Memory Alpha


54 Edits since joining this wiki
October 28, 2008
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, CraigG! 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! — Morder 05:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Summary Edit

Moved from User talk:

In this case the summary is a summary of the whole episode - acts, teaser and so forth - what the notice is saying is that the entire section needs work. :) — Morder 03:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. Geez, we sure are quick on the draw around here, aren't we... CG 04:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I just happen to look right after you finished. What I mean about the summary is that the summary is not separate from "Act One", "Two" and the Teaser so you don't write a separate summary because the summary is the teaser and the acts and so forth. See this episode (DS9: "Whispers") for an example. — Morder 04:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, the "Summary" section should be removed when Act One etc. is entered -- which admittedly seems a more Logical (says Tuvok) procedure... OTOH, there might be some utility in a short (2-3 para) summary as distinct from the lengthy and occasionally over-detailed accounts and the one-sentence description. Some of the summaries I've seen here are sufficiently detailed that all they lack is "Act" breaks; others are somewhat vague and sloppy. Is there any definite policy on this?
By the way, I've watched approximately one complete season of VOY or TNG every weekend for the last two months (sick, sick, sick) -- and I've come to the conclusion that one thing we badly need here is a single word for the situation, "Main power is out, all engines are offline, life support is failing everywhere but here, navigational controls are unresponsive, shields are down, and they're not responding to our hail." It would conserve a lot of time and space. Perhaps MA should run a contest... CraigG 05:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
[In case you hadn't guessed, I finally broke down and created an account. I'm the same guy. CraigG 05:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I gathered it was you. Well, the reason the word Summary exists is because that is what follows - a summary of the episode in question. They're not meant to be a line-by-line reiteration of the episode just a summary - organized in discrete elements to make them easier to follow :) (Some summaries aren't organized and need to be) As for your contest I'm not sure I follow - what situation? — Morder 05:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"Main power is out, all engines are offline, life support is failing everywhere but here, navigational controls are unresponsive, shields are down (or failing, or at 10%), and they're not responding to our hail." We could also include the invariable response, "Route emergency power to the [shields, transporters, life support]." This occurs on the average about every other episode; when the writers are at a low ebb, three or four episodes in a row, either in the ship or a shuttlecraft. There must be some colorful Klingon expression... CraigG 06:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, take it up in a Forum and see what the community thinks. — Morder 06:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The contest Edit

Heh heh, I like the idea of labeling that crap. I propose calling it a "scooby dooby" when they write another one of those inevitable bridge scenes. It's actually not a Klingon expression, it's Beltranite. --TribbleFurSuit 07:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, Trib, apparently that contest hasn't become a hot item. Over at Technobabble I suggested another one:

At one point (I think in ""Tears of the Prophets""), Quark fixes Julian a drink he calls a "Warp Core Breach", which appears to be a shot of liquid nitrogen (for the fog) and a quarter-cup of diluted grenadine served in a small goldfish bowl. Perhaps MA should have a contest for the most interesting alternative recipe, with or without fog.

My entry would be on the order of 2 oz (60 cc) 151-proof rum, 2 oz (60 cc) white rum, 3 oz (90 cc) cheap chianti (since it's at Quark's), garnished with a small piece of dry ice for the fog, served in a large but manageable snifter.– CraigG 04:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You and your contests :) the Technobabble discussion also veers dangerously close to Beltran's "scooby dooby" concept, so that's the name of my drink. It's Herradura Reposado, lime juice and sparkling orange Calistoga, shaken with ice and strained into a dilithium-crystal-rimmed stemmed glass (salt will do if we're out of dilithium again), and garnished with a stick of Leola root with a fresh lingonberry or two impaled on it. --TribbleFurSuit 05:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk page indentingEdit

When responding on talk pages, please keep your indenting to the same level each time as per Help:Talk pages. This allows for easy scanning of the discussion to see who is responding to whom. If you initially began the discussion, your indent level will always be "0". If you were the first responder, you will always indent with one colon (":"). Thanks. -- sulfur 13:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I had unconsciously assumed the usual Internet discussion convention for indenting:
A says 1
B responds 2
A responds to 2
C responds to 1
B responds to C
A responds to B's response to C
C responds to B's response to C
D responds to C's response to 1
--- and so on. I have to admit, though, that this rapidly runs out of room and can get confusing; the MA convention is at least a little easier to follow. Thanks again – CraigG 05:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki