Memory Alpha

Darth Duranium

7,026 Edits since joining this wiki
September 9, 2010
Gral and Shran call a truce


Welcome to Memory Alpha, Darth Duranium! I've noticed that you've already made some contributions to our database – thanks for your edit to the Konami page! 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! -- Cleanse (Talk) 08:44, 9 September 2010

The above named user is the most currently available administrator to contribute to Memory Alpha; their signature was automatically added by User:Wikia. If you have any immediate questions or concerns, you may contact that user through their talk page.


User archive is located here. Darth Duranium (talk) 05:36, August 7, 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek: The Official Starships Collection Edit

Hey Darth,

I was wondering if the last edit I made can meet with your approval...I think adding the magazine contents adds to the overall usefulness of the article...As you can see it doesn't require very much adjustment...But, since this article is very much your baby, I've limited it for now to the "Special issues" section, awaiting your verdict...Regards--Sennim (talk) 02:09, September 19, 2014 (UTC)

Hey Sennim,
Cheers for the heads up, much appreciated. I've already corrected the 3-nacelled Ent-D paragraph to reflect the Shadyprise's (unofficial name for the unofficial Ent-D) shady heritage. Please note I already have a shot of it in the Gallery. Maybe we can find a sharper comparison photo, I may have one on my HD somewhere. I'll see what I can dig up. :)
I'm totally cool with the contents of the mags being added to the page (perhaps without the "Contents pg 2" and actual page numbers?) if someone wants to add the info to all of the issues. I can't contribute to that 'cuz I give my mags away to a pal in NZ! Anyhoo, lemme know what you think and we'll roll from there. :)
Quick question for you: Is there any way to get the page to display the thumbnail pics of the LATEST version of the photos? I often see that the thumbs show older versions of the pics. Cheers, mate. Darth Duranium (talk) 19:44, September 19, 2014 (UTC)

Hey Darth, Thanks for the reply. Yeah sorry, for the quality of the photo, I myself took the photo of my models, and I don't have a better camera. I'll see if I can take a better one in broad daylight, to at least get rid of the glare, which brings me right away to your question. The latest pic will be shown eventually, but I've noticed that sometimes it does take a couple of days before it has "settled" for want of a better word. I don't know why this is, since at other times a replacement loads directly, perhaps it has something to do with server load or with the size of a replacement, but ultimately it will be shown, just a matter of patience. Great, I've just received my first lot of 20 (cost me a arm and a leg, but I can not take out a subscription here in my stumping grounds, Holland, so I'm stuck with the expensive option, eBay) and I will over time add the content, thanks for the permit...I think though that "contents and page numbering" should be included, as it is in line with the style used elsewhere for print publications such as The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture or the mag Cinefantastique. Including page count for example informs the reader, where exactly specific info can be found, and that while the structure of the mag contents remains largely the same, that the size of the chapters may differ so a researcher might decide for himself if it is worthwhile to go after some info...This may sound trivial to you, but as you might know, I'm a largely bginfo editor and do a lot of literature research on my production pieces for MA and for people like me, it can be useful. But like I said, this piece is largely your baby, so if you are not fine with it, I'll abide. Have a nice one --Sennim (talk) 09:26, September 20, 2014 (UTC)

Cheers for your reply, Sennim. Yeah, it's weird how the photos take a while to update, sometimes it seems to revert to earlier shots rather than show the new ones. I dunno why, either... hopefully it'll eventually show the new ones. Ah, I now see that "Contents" and page numbers are correct in style as you say, please go ahead as you see fit. Sorry to hear that you have to go through eBay to get your issues, I get mine through comic shops here in Canada; they're on the US schedule (a couple of months behind the UK) but that's better than the Canadian subs which are 6+ months behind the US subs. Hope that Holland gets subs soon, Germany begins in January. A French pal of mine gets his models in France but they sell them without magazines, I'm told. OK mate, I'll now add the scaling info that my Belgian pal Dennis provides. It's truly an international effort! Darth Duranium (talk) 14:39, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

Great, I'll start when I get back from holidays; Very unlikely Holland will get subs, too small a language area, still, I prefer my Star Trek readings in English, I've always associated SF with that language...Have a nice one!--Sennim (talk) 06:57, September 28, 2014 (UTC)

Hehe, you spoke too soon, Sennim. Subs for Holland are slated to begin in March 2015. This info came via my Belgian pal Dennis Mosselmans who's at the London con. Cool, huh? :) Darth Duranium (talk) 08:10, October 4, 2014 (UTC)

Whoppaah, let's see if this will work out then...we have a saying over here which loosely translated says something like this, "first we see it, than we'll believe it", but it is nice that we are considered at all...Anyways, I've tackled the contents of the firs 15 issues, looks nice if I might say so my self...Sennim (talk) 00:08, October 5, 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, I just tweaked it a little bit to make the titles a little clearer. Hehe, I hope that EM makes good on their promise to Holland. :) Darth Duranium (talk) 00:33, October 6, 2014 (UTC)

Images with incorrect suffixesEdit

Next time, just throw a PNA on the image with a talk page noting that the file needs renaming to the appropriate suffix. :) -- sulfur (talk) 18:32, October 22, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Sulfur. Could you point me to the right PNA? :) Darth Duranium (talk) 19:22, October 22, 2014 (UTC)

If you can't figure out which one to use, just use {{pna}}. Nice "catchall" -- sulfur (talk) 12:02, October 23, 2014 (UTC)

Cool, cheers.Darth Duranium (talk) 14:43, October 23, 2014 (UTC)

Star Trek maps project Edit

Hi Darth Duranium. I'm Brandon, Senior Community Manager at Wikia. We're working on a new Star Trek project as part of the Wikia Fan Studio. To give a bit of context, Fan Studio is a program where fans on Wikia can be connected with brands from the entertainment and video gaming industries. Fans get to interact with brands and share opinions that could impact final products and releases, or whatever it may be that a partner brand is working on. This project doesn't have a partner brand involved, but it will let you be part of Fan Studio and other future projects.

This Star Trek project is based around Wikia Maps, and participants will be mapping different parts of the Star Trek universe. Participants will get to help decide what we should map as well. It could be the layout of the Enterprise, or Voyager's journey through the Delta Quadrant, or even more light-hearted subjects like Captain Kirk's romantic liaisons throughout the galaxy. Whatever the participants end up deciding. The maps that the project participants create will live on Trek Initiative, plus any other community that wants to can embed them.

As an active Memory Alpha contributor, we think you'd be great for this project. Would you like to join? Let me know on my talk page. Thanks! - Brandon Rhea@fandom(talk) 07:17, November 16, 2014 (UTC)

Categories Edit

Darth, when a category is a subcat of another category, we don't add the parent category to articles that already are in the subcategory. The article is considered to be a member of the parent via inheritance. All of those pages you added to Category:Companies were already a member of one or more cats that were in turn members of Category:Companies, so shouldn't also be a member of the parent. Thanks! -- Renegade54 (talk) 14:08, April 10, 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, didn't realize Collectibles was a subset of Companies, that's odd. I think there are a few more pages marked as both that I didn't edit. Still, I think that categorizing a lot of these companies as Collectibles only does them a disservice, tbh. Obviously, they're Companies, too. Darth Duranium (talk) 17:47, April 10, 2015 (UTC)
There's been a discussion as to whether they should be split to have companies on one page, the actual collectibles on another. This would make the most sense. -- sulfur (talk) 18:03, April 10, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, and the text for the companies cat reads "List of all companies that are involved with the broadcast or distribution of Star Trek, unless belonging to one of the subcategories", which doesn't apply to half of the companies in the category, much less the subcategories under companies. I think that whole tree needs reorganized. -- Renegade54 (talk) 20:13, April 10, 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that category tree needs some work! Oh man, that Collectibles/Companies discussion's been going for eons. I still come down on the side of listing collectibles under their manufacturer, as 90%+ of collectibles presently are. To me, it just doesn't make sense to create a new page for every collectible line that comes out. It'd be an insane amount of work, a nightmare to subdivide all the products, and for collectors like me it's much more useful to find all of a company's Trek products listed together on a single page. A concise reference source for Trek collectibles doesn't really exist anywhere else on the net. -- Darth Duranium (talk) 20:40, April 10, 2015 (UTC)
I like the collectibles all being on one page, but would prefer the company information split off from it. That would allow the collectible companies to fall into a category (named something like that) and the collectible items to be separated in the category tree. -- sulfur (talk) 00:05, April 11, 2015 (UTC)
Sure, I could live with that, Sulfur. Something like "Galoob Star Trek collectibles", "Hot Wheels Star Trek collectibles", etc. would be fine. -- Darth Duranium (talk) 09:40, April 14, 2015 (UTC)

File source Edit

Hey. Could you please add the source for the recently uploaded File:Ben Robinson.jpg. This is important and leaving the source empty could result in a deletion. Thanks. Tom (talk) 17:45, June 14, 2015 (UTC)

Hey Thomas. No worries, source added. It's a PR shot provided by Eaglemoss at the Destination London con. There are more on Eaglemoss' FB site, too. Darth Duranium (talk) 04:09, June 16, 2015 (UTC)

Great. Tom (talk) 06:27, June 16, 2015 (UTC)

Star Trek: Light-and-Sound Communicator Edit

Are you sure the Star Trek: Light-and-Sound Communicator has a 32-page book? Amazon has it listed as a 48-page book, which is why I wrote it up that way... thanks! -- Renegade54 (talk) 15:03, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Hiya. Pretty sure that's a typo as it also says 32 pages on the Running Press site. The other 3 in the series are also 32 pages. Cheers! Darth Duranium (talk) 22:47, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Brackets in Star Trek: The Official Starships Collection Edit

Hi, Darth Duranium. It doesn't seem right to me that the issue for the Phoenix, as presented on the Star Trek: The Official Starships Collection page, has the spacecraft's name in brackets, yet none of the other ship names have that. Is the only reason for the brackets that the ship name is absent from the front cover image we currently have? If so, that's clearly true of all the other covers of future issues. Shouldn't they, in that case, also have their ship name bracketed on that page? In other words, the formatting in that article is currently inconsistent. --Defiant (talk) 21:48, January 20, 2016 (UTC)

Hi Defiant. Yep, they didn't put the ship's name on the Phoenix's final cover, a first. If that continues going forward (btw, those future issue covers are temporary and frequently have no text or text that later changes) I guess we can discuss removing the brackets for this one, if that makes sense. At the moment, the titles are spelled out exactly as they're published on the cover. Info inside white brackets is only added to clarify an entry, when necessary. Should be 100% consistent, hopefully. Hope that 'splains things. Darth Duranium (talk) 22:06, January 20, 2016 (UTC)
You should probably also know that the next issue (65) has the title (ship name) printed on the final cover but I haven't found a copy of that yet. Should be available in a week or so. Darth Duranium (talk) 22:16, January 20, 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for explaining. Btw, thanks also for the extra info (as a huge fan of the Xindi, I'm definitely looking forward to that issue). --Defiant (talk) 22:23, January 20, 2016 (UTC)

No worries, mate. So there ya go: Ben Robinson just confirmed that the lack of a title on the Phoenix's cover was a "bizarre" oversight. Oops.[1] Darth Duranium (talk) 11:04, January 21, 2016 (UTC) Edit

Could you please extrapolate more on your edit summary for this edit? What do you think was "stolen"? - Archduk3 01:59, February 14, 2016 (UTC)

For starters, almost every pic from the MA article recently showed up on that page without attribution or acknowledgement. Compare the jpgs for yourself. Darth Duranium (talk) 02:12, February 14, 2016 (UTC)

Fair use images are...well...fair to use elsewhere and don't legally need to be attribute MA. The lack of attribution for Hallmark and/or CBS/Paramount is between them, but it is kinda not cool to at least mention a large source of info/images. That said, Google does show MA images pretty high in the returns, so it could just be that.

Is there any text from MA being used there? That is a different matter all together. - Archduk3 02:51, February 14, 2016 (UTC)

File licence Edit

Hey Darth,

I know you are in close contact with Ben Robinson, and no doubt you have permission to use illustrations he has posted for use on our site. But when you post these, the "fair use" license is not quite appropriate...I've given an example here how is it more appropriate...Regards--Sennim (talk) 17:19, March 10, 2016 (UTC)

Hey Sennim, wazzup. Yep, Ben's paid us a few compliments and even directs folks to the M-A page on occasion. Funny you should mention that image: you popped it into the Class J article stating it's CBS Digital's mesh but Ben didn't actually state that, IIRC. Some of Eaglemoss' TOS ships are not built from CBS assets so I'm not sure it should be there. I'm fairly certain this image was shown before he got CBS' stuff. Plus the mesh is specifically of the Aurora, which is a(n unstated) modified version of the Class J, but that's splitting hairs, isn't it. Btw, I usually use the CG meshes as placeholders in the article until the official model shots come out so we might wanna stick with the old license: it's temporary but Eaglemoss won't mind, I'm sure. Thoughts? One issue with the STSS page is that the issue/model names often change (sometimes repeatedly) after the mags are initially solicited so there are a number of images that could use a renaming, if we wanna be ultra-anal about it. Sounds like a Mod Job to me! ;-) Later, skater. - Darth Duranium (talk) 14:59, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

Hey Darth, until clarification, I think we should leave the Aurora pic as is for now; I'm pretty sure Mike Okuda was very instrumental in its design, him being the huge Jeffries fan (and personal friend btw) and all. I Like some of the pre-production pics, as they sometimes clarify the construction phase of a model, but I keep an eye out on the ones I think are useful (and adapt the license), before they are reverted to the "trashcan"...Keep up the good work brother...--Sennim (talk) 15:21, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

Note: If you guys have a "renaming" project you want to do for images, create a subpage of your user page with "current name"->"new name", such as:
* [[:File:old name.jpg]] -> [[:File:new name.jpg]]
And I'll set a bot job to do a) img linking cleanup and b) renaming of the files. -- sulfur (talk) 15:26, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

@Sulfur: until now it isn't really a "renaming" project, but rather a license fix for those (few) images kept, at least in my case, but if something of this kind will come up I'll keep it in mind, thanks Sulfur...
@Darth: the Aurora mesh actually turns out to be from CBS as Ben has stated in his corresponding tweet "look what Dave Rossi sent over" (Fabio converting the thingy from Maya to LightWave), and wouldn't you know it, Rossi was TOS-R producer at CBS, just saying ;-)--Sennim (talk) 15:46, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

@Sennim: Cheers mate, appreciate the kind words. Hehe, thanks for the clarification. So it's Eaglemoss' conversion of CBS' file which sorta makes it a CBS file, lol. Works for me. I'm alway happy to defer to others on stuff like this so I'll leave it as-is. Agreed, some of these meshes are amazing: so long as you're happy rescuing them from oblivion and using them in other articles, I'll just carry on as before. There are just too many to include in the STSS article on a permanent basis, IMO.
@Sulfur: Cheers, I'll probably get around to doing a renaming project once the Collection finishes up, rather than having to do it repeatedly. I'll have to ask about setting up that page when the time comes, if that's cool with you.
One other thing that youze guys might be able to shed some light on: Rick Sternbach has recently posted AMAZING pics of the Wolf 359 ships before they were battle-damaged on Twitter. I'd love to see them in their respective starship articles at M-A so is the best course of action to ask Rick or do we need more backup than that? Or is that unnecessary, considering he publicly posted 'em, they were done at Paramount, and they're all over the interwebs already? Hmmm. Bit of a licensing... er, conundrum, so to speak. - Darth Duranium (talk) 16:57, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha, so you've noticed these too...they are very much on the backburner of my mind (since I've written most sections on these models, me sorta, kinda being the "resident studio model guy" on this site, ever since I joined) But I think personal permission is required from Sternbach (btw it wasn't he who took the pictures, but Okuda for his Encyclopedia), as he no doubt made them available to Ben on a likewise personal note...that being said, once they appear in the mag, the "fairuse interior art" license becomes applicable...That others "steal" (Google, Facebook, NSA, CIA, Snowdon and what have you) the pictures doesn't mean we are allowed to do so ourselves...adhering to the proper "Rules of Engagement" (pun intended) is the more wiser course for us...methink.

On an unrelated matter; I've noticed that Ben is planning a behind-the-scenes book based on, and compiled from the mags with additional info...Could you relate to him the following in regard to issue 33 (Cardassian Hideki Class) in which the editors have confessed to a glaring lack of BTS knowledge: The CGI model built at Digital Muse was constructed by digital modeler Dave West and dubbed "The Cardassian Silverfish" at the time. This was written by Foundation staffer John Allardice (without doubt known to Mojo and Bonchune) in Sci-Fi & Fantasy Models issue 32, p. 53 (Foundation theme issue) back in '98. I've known this for ages, but never came around to writing it here, and it has undoubtedly slipped Mojo and Bonchune's minds after all these years...I would do it myself, but haven't have his contact info and I'll be damned if I ever go it on principle... Cheers brother--Sennim (talk) 17:40, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, that's funny, Sennim. IIRC, Sternbach said he took some of those Wolf 359 shots but I can tell you they were reposted by 8 of 5's site days before Ben reposted them so I don't think Eaglemoss is involved in any way. Clear as mud, as usual! Ah well, it wouldn't hurt to ask, can't see him saying no, so I'll give it a go.
Btw, what are you gonna do when I replace the CG shots with the final model shots? You're ok with pulling 'em out of the bin and renaming them? I'm a little confused (my natural state, btw). ;)
Hehe, it's not like Ben Robinson and I are pals and go bowling together but I can try to get your Hideki message to him via Twitter. I can't guarantee he'll respond whatsoever, though. A scan of the page from the SFFM mag would be helpful as Twitter only allows 140 chars and he tends to ignore long posts. Ciao! - Darth Duranium (talk) 23:00, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

Brother, mucho obligato...; as to you "pulling 'em out of the bin and renaming them", no worries, keep doing your thing, it's up to me to keep an eye out on these and "save" them (having already done so for two of them)..Keep'em coming bro(h) (darn, I should stop watching Hawaii Five-0 :))
As to the "scan of the page from the SFFM", sorry bro, NO; I'm not going to do all of their work, the staff writers have already done so in abundance "consulting" the contents of MA for their BTS articles, the research of much I (and btw Defiant as well) have performed incidentally, as MA edit logs prove without a shadow of a doubt (have you noticed that Eaglemoss not only doesn't cite any writing credits, even their own, but also doesn't cite sources – try doing this in the US). The BTS article in issue 60, Botany Bay, for example, is a near one-on-one reproduction of what I've written years previously, but just rewritten – and not that accurate btw as the on-call staff writer appeared to be either lazy (not bothering to follow through with the provided links) or exhausted – enough as to escape any plagiarism allegations. It is somewhat odd to recognize your own writings (only one of several) in someone else's publication, but hey, I knew what I was getting into when I started to be involved with MA. To make matters perfectly clear, I DO NOT, nor ever will, do this for money, it is after all a labor of love, but it would be nice to be at least acknowledged, if only for the work one puts into what others make their money from, but are unwilling to do two cents--Sennim (talk) 23:14, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

Book 'em Dano. Do they still say that on the Grace Park version of Hawaii 5-0?
Whew, ok, I wasn't aware that Eaglemoss plagiarized M-A whatsoever: I always assumed Eaglemoss had their own sources (e.g. Fact Files, CBS archives, Ben, Ben's pals etc.)! I just thought Ben would want to see some corroborating info about the Hideki rather than taking my (actually your) word for it. Ironically, I've never added text info to M-A from Eaglemoss articles because I've felt that ripping off the content of their mags while they're still publishing it would be an (ethical, not legal) infringement. But that's just me, what others do is up to them.
Gotta say that it's very cool that Simon Pegg has publicly thanked the M-A community for helping him do research for the new Trek flick. The ultimate compliment, a perfect Ouroboros.
Hehe, I've occasionally run into online starship mini "authorities" who parrot my own research or pics back to me: that can be cringeworthy, too. But I do recognize that much of what I've shared here was learned with pals in the collector community and the whole point was to create a storehouse of correct info for all. We're pretty much the go-to resource for ship collectors now and that pleases me. But hell, I ain't too proud: I'd take a fat cheque if someone wanted to pay me for edits. Cha-ching! :) - Darth Duranium (talk) 06:44, March 12, 2016 (UTC)

Pegg is the coolest! But you know what is really, really, cool? Getting a personal thank you; Doug Drexler once sent me, completely out of the blue an email (making the effort of finding out my address), thanking for the work I've done on his entry, and his was not sparse in his praise either...Man, you could mop me up after I read the email...And yeah, they still say that on 5-0 :-)--Sennim (talk) 11:39, March 12, 2016 (UTC)

That is cool and doesn't surprise me at all. Doug always has time for the fans and I've had the honour of chatting with him back in the Drexfiles days. He's superchatty, always helpful, and very, very nice. Btw, I contacted Sternbach about the the W359 ships: no response yet. - Darth Duranium (talk) 21:30, March 14, 2016 (UTC)

Star Trek: The Official Starships Collection News Edit

Hey Darth,

You should know about this for the Star_Trek:_The_Official_Starships_Collection entry: At least 5 new official collection ships confirmed/leaked! - User (talk) 01:33, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, hadn't seen that! So glad Alberto (you?) got a screenshot! - Darth Duranium (talk) 22:13, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

Unused files Edit

Hey. Are there any plans to use these three previously uploaded files anywhere? If not it would be great if you'll bring them up for deletion. Thanks. Tom (talk) 17:20, May 6, 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tom. I didn't orphan those jpgs: a user called "Tekany" added a bunch of new pics (of the same ships) to the STSS article instead of overwriting the older ones, leaving orphans. I left him a note on his talk page and fixed the new pics which had no license or text info... but he might have left more orphans, I dunno. Those 3 can be deleted, anyway. - Darth Duranium (talk) 20:19, May 6, 2016 (UTC)

Snow globesEdit

I noticed that you've documented a few snow globes recently. I don't usually try to request work from people, but it would be really lovely if you could also add a note about the subject of trek globes at snow globe. -- Capricorn (talk) 06:24, October 11, 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I know almost nothing about Trek snow globes. I just added the pics as they were a subcategory of starship replicas (which are in my bailiwick). I must respectfully decline your request out of sheer ignorance, Capricorn. ;) Darth Duranium (talk) 01:28, October 17, 2016 (UTC)

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki