said that it had been reverted. this is once again a difference in the way our computers display images, but on mine the previous image was true to the way it appeared in the film and displayed the detail of the ships hull etc. the current version, however, is washed out...with space appearing gray instead of you know black. also compared to the other images in its article, it is really poor quality. least from the way my computer displays it. if we could replace it with an unedited screen capture that, i think, would be ideal (even though i was really happy with the way it was before). Deevolution 04:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
well now that the image has been brightened, we (or at least i) can see the flaws in the image i uploaded haha. i don't know if you can see it, but there's some distortion at the bottom where the letter boxing was cropped out. i futzed with the nebula a little bit to get the ship centered in the image and you can really tell now... below are caps of the ship that were completely untouched. do they look hella dark to you? Deevolution 05:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Image CitationsEdit

Please make sure that when you upload images, you list the episode that they came from. The three TAS images you uploaded this morning are missing that tidbit of information. Also, when linking to the various Enterprise vessels, please ensure that you use the proper link, as "USS Enterprise" goes to a disambiguation page.  :) -- Sulfur 13:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Images for Deletion Edit

When posting an image for deletion on the Image Deletion page, such as the non-canon Enterprise image you found, it is a good idea to put a link to the image into the post. In case you do not know how to do that it its [[:Image:Imagename.jpg]]
That way others can immediately click on the image link and see the image for themselves. Hope this is useful.– Watching... listening... 21:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Galaxy-class tactical matchupsEdit

(moved to Talk:Galaxy class)

Federation Article Edit

Thank you very much for your contributions. Though I find Star Trek, and science fiction in general, interesting, I am not a fan of it, per se. Therefore there is a lot of information I do not know. You and others have inserted several key points that I did not know, and which have greatly helped the article's informational content. I really think that this could be a flagship MA article, once peer review is done. I intend to re-nominate it in 2 months. – Watching... listening... 19:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

D'deridex class Edit

Just as a heads-up, an IP guy again changed the number of emitters from 10 to 12. I started a discussion on the talk page to hopefully resolve the issue: Talk:D'deridex class#10 or 12 DisruptorsCleanse 00:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Image names Edit

When uploading images, could you please provide a descriptive name for them, as outlined in the image use policy? Names such as Tosr ei2.jpg do not provide identification or useful information. Thank you. -- Michael Warren | Talk 11:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages Edit

Talk pages our your friend. :) --From Andoria with Love 23:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Jim's DOB Edit

Please see the talk. There is still no proof. — Morder 04:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Stardate - Date conversion Edit

Hi there. I saw you recently added exact dates to some of the events of the new movie. Please note that this conversion is based on several assumptions, including a non-canon comment made by Orci, and as such should not be used in the articles directly.

I think a better way to go on about that would be to simply use the stardate that was given ("2258.42", I think), and then let the reader beware by adding a background comment about the possible conversion to Stardate. What do you think about that? Feel free to move this discussion to Talk:Stardate, if you like. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 11:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Cite your sources Edit

Regarding your addition to Starfleet tricorder (Though not clearly seen or referenced in the film itself, the prop makers that helped construct the prop for the wrist tricorder confirm it's presence and have produced replicas of the device.), please ensure you cite your sources for background information. Thanks! – Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 23:57, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :-)– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 00:51, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki