Memory Alpha


27,341 Edits since joining this wiki
August 27, 2009
Gral and Shran call a truce


Welcome to Memory Alpha, Sennim! I've noticed that you've already made some contributions to our database – thanks for your edit to the Constitution class 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! -- 31dot (Talk) 18:33, August 27, 2009

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.

Edits Edit

Please make use of the Preview button, which lets you see your edit before you save it. This reduces the load on the database and keep the Recent Changes page easier to read. Thanks --31dot 22:44, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

Format on the Constritution class model stuffEdit

I've re-reformatted your additions to be properly punctuated and formatted (for italics, quotes, etc) on this article. When making additions to articles, please don't change this formatting, especially as it is done as per our manual of style (linked above in your welcome). Thanks. -- sulfur 15:01, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

In use Edit

Just as a tip- if you are undertaking a major edit of an article, you can use the {{inuse}} template to indicate to anyone else who might want to edit it that you are doing so.--31dot 00:43, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, but where should I insert this template, in the article I working in?--Sennim 00:52, November 14, 2009 (UTC)
Great I've figured it out...Thanks 31dot!!!--Sennim 01:03, November 14, 2009 (UTC)
Actually, you might want to put it at the top of the article to draw people's notice to it, even if you're only working within one section. Setacourse 01:26, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Again, a major league good tip,...Thanks Setacourse--Sennim 01:53, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

VisionArt's CG Jem'Hadar battlecruiser Edit


The information about Tony Sansalone building the first CG comes from CFQ 29 6/7? I was reading your update, but I'm not quite sure what the citation refers to, because it's at the end of the paragraph.

Best regards.

Actually, the citation refers to both builders. In the exact quote Stipes says,"John Eaves generated top, bottom, front and side drawings, that VisionArt used to create the CGI ship. Animator Tony Sansalone did the work. Concurrently a model maker named Don Pennington was building a dimensional version. So we wound up building two ships, a physical version and a computer version." Hope this is clarifying, regards--Sennim 22:32, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Nice find - a lot of people were wondering what the V-shaped cruiser was about, and now at least we know exactly who built it. – NotOfTheBody 06:27, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Text move between articles Edit

Hi there. Two things about your recent move of text from one article to another (Studio model to Groumall type). First, since all text content should be attributed to the person who actually wrote it in the first place, please make sure to state in the edit summary if you're inserting text from another article (and explicitely link to that article in the summary). Second, it would be nice if you also cleaned up incoming links after moving information. For example, both Unnamed Delta Quadrant starships and Klingon cargo vessel still link to the "studio model" page that no longer has the information. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 15:54, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, will take that into consideration for an eventual next time. In this case damage is restricted since a third of the text was mine to begin with...By the way how do I identify incoming links? --Sennim 16:01, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. :) Regarding incoming links, there should be a link called "What links here" in the left column of the article you want to check. You will need to do the cross-referencing manually, though, to find out which of the incoming links are the ones that need to be changed. Sometimes, intuition helps. ;) -- Cid Highwind 17:06, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Image namesEdit

Please keep the names for images from episodes in-universe unless otherwise necessary. I moved your latest image upload to a name without the episode title in it. -- sulfur 20:35, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Got ye, but what's the reasoning behind that?Sennim 20:56, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
Cataloging. Easier to find an image in the image categories when the image name matches the article title: File:IKS Amar.jpg = IKS Amar. --Alan 21:19, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate images Edit

Please be sure to check that you are not uploading a previously existing image when uploading new files. You just uploaded File:B-type_warbird_facing_off_the_Enterprise.jpg which duplicates File:USS Enterprise-D new model, The defector.jpg (which are now merged to File:USS Enterprise-D and Romulan warbird contend for a Romulan scout ship.jpg). If you are unsure if the file exists, you can also check the corresponding image list for that specific episode: Category:Memory_Alpha_images_by_episode_(TNG:_The_Defector) --Alan 20:20, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that's a good tip, ThanksSennim 21:36, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Constitution class Edit

Just a heads up, model info spun off to Constitution class model. - Archduk3 19:30, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

No problem from my side, it did became a bit cumbersome...I'm a bit loathe to suggest this, but I'm extremely proud of this article, might I suggest this article as a featured article?--Sennim 00:23, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
You may nominate it at Memory Alpha:Nominations for featured articles.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 01:40, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Fanon Edit

Please do not add any fan fiction information to articles. "Apocrypha" is for licensed works only. See the canon policy. Thank you.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 01:01, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Cinefantastique coverEdit

Just fyi, I moved your cover upload to a more descriptive name at File:Cinefantastique cover 032.jpg. -- sulfur 13:38, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Roger, will adhere to your description for further adds. --Sennim 13:50, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

The more descriptive the title, the easier it is to find stuff later. :) -- sulfur 13:52, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Constitution class model Edit

I see peer review has been up for a month with no additional comments. If you feel the article is ready, might I suggest nominating it for Featured Article status. People don't often comment on peer reviews unfortunately, so this is often a better way to get feedback. Regards, Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 11:29, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence and your endorsement, going to gather up some courage to do so...Kind regards--Sennim 14:55, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
Fair warning, I may have to steal your thunder and nominate this for FA in the next month or so, if you don't do it yourself by then. ;) - Archduk3 00:24, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

By all means, somehow I'll feel better if a peer considers me worthy and put it forward and no, this is not aa case of false modesty :):)--Sennim 00:28, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Make sure to add Support to your comment on the NfFA page, just to be safe. ;) - Archduk3 19:10, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Self-Support :):) ? Is that allowed under MA guide-lines?--Sennim 08:07, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, I do it all the time. :) The only restriction is that if you nominate an article you worked on extensively, you mark it as a Self-nomination. Since I nominated this though, a simple Support will do. - Archduk3 08:31, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Done, Thanks for the heads-up--Sennim 08:47, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Image uploadsEdit

When uploading "in-universe" images, be certain to format them in an "in-universe" fashion as per MA:IMAGE. Thanks. -- sulfur 23:14, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, but could you give me an example, I'm not exactly sure what you mean, Thanks in advance.--Sennim 23:23, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

This. For example. Look at most of the other images and the way that they have their descriptions/etc formatted. -- sulfur 01:37, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the parentheses for episode or film...thanks--Sennim 10:53, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Drop me a lineEdit

Can you contact me at gaghyogi49atgmxdotde ? I've got an idea you might be interested in. --Jörg 22:38, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Numerous EditsEdit

I see, from the above, that other users have told you this already but, when making many and/or large edits, please use the {{inuse}} template. Also, mark small edits as "minor", so they don't clutter up the recent changes list and try not to make too many edits to any one particular page at any one particular time! You can instead group minor changes and make them all at once or, alternatively, space the changes you want to make over a period of days. --Defiant 14:56, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

I know, I am trying to do this already as much as possible, but every once in awhile I revert to my old habits, especially when I am time pressured, no excuse of course but know I am really trying to mend my ways...Good catch by the way on the SFX and VFX discrepancy, I think the way we formulated the opening paragraph as its now stands is correct.-- Sennim 15:25, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Memory DeltaEdit

I was wondering if you might be willing to contribute to a little side project I'm trying to start: Memory Delta. The idea is to make a catalog that lists everything on it's own page, while being easy to navigate. It currently needs all the help it can get. - Archduk3 01:31, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Dear Archduk3, first off sorry for my late response, I'm catching my breath from editing the Star Trek model kits section, which was a bitch to complete...As for your request, I'm not opposed to it, however I do have my hands full in adding to MA. And secondly, if I understand your intent correctly, your ""little side project" is far from little...{LOL)..As far as undrstand it, you want to create a wiki consisting of every single item brought out in the name of Star, however such is how MA has started way back. Truth to tell, I'm not that much into ST-merchandise. Yet if you want I can contribute where models are concerned as you may have noticed. That being said, how do I enter these? That is a major question. For example a model kit (which I think you would consider merchandise) of the USS Enterprise (the original for arguments sake} how will I list that on MD:
-AMT model kit USS Enterprise NCC-1701
-USS Enterprise NCC 1701 model kit
-Model kit USS Enterprise AMT
to name but a few permutations (and that is not taking into account re-issues and such, let alone other manufactures, licensed or not) So, while I do admire your aspiration, whow this is heavy...The point being is that I´m not opposed to contributing to your site as long as I know how to insert my contributions as in MA. Sennim 01:57, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Let me also apologize for the late replay as well, I've been distracted, both online and off. As for your question, I'm open to ideas. My idea was that the series, with TAS combined with TOS, and companies would be the "top" levels, with pages going "down" from there. "USS Enterprise" would be a disambiguation of all USS Enterprise merchandise, while "USS Enterprise model" would be a disambiguation of all models, and so on and so forth. I have no idea what would be a good disambiguation qualifier for individual pages in that case, but keeping with MA's disambiguation system was what I was thinking. Also, I must confess I'm not really into the merch as well, but I would like to know what's out there, and I don't know of one location you can go for that. - Archduk3 22:47, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Help with production/FX categories Edit

Hi, Sennim. Over at Memory Alpha:Category suggestions#Production company sub-categories, we're trying to figure out a way to break up Category:Production companies. I made a start at User:Josiah Rowe/sandbox, but ran into some difficulty divvying up the special effects/post-production companies, in part because I don't have a very clear understanding of the different stages of effects production and post-production. Defiant suggested that you might be able to help. Could you have a look at the discussion and the attempt in my sandbox, and advise on a better way to categorize the various companies? Thanks. —Josiah Rowe 20:03, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Josiah, I've noticed your sincere attempts of making sense of all this and frankly I'm applauding your efforts...When I started my stint on MA, concentrating on the studio models , I thought I was off the hook, considering background manufacturers....boy was I wrong...As of now for example I know I've to differentiate between "Special Effects Companies" (SFX) Special effect and "Visual Effects Companies" (VFX) Visual effects. The point is, there are many stages of post-production, especially before the computer age, since then many of the previously separate stages of post-production stages are combined into a digitalized one. What I know as far as I've contributed:
And then you have your companies which started out as traditional post-production service providers but dabbled with the new fangled computer thingies like Digital Magic or Rhythm & Hues...What I'm trying to say here is that "Production Companies" is a mighty broad subject...worthy of its own subdivisions. Nevertheless, I'm truly grateful you are one of us..--Sennim 21:44, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Cinefex Edit

Regarding your post on this magazine's association with Star Trek ... There was in fact a Star Trek II article commissioned by publisher/then-editor Don Shay, but he found it unsatisfactory and 'killed' it.

I freelanced for the magazine from 1990 to 1998 and was staff writer there till the end of 2000 (wrote their coverage for ST TUC, GEN, FC and INS, though they really messed up the editing on GEN), and I spent a lot of that time trying to get a look at the TWOK manuscript without success. It must have been a real disaster, because I know of very few Cinefex pieces that were killed off rather than printed (I did get them to revive a long dormant 2001 article, but they wound up throwing away about 25,000 words of material and introducing errors into the text for the final printed version of that piece.)

Kevin H. Martin

Dear Kevin, thank you for this inside info, may I quote you on this in the article ? It is useful info to have...Sennim 02:01, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, absolutely. I'm trying to finish an article right now, but I'll be back on this site in a few days if I can, and maybe we can exchange some info (I've still got several thousand words of material cut from my various CINEFEX TREK pieces in the files somewhere.) I'll get signed up here under the name Trevanain.


Hey thanks Edit

Thanks for your support on Talk:Apogee, Inc.. I need all the encouragement I can get! (And all the tips/help/advice, too!) I'm really trying hard to be useful and not disruptive, especially after the debacle that occurred when I signed up then subsequently became......succinctly: permanently very, very ill (bedridden, even). For some reason, I just can't figure out how to use talk pages correctly.

Cepstrum (talk) 22:09, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

Voyager TM Edit


I'm really glad you created the Star Trek: Voyager Technical Manual article. But I'm curious: where did you get such valuable, behind-the-scenes info? You even have a pic.


Cepstrum (talk) 17:06, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Well, the pic is a scan of my own copy which I acquired some years ago on eBay (I also own the TNG one, but haven't been able to score the DS9 manual)and the background info from Sternbach is from comments, he made years later on an unrelated topic on Doug Drexlers blog, I stumbled upon...Sennim 20:39, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Galaxy-class model Edit

Regarding the merge of the USS Trinculo, if you're going to be getting to information on the Galaxy-class anytime soon, and there's the same amount of information on it as there is for models like the Excelsior and Intrepid, I think a "Galaxy class model" page could be created and then the Trinculo merged there instead of the main Galaxy class page, so the history stays with the information. Not that there is any rush on this, I was just doing some merging and rediscovered that article. - Archduk3 09:43, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your thinking...As for the size of the article, I think it will be as large as the Excelsior-article, but it will be one of the larger projects, like the Constitution or CGI articles, taking shape over the course of a couple of months eventually....In the meantime, might I suggest a split-off of the Sovereign class studio model, it has become quite substantial as well...Kind regards -- Sennim 12:15, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

I thought I had more time to split them! ;) Just do a quick post here to let me know there won't be an edit conflict on the Galaxy-class page and I'll split them now. - Archduk3 17:43, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

Hey bro, you prod, I react :) Point is this, I had to act on some of the sections, especially the CGI one, for some of my sources are becoming victims of internet hell, meaning I've no idea how long they remain accessible...So I work my way backwards, the physical models being more problematic, (meaning I've a lot more reading to do). I'll be gone for the weekend (along one that is, 5 days or so), gives you a chance to split off the article...--Sennim 17:58, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
I'm actually busy all weekend as well, so sorry if this causes a conflict in your editing. - Archduk3 18:13, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

No problemo, the article isn't going anywhere--Sennim 18:15, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

Melora Pazlar vote Edit

Just wanted to thank you for your vote and nice comments on the Melora Pazlar article. --| TrekFan Open a channel 16:46, June 1, 2011 (UTC)

No problemo, just giving credit where credit is due, it seems congrats are in order, you have the required number of endorsements..--Sennim 11:40, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

Rumours Edit

Hi there Sennim. Please note that articles should not contain rumours and speculation ("Since X, it is more likely that Y"). This is prohibited by MA:NOT, and also goes against cite your sources.

I appreciate your work immensely, but please stick to reporting on facts, ok? Thanks. :-) –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 07:48, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Hey Cleanse, I see your point...truth to tell It didn't sit too comfortably with me as well, but it is sometimes so darn hard to resist; in case of Fasa, I'm old enough to remember the upheaval back then when Fasa was kicked out. In case of the CG-section of the Galaxy-class you edited out, that too I did choose not to contest for the strength of your argument, though my intent there was to debunk the claim, hence the format I chose, so BG as possible...Still, I'll continue to endeavour to be as factual as possible, and mostly I succeed nicely, I think...Nice to know though, that if I stray, there's someone to set me straight :)...--Sennim 12:24, June 22, 2011 (UTC)


While I have your attention, I have an unrelated question for you that's been bothering me; when using the "blockquote" template what is the right format used for the text in between, Italic or normal? There seems to be no consensus on that, I have been corrected both ways; My personal preference is normal as a large body of italic text is somewhat distracting. Warm regards--Sennim 12:24, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Minor split here, but use standard "normal" format in blockquote. If we change our minds down the road, we can fix them fairly easily. -- sulfur 13:39, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks (have been operating on that assumption:))--Sennim 13:55, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Spelling Edit

Hi there Sennim. Please note that Memory Alpha uses American spelling of English words. So "color" nor "colour", "favor" not "favour". See Memory Alpha: Manual of Style#Spelling and style choices. We have a list of common mispellings (even though they're not really misspellings ;-) which includes most of the common words that are spelled differently in American vs. British English. Thanks. –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 10:25, June 27, 2011 (UTC)

Cool, American spelling it is--Sennim 10:31, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
P.S. installed US-English spelling checker in my browser, should take care of business :)--Sennim 10:51, June 27, 2011 (UTC)

I have the same thing, since I'm Australian and we mostly use British spellings.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 11:15, June 27, 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the British spelling, it looks and feels more refined, sophisticated if you will:)--Sennim 11:20, June 27, 2011 (UTC)11:20, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
No worries, I'm Canadian, and yet I force myself to spell poorly ;) One note though, if the word is in a quote from a book (or such), then transcribe the quote exactly as is, even if "color" is spelled "colour". -- sulfur 11:29, June 27, 2011 (UTC)

Image qualities Edit

Hi, Sennim. I noticed you uploaded a high resolution version of File:The 37's effects filming.jpg. That's cool, but I was under the impression that we're trying to save storage space; it has, in the past, been cited as reason enough for deleting past versions of images. I'd be interested to find out your thoughts about this. --Defiant 20:23, June 29, 2011 (UTC)

In the past, this was a bigger issue. Now, we have much more storage space available to us, and it's not as big an issue. We still don't want to be uploading 1mb images (obviously) but 300k-500k should not be a problem in general. -- sulfur 20:34, June 29, 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting me know, sulfur. My only grievance is that, as it turns out, I may have posted this on not quite the right spot; apologies, Sennim. --Defiant 20:43, June 29, 2011 (UTC)

No need for apologies, it was a bona-fide question; my reasoning for higher rez pics is that they convey more information (especially where behind-the-scenes stuff is concerned), but it is good to know know what the cut-off point is..--Sennim 10:26, June 30, 2011 (UTC)

Complete vs 1-3 Edit

There's a difference between the complete box, and the three seasons bundled together. See the blu-ray version for the contents (The image is of the DVD box). The blu-ray page may need to have a disambiguation added if I'm correct. I'm off to bed right now, so I won't be able to reply for a few hours. - Archduk3 10:01, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

Hey Archduk, If you're talking about contents, I'm not entirely convinced of that, though packaging is almost identical, the number of discs are not, 23 for the DVD version (which is the total number of the 3 season R2 slimline boxes, at the very least I can vouch for the fact that season 2 R2 slimline contents -which I own- is identical to the R1 edition) versus 20 for the Blu-Ray box, which must mean that the episodes are somewhat differently distributed amongst its discs. I know that there are differences between DVD and Blue-Ray, apart from the fact that Blu-Ray contains both TOS versions, in the specials department. I think you have a point that the caption should read "Collections" instead of "Box sets", much like it has been done for the TNG DVD's and the others--Sennim 13:25, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

My meaning was that the complete box set was a different collection, and therefor should have it's own page, when compared to the R1 bundle, because it wasn't just a collection of the slimline collections, but a new package altogether. While there are differences between the DVD and Blu-ray versions, because of the difference in disc capacity, Amazon uses the same contents picture because the contents are the same, supposedly. Also, ASIN links to the UK site need the "UK" option added to work correctly, as in {{ASIN|number|UK}}. - Archduk3 20:33, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

Ah, now I see your your point, I misunderstood. Thanks for clearing that up--Sennim 09:59, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Suliban cell ship Edit

I was wondering if you had any information on the two different types of Suliban cell ships in relation to the split suggestion. - Archduk3 21:19, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been around delving into these puppies yet. Truth to tell there is not a whole lot around in regard to the ENT ships. Most publications of BGinfo ceased publicizing about the franchise at the end of VOY or stopped being publicized all together (the demise of Star Trek: The Magazine has been one of the most tragic happenstances for BGinfo researchers like me). What little info there is about that series ships comes mostly from the priceless DrexFiles and to a lesser degree from John Eaves' Blog. Still Drexler has two entries with some info:
The small "Suliban Cell Ship": and what he calls
"Suliban Stretch Cell Ship": ;user:Jörg should be able to identify the episodes in which these appeared, since he provided the stills.--Sennim 08:51, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I always have a hard time finding anything in the Drex Files since I tend to get distracted there. :) Most of the "stretch" version seem to be from "Shockwave, Part II" and "Future Tense", which is supporting my suspicion that the stretch version was really only in a handful of episodes. - Archduk3 09:05, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the DrexFiles are something like King Tut's treasure chamber for people like us, everywhere you look you see something new that looks interesting. I've learned to use the search bar to retrace stuff (always go back to the start-page, before entering a new search term !!!)--Sennim 09:17, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxons Edit

Could you please not make such comments, even if made in jest? Memory Alpha is a collaborative project with archivists from all around the world. This is the English MA, so yes, we do look into things like having proper English grammar and spelling. But equating language skills with race is just wrong, and likely to cause offence.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 03:35, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, most sincerely...It was indeed intended to be in jest, but it would not be the first time that my wry sense of humor was misinterpreted; I'll strive to refrain from making these comments in the time to come...--Sennim 03:46, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
Please feel free to tell me to keep my nose out of this (you would be well within your rights to!). Though I am aware different people take things differently, I didn't see anything wrong with Sennim's comment on the FA nomination page. In fact, I found it quite humourous which is how I believe it was meant to be taken. --| TrekFan Open a channel 13:45, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

"Inter Arma..." Edit

Hi Sennim!

Thank you for your positive criticism on the "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges" FA nomination. I hope you will consider supporting it now that those small changes have been made. --| TrekFan Open a channel 13:43, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

The Experience models Edit

You may be interested in the section of this documentary, starting at about the 19 minute mark. - Archduk3 15:01, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, fun docu to watch; tidbit of trivia, the CGI klingon BOP was originally constructed for The Experience and shortly after drafted for use in DS9 ;) -- Sennim 10:19, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

New ProposalEdit

Hello there. I wish to invite you to contribute and/or vote in this discussion on a new way of electing and retaining admins on Memory Alpha. Should you not wish to vote, your thoughts and opinions on this matter would be greatly appreciated in the "discussion" section. Kind regards, TrekFan. --| TrekFan Open a channel 11:33, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

Dear Trekfan, I've just tendered in my "Oppose" vote for reasons that I find your proposal too cumbersome and in my honest opinion simply wouldn't work just like the peer-review is flawed, i.e. lack of membership participation. Further more, having (potential) administrators go fishing for votes every six months would, AND clutter up MA AND distract them from the important and invaluable work they have to do (on a voluntary basis I might add). Furthermore I'm afraid that your assertion that it is not "personal", would become so if MA is to become a semi-political platform for which it was never nor should be intended. Already I find the tone and direction the discussion is headed to, disturbing, and I've chosen to stay out of it. IF a modus operandi is deemed necessary in this matter, I would feel far more for a system 31dot suggests, albeit more finetuned (i.e. objectively established yard sticks). On a final note on what started this whole mess; I know you are a staunch defender of DC and yes you might find some fault with Dukes attitude but truth to tell, after reading some of DC's talk participations, personally I find her attitude to be unjustifiably belligerent sometimes as well...I think its like a failed marriage; there are always two to blame...Well, these are my two cents and I'm sorry that I cannot honestly and in good faith take your side on this one. I sincerely hope you do not take this personally...Regards--Sennim 12:20, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

Hello Sennim, I believe you may have misunderstood my request slightly, but no worries. I wasn't asking for you to support me in particular but to consider the proposal and put your two cents in. You have done that and that's all I asked. I honestly just want to try and get a wider dicussion going on this issue. By the way, I completely agree DC's comments were perhaps a little harsh (I said as much in a previous forum discussion), I just agree that Duke acted wrongly in this instance. Anyway, thank you again for posting your thoughts in the discussion. It's much appreciated! :) --| TrekFan Open a channel 13:34, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

Image Edit

Do you have a use for this image? Just asking since we have the other one and I didn't want to put it up for deletion if you were going to use it. - Archduk3 (on an unsecure connection) 03:46, September 16, 2011 (UTC)

No, not anymore, I was wrong-footed by the "fake" that was originally posted, that's why I uploaded it, but it has no use now...I was going to direct your attention to it, but you've beaten me to the punch :) Good catch--Sennim 04:02, September 16, 2011 (UTC)

No problem. ;) - Archduk3 04:54, September 16, 2011 (UTC)

Could you change the link on Galaxy class model for "File:Starbase 74 interior.jpg" to "File:Starbase interior.jpg" either during or after you're done working on the page. I would, but I don't want to edit conflict you. Thanks. - Archduk3 05:49, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead, I'm not busy in that section..--Sennim 05:54, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

Cool. - Archduk3 05:57, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

Some "model" guysEdit

A user created a few basic pages for some painters and model guys recently. I was wondering if you could take a peek at them and possibly flesh them out. The pages are Joshua Cushner, Paul Hill, Eric Chauvin, R. Christopher Biggs, and Dennis Hoerter. Thanks -- sulfur 11:46, October 27, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the first four guys, as they appeared to have worked outside the studio model realm, and as such did not encounter these names in my research. I'll see what I can do about Hoerter...--Sennim 11:56, October 27, 2011 (UTC)

Galaxy class model FA nomination Edit

First, I've nominated Galaxy class model for FA status, so that happened. As the primary author of the article any help you could give in addressing some of the issues raised during the nomination would be a big help, since I don't have the information resources you have. So far it's just a series of small tweaks that are needed, but the suggestion to split the page has also been brought up, and I would like to hear any ideas you might have on that in particular. - Archduk3 19:38, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Hey Duke, thanks for doing that, especially since I had no intention of doing that in the foreseeable future...I'm on holidays with the family right now (and thus missed the whole FA thing) and not near my own computer and I've just perused through the whole thing...I'm going to try to find some more time in the coming days to find a few hours for myself to address some of the points brought up, but I can already say this on the splitting of sections things...I'm very weary of that, even skeptical for the following reasons:
  • 1. The article is written, or at least intended as a concept piece about the galaxy class model as a production asset in all its incarnations, and as such has a beginning, a middle and an end. I've put a lot of thought in organizing the article into a coherent piece. As such I feel that all the sections are interlocked and that there is a rythm and pace in the narrative, that would be disrupted by removing sections. I've gleaned that you feel the same way.
  • 2. Of equal importance is, that while doing my research, I've read through literally hundreds of blog entries on sites like TrekBBS, TrekWeb, resinilluminati, drexfiles and others, where the Galaxy in one or another incarnation is discussed. What struck me was, that (as I've discovered) while their is a massive amount of data available, it is hopelessly fragmented over dozens upon dozens publications, both in print and digital format. There is a whole community out there, modelers and Trek fans at large (not just the MA community) that is interested in this stuff, and on quite an occasion, :I've gleaned frustration of not having the whole picture at hand. The piece as it now stands is a complete picture, the very first of its kind as far as I can ascertain (I'm pretty sure I've discovered it as one would have been published). Breaking it up would defeat the intent of having a complete picture as it would again result in fragmentation...

On a final note, before being of to breakfast, yes it is long, isn't that a hallmark of being thorough? You have read through it in one go, and I'm sure the ones who have a genuine interest in these things will do also...Going to chime in again as soon as I'm able to--Sennim 07:48, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sennim. As the one who brought up a potential split, I want to say a few words about that as well. First of all, though, I have to say "Thank You!" for the very thorough article. I still learned a thing or two after all that years. ;)
So, while this article is very much "complete" and, as you describe, contains a complete "narrative" from top to bottom, that is exactly what I perceived as a little problematic for an encyclopedic article. We mustn't expect that all readers that come to this article want to read it completely. There will always be those (probably even a majority) that want to have an answer for a very specific question. Those readers need to be able to navigate through the text easily - either by having the text on different articles, or (at the very least) by having information arranged not just in a complete narrative flow, but also hierarchically.
For example, suppose I know nothing about all those models, I just saw one of them in an exhibition years ago and want to read details about that one (perhaps because I was irritated by the specific decals it had, or the damaged port warp nacelle, or something). How do I start? Probably by reading the initial paragraph and checking the table of contents: so, there were "several" models, and there are sections about a "six-foot", a "two-foot" and later a "four-foot" model. Which one is the one I'm interested in? Not sure, so I just click on the first section header (6-foot). That section starts with the sentence "Once given the go-ahead, a second set of one-to-one scale working drawings of the six-foot model were prepared and sent to ILM, and from then on the model-shop was on a tight schedule." - wait, what? Why does a section about a "six-foot model" not start with a description of what exactly this six-foot model is? Do I have to read through the rest of the whole section to find out if this even is the model I'm particularly interested in? In fact, why isn't there a super-section to this and all other sections about individual models that describes, in just a single paragraph, how all the various models relate to each other and the Galaxy class design history as a whole?
So, I believe this article would become better if it wasn't just readable "as a whole", but if also each major section (or "block of information", probably more than there are sections now) was accessible on its own. I hope this doesn't come across as me wanting to "destroy" your article - but I feel that, considering the size and scope of this article, something has to be done with it regarding accessibility. -- Cid Highwind 11:47, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Galaxy class spacedock sketch Edit

Any help you could give here would be appreciated. - Archduk3 21:00, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

cannot unfortunately (I find it a major important pic.), Ottens is the man for that..--Sennim 22:37, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. :) - Archduk3 00:14, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxons (again) Edit

Again, please do not use "Anglo-Saxon" as a synonym for "English speaker". Two different things. In the The Official Star Trek The Next Generation: Build the Enterprise NCC-1701-D article, what was important was the contributors' language, not their race.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 03:40, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not intended as such, will replace with "English speaking"--Sennim 04:29, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
Bytheby, as a non native English speaker, I'm a bit surprised that "Anglo-saxon" is considered a slur. I'm not privy to this, so to speak, why is this considered racist ?--Sennim 04:38, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

In English, the term can be used to describe race (i.e. white people of primarily British descent).–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 06:00, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Remarkable, on the continent the term "Anglo-Saxon" is used in purely historical sense and as such is not meant nor considered to be offensive, never imagined it to be such a slur on the other side of the pool...I'll endeavour to avoid its use, though I've to admit that using political correct terms in whatever language is tasking...Sennim 06:21, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Build the Enterprise magazine Edit


While I often throw in bits re: all manner of BTS articles from my archives and notes, I feel uncomfortable doing things involving myself.

Thus: I would appreciate being included among the major contributors to the fairly new "Build the Enterprise Model" magazine from Japan. The Mission Logs notes are all from my Companion-style notes I wrote the past 5-6 years for the Japan DVD series from Fact Files/Fabbri/Aerospace ... and the actor/producer/designer interviews (Frakes, Dorn, Piller, etc...) were either archived or in many cases fresh interviews.

Thanks.--Bones4ever 07:38, February 11, 2012 (UTC)Larry Nemecek

Dear Larry, absolutely no problem, had I known this beforehand this would have been automatic, as I firmly believe in the adagio "credit were credit is due". I sincerely did not know you were involved in this production and as such your remark here is of big help for the mag section that is still under construction. I am a big fan of your work, as you are one of the few writers who actually delve into the BTS stuff I'm so into...Kind regards--Sennim 13:21, February 11, 2012 (UTC)


First of all I just wanted to say nice work on the page about the Build the Enterprise partwork project. I thought I'd send you a message just to clear up a couple of very minor errors though - not because I'm being picky but because there are some very talented contributors who worked on the project and deserve recognition for their incredible work.

First of all, all the CGI imagery featured within the magazine was created by an artist called Rob Garrard, not Rob Bonchune as mentioned in the article. Rob B's work on the project was focused solely on the covers, which he began contributing from issue 3 onwards.

Secondly, although Mike Okuda did contribute one or two pieces of text to the first couple of issues (I forget exactly how much - he definitely wrote the Conn piece for issue 1 and I would've loved for him to contribute more if the project had gone ahead) the vast majority of the articles within the magazine were written by a handful of people including former Star Trek Fact Files writers such as myself, Chris Dows and Peter Griffiths, and some new writers including Rebecca Levine and James Goss. All articles were written using newly prepared technical notes provided to us by Rick Sternbach.

Aside from that, it's all good. Thanks for writing about the project.

Best wishes,


Dear Tim,

By the time you read this, I sincerely hope I've adressed your concerns and given credit where credit is due. I'd also like to thank YOU for posting the vids without the article, upon which I've based much of my info, was simply impossible...Like many others I want to express a sincere gratitude for your efforts regarding the Files and others and express a sincere "Damn" that this project did not see its fullfilment...Sennim 04:40, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Operation Return Edit

Please refrain from adding images not called through the template to the sidebar, as this breaks the sidebar format. Some of this could be because it seems that edit conflicts might not be working, I haven't been able to find anything on that either way though. I've addressed the images at the reconfirmation already, but if you would like read the reason images in sidebars are restricted, in a number of ways, you can see the the reason for the size of images, and the "entirely constructive" discussions that eventually covers the point of sidebars and the number of images they should have. I can't seem to remember where the discussion leading to {{Sidebar image}} is right now though. - Archduk3 04:47, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Dear Duke, sorry if I've broken the mold, as it worked so well, I had no idea that it was counterproductive to established policies, no infringements intended...As it worked so well, I got carried away, didn't realize that it was against the rules...--Sennim 04:57, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

"Against the rules" is a little too strong, but "extremely discouraged" does cover it. Sidebars are split 50/50, and adding these images broke that on the Dominion War article, and pushed the sidebar above the standard 300px wide at Operation Return. While it might be possible to change those templates to accommodate this, it wouldn't be easy or a small change, nor do I think it would be popular or kept based on the linked discussions. - Archduk3 05:06, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

I've to admit not being an IT specialist or a keeper of a web site, however your explanation gives me something to pause about, i.e. no pictures wider than 300px, or no pictures wider that 150 px if aligned next to each other, if I read your post correctly. Since I am not well versed in maintaining websites (to put it mildly), methink I should stick to the things that does not cause troubles from your point of view..I've done likewise things at Second Battle of Deep Space 9 and Dominion War. If you have to correct this, please accept my sincere apologies..--Sennim 05:21, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Images in the sidebar are controlled by the sidebar image template, to make sure that the sizes are correct. All sidebar template calls for images use that template in case we decided to change the size of the sidebars. While the sidebar itself is currently 300px wide, the images in the sidebar are only 292px wide, due to padding. If you have two images next to each other, each one could only be a maximum of 143px wide, for the same reason, but that requires the row the images are in to be properly formatted to use both columns in the sidebar. If it isn't, it breaks the formatting, since the space images can use is far less. There's no need to apologize either, we do tell people to be bold after all. - Archduk3 05:51, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

You're too kind, as usual ;)--Sennim 05:54, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

References sections Edit

Please don't add references sections, as that tends to lead to people thinking we use the same reference/citation format as Wikipedia. If those are references that aren't mentioned in the article yet, they should be added to the talk page in a "missing references" section. If they're citations for statements, they should be with the statement, or at least at the end of the paragraph. - Archduk3 12:00, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

Didn't know that, W'lldo, or rather don't:)--Sennim 12:23, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

CGI Edit

Hey. Just one question for you: Should the changeling species be added to the list of CGI species seen in TNG: "Aquiel"? Maura changed into a chunk in this episode. Was this a CGI effect? Tom (talk) 15:18, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, nice catch, utterly overlooked that one, my usual sources, Cinefantastique, Star Trek: The Magazine doesn't mention it, but the TNG Companion (3rd ed., p. 233) confirms it is a CGI effect, though it doesn't say who provided it. My guess would be Digital Magic, as it was that company who tinkered around with the new technique around that time..Sennim (talk) 08:21, July 18, 2012 (UTC)
Ronald B. Moore is talking about this sequence in the TNG Season 6 DVD special feature "Select Historical Data Year Six" ("To CGI or Not to CGI"). Tom (talk) 10:24, July 18, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, updated the CGI-section and worked in Moore's remarks on the special in the Coalescent organism article--Sennim (talk) 13:45, July 18, 2012 (UTC)
Great. Tom (talk) 13:57, July 18, 2012 (UTC)

Could you... Edit

...take a look at this, since it involves images you use for the model page and I'm not really sure what the issue is anymore, since I've been buried at work this month. - Archduk3 21:23, August 11, 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I am also not sure what point Chris2005 is trying to make. The original pic I uploaded came from the "10001001" scene from TrekCore, and it serves my purposes (comparison original/HD) on the page well...It should be noted that it is a stock footage shot, first used in the opening title sequence and therefore could come from any and all TNG episode. The only thing I can think of is that it is not an exact match due to the the fact that one or the other is a frame earlier or a frame later in the scene--Sennim (talk) 10:50, August 12, 2012 (UTC)

Creating the Next Generation Edit

Hey. I saw your edits on the article Creating the Next Generation: The Conception and Creation of a Phenomenon and want to ask you why you've changed the year from 1996 to 2001? My edition from this book was printed and released in 1996 and I also bought it in 1996! Back in the book there are also advertisements for the magazine SpaceView, the September/Oktober edition 1996 which was still sold in DM instead of €. Tom (talk) 09:52, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

Dear Tom, The 2001 year is the year of the German publication, and therefore relevant to Heel; I wasn't referring to the original English one, Regards--Sennim (talk) 09:55, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
I am also not talking about the English one. I own the German one. Should I send you screenshots of the imprint and of the advertisements in the book? My German edition was published by Heel in 1996. Tom (talk) 10:02, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
Oops, I did not realize you were talking about the German edition...I performed an ISBN search and came up with the (Amazon) 2001 -year, apparently a reprint, my bad. No need for sending the imprint, I absolutely take your word for it--Sennim (talk) 10:08, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

Firefox Edit

Hey, regarding your changes here, I am also using Firefox and don't know what is "crappy" with this style? Now, there is an excessive amount of unused space and this looks crappy. Tom (talk) 17:29, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

While I'm not Sennim, I do agree the galleries look horrible when the format is disrupted, in this case because it wasn't under the sidebar before {{clear}} was added. The wasted space isn't ideal, but better than the alternative. - Archduk3 21:54, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

And I do understand the point but I am also using Firefox and cannot see why "the galleries look horrible". Tom (talk) 14:45, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Are you using monobook? - Archduk3 01:17, March 18, 2013 (UTC)
Point is, apparently my Firefox version displays the screen somewhat smaller(?), causing the gallery to creep up, like Duke said, partly into the main text, and therefore spread over two rows due to the sidebar (1 pic on top and two asymmetrical on bottom). Don't get me wrong, no insult or anything intended, but is was aesthetically very displeasing..Sennim (talk) 12:03, March 18, 2013 (UTC)

Blog links Edit

In the style of {{DrexFiles}}, there is now {{Eavesdropping}} and the updated {{Forgotten Trek}}. Can you think of any other sites that we should template the links to? - Archduk3 04:07, April 15, 2013 (UTC)

The ones that are coming directly to mind as possible candidates are, and of which I know they are used quite a few times:
  • (which currently seems to be off line)
  • (archived at WBM)
The following are also possible candidates, but I can't say how many times they are used, and thus if it is worth the effort:
Dunno if these are feasible:
  •; the archived version, Probert is redesigning his website currently using the same address, but is for one or two years under construction now, the used links are referring to his old version.
  •; also a strange bird, as it had featured many pages that were later archived and not accessible anymore through the active site.
These are the ones coming from the top of my head, if I run across others I'll leave a note on your talkpage.--Sennim (talk) 10:52, April 15, 2013 (UTC)
Ex-astris and already have linking templates. Not sure on the rest offhand. -- sulfur (talk) 12:12, April 15, 2013 (UTC)

Overlooked those ones, should consult the Template page more often:)--Sennim (talk) 13:07, April 15, 2013 (UTC)

In regard to the Ex-astris template, as it now is configured it produces a result akin to the IMDb and Wikipedia templates and not an in-text link...--Sennim (talk) 09:04, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

The EAS template is very out of date, and is the next one on my list to be updated. Every single call is going to have to be updated on that though, so I'm not sure when I can get to it this week. - Archduk3 17:19, April 16, 2013 (UTC)


Note that if someone (person or company) is credited in a Star Trek production (film or episode), then that person, by default, should have an article here on MA, unless there is a very strong reason for them not to. By definition, showing up in the credits is a "formal Trek link". :) -- sulfur (talk) 16:16, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Understood, and in 99,9% of the cases that is correctly so. However in this particular case, from everything I've read thusfar Dr. Robert Langridge, the guy responsible for the molecular first sequence of the Genesis Demo, took on the task on personal title and was personally approached by the Graphics Group. He was at the time employed at Computer Graphics Laboratory though, but as it appears for now, that department was not the one contracted/approached, so hence my edit. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sennim (talk • contribs).

In that case, I'd put together a small article about the CGL that was simply something along the lines of:

The CGL is XYZ.
In 198X, Dr. Robert Langridge worked there when he was approached by Graphics Group to do the molecular first sequence of the Genesis Demo. As such, both Langridge and the CGL were credited in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.
External link/etc etc etc

And done. So, in essence, fill it out with the information you just shared here, and voila, done and done. -- sulfur (talk) 18:29, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Ha, ha, By Your Command (oh wait, wrong franchise), and also done ;)--Sennim (talk) 08:01, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

Starlog magEdit

FYI, I've put splits of 50 issue chunks to make reading the list a bit more manageable. -- sulfur (talk) 19:55, July 19, 2013 (UTC)

Cool...--Sennim (talk) 19:59, July 19, 2013 (UTC)
Truth to be told, I was already considering a split along the lines of year of publication, but you've beat me to the punch (quite nicely, I might add). As to the "table" question, as you've mentioned in your edit remark, I'm not necessarily in disagreement with you there, but I really don't have a clue on how to go about it for now, especially for pubs like these that are not consecutively concerned with Trek, like Star Trek: The Magazine is for example. Indeed, something for the future...--Sennim (talk) 21:07, July 19, 2013 (UTC)

Drexler interview Edit

In case you missed it: Forum:Ask Doug Drexler!. - Archduk3 18:18, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

Nearly missed it (currently engaged otherwise), thanks for the heads-up! --Sennim (talk) 10:36, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

re: no bg section needed in bg article Edit

I have to disagree with your remark in recent edit summaries when rearranging paragraphs in reference book articles, and with the edits themselves.

There is indeed a need to have a background information section in articles relating to franchise material - to provide information, in the same way as in episode articles, on the conception, development, and reaction to these works. This is common format across all published works - novels, comics and reference books. If you intend to change that, it should be discussed more centrally.

What's more, your edits mean that the lead section has now become far too complex, and the summary of the work is now several screens down. The summary needs to be on the first screen so the reader can see it when the page is first loaded.

I hope you will reconsider your edits in light of the above concerns. I am editing from my phone, so will not be able to respond for a few hours. -- Michael Warren | Talk 13:14, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

To follow up, there is a place for BG info on those articles, specifically to discuss the creation of the material or how the material was later used elsewhere, etc. That section is also used to list the credits/creators of the material (see the comic pages for an excellent example of that).
In short, DH is correct, the format/layout for all of our published works is (intentionally) identical. -- sulfur (talk) 13:26, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
In light of these arguments put forward, I'll concede, as it appears that I proceeded from misplaced assumptions. The summary argument makes sense, and the thought struck me: Would it be logical to put the summary, usually the backcover text, on top of the page, something like this ?--Sennim (talk) 12:03, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

That's what we already do - brief paragraph of intro with bolded title as standard, then the backcover text in the Summary section immediately below. Am I missing something? If you're suggesting something different, like just having the backcover text at the very top like a quote, then, no, I think that would not help a reader understand what the page is about at first glance, which should be the primary goal of any article intro. It would be bad design. -- Michael Warren | Talk 15:43, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Preview button Edit

Hey. Not sure if you know about this but when editing an article there is a "preview" button at the bottom of the page so you can see your edits and correct typos before saving the article. Please use this one. Thanks. Tom (talk) 14:02, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, I'm using that extensively, but sometimes these buggers keep slipping by me. Rest assured, I do keep trying to keep edits to a minimum--Sennim (talk) 14:07, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Alright. I thought you might not know about this one. :) Tom (talk) 14:12, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Please use the button when editing an article. Thanks. Tom (talk) 13:55, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

And again a commemoration when fixing links and typos it is the best to use the preview button, especially when editing an article numerous times in a few minutes just to correct typos. Tom (talk) 17:59, June 26, 2015 (UTC)

Hey Tom, truly, I know, but the new VisualEditor is a pain as far as previews are concerned...I wish we could return to the old situation were we could edit a specific section the "old" way (with the usable "preview" buttons)...--Sennim (talk) 18:06, June 26, 2015 (UTC)

I still have no clue about the new visual editor as I am still using the "old style". Btw, could you work out a few sections on the Gary Kerr article? It is a massive portion of text and not really readable. Tom (talk) 18:15, June 26, 2015 (UTC)

You mean divvying it up in more sections? If so, I guess, I can do that...--Sennim (talk) 18:20, June 26, 2015 (UTC)
Preferences->Editing->Preferred Editor->Source Editor.
Allows you to edit by section, and then preview for both mobile and desktop looks. -- sulfur (talk) 18:20, June 26, 2015 (UTC)
@Sulfur, AWESOME, works like a charm, thanks for the tip...@Tom, have subdivided the article into more palatable sections, hope this meets with your approval...--Sennim (talk) 20:19, June 26, 2015 (UTC)

Reconfirmations Edit

If you have the time, could you take a look at this discussion on the reconfirmation process. - Archduk3 17:17, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of this discussion, and having been on the short-stick on a few occasions (no doubt you know with whom), I shudder to get involved with this again. I've learned to never put up again any of my efforts for any consideration, whatsoever, ever again. As the good doctor says, "I'm an archivist, not an admin". That being said, I hold you in the highest regard, so give me a couple of days to consider my position in this matter.--Sennim (talk) 17:32, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

File extensions Edit

...should be lowercase only. Just a reminder. - Archduk3 02:43, March 3, 2014 (UTC)

I know, usually I catch these, but this one slipped by me; Will be keeping on the lookout for them...--Sennim (talk) 11:45, March 3, 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation linksEdit

Please do not link to "Kirk" or "McCoy". Those do not link to the characters you think they do. -- sulfur (talk) 12:08, July 7, 2014 (UTC)

Duly noted, thanks -- Sennim (talk) 12:12, July 7, 2014 (UTC)

BG and ApocEdit

Background information reference works and apocrypha works are not a matter of demotions or promotions from one to another etc. They are just a way to differentiate licensed works involving narrative stories and ones that dont, and are formatted as reference works. When a canon reference contradicts a reference work, it doesn't become "demoted to apocrypha status". bg and apoc have equal status. Background section just also has behind the scenes references mixed in with the reference works. It's all just a matter of categorizing appendices roughly into two groups. a partially outdated reference work is still a reference work. --Pseudohuman (talk) 03:03, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

Noted ;)-- Sennim (talk) 06:55, September 28, 2014 (UTC)

Star Trek maps project Edit

Hi Sennim. 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) 07:16, November 16, 2014 (UTC)

The Motion Picture tie-ins Edit

Hi Sennim,

I'm having trouble understanding the purpose of the paragraph you've added to several tie-in books for Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Are you actually challenging what we have listed as the official publication date? It seems like that is something that should be discussed on a talk page, not in the article.

Also, I have a couple of issues with the argument you set out in the paragraph - firstly, how do you know that the books were not released before the film? It is very common for tie-in material to be released before the film it relates to. The way you've written it makes it seem like it was actually impossible for the books to have been released earlier.

I am assuming your reference to January 1980 is to the cover date of the magazine - however, this actually means that it will have been published a month or more beforehand (see cover date), so if the announcement itself does not say a date, you can't rely on the cover date for when the books would be released. Even if it does say "January 1980", publishers usually release a particular month's books in the preceding month.

So, I don't think you can say "most assuredly" that the date we have is wrong - there actually seem to be a lot of assumptions in that paragraph. What's more, Playboy does not feel, to me, to be a reliable source for the publication dates of Star Trek books. :) -- Michael Warren | Talk 01:40, February 1, 2015 (UTC)

Hi Michael,
Thank you for pointing out some errors in my thinking, you were right of course that copy for monthly publications are written the month prior to their release publication, I insufficiently realized that. Also thank you for reminding me that I should choose my wordings more carefully and not let my "enthusiasm" get the better of me. On both points I stand corrected. As for Playboy, mindful of the old and classic adage that the magazine is "not bought for its pictures, but for its articles" (LOL), the TMP article, interlaced with actual quotations, is actually quite good as much of its contents is corroborated by other, more obvious sources (last year I've spent months trying to unravel the muddied and mired in lore production history of TMP) I'll rework the refuted passages in the near future...Regards, --Sennim (talk) 14:09, February 3, 2015 (UTC)


Please do not put these into categories like 'Publishers' like you have been doing. This is not at all appropriate for Memory Alpha's categorization scheme. -- sulfur (talk) 11:58, February 14, 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was misled by the one that was already there, I thought one of you guys put it there as example...--Sennim (talk) 12:04, February 14, 2015 (UTC)

Nope, merely something missed along the way. Cleaned up now. -- sulfur (talk) 12:06, February 14, 2015 (UTC)

Durinda Wood Edit

Hey. It is the second time that an anon is removing content from the article about Durinda Rice Wood explaining that the birth year is wrong. Since you added this birth year you could cite this information with a source and we won't have any further problems. Can you? Tom (talk) 05:54, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

Hey Tom, I probably use the same sources you do, such as California Birth Index and (both public databases); through the latter I was reverted to a single, exact name match, entry for her, reiterated here (though I've probably should have stated ca. 1952). That being said, I've noticed that if anon attempts are being made to remove birthdates, it is often by the people in question themselves (especially if they do not make contributions in other articles), as apparently and unfortunately it hurts their chances on the labor market due to age discrimination. For instances, I was through MA admin Jörg (who has a direct line to him) requested to remove the dates for Mike Okuda and his wife for exactly this reason, which, I think, should be honored if so requested--Sennim (talk) 08:47, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Yes, we're using the same sources. That might be the reason but no explanation just "wrong" was given by the anon user. So if this is one of the problems you've mentioned above, the anon user should at least contact one of the admins or start a talk about this. Tom (talk) 03:50, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

I was contacted by someone close to Durinda Wood and was asked to remove the birthdate, stating it's wrong. Can we do this like we did with the Okudas? --Jörg (talk) 11:47, August 19, 2015 (UTC)
Hey Jörg, Sure I don't see why not, as it appears to be an issue of note.--Sennim (talk) 09:15, August 21, 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! :-) --Jörg (talk) 11:58, August 21, 2015 (UTC)

World War II (Temporal War)Edit

This article, which you've spent a lot of time working on of late has a single citation block, right at the end to the three episodes that reference it. Having said that, there's a ton of text that isn't from all three episodes.

Can you work to cite each portion to an episode (or two) rather than a single citation at the end for everything? That second style works when something is only referenced in one episode, but not when it's spread across multiple episodes.

Also, I fixed the quote at the top to use the proper format (they also need to be cited to their sources... :) ) -- sulfur (talk) 14:22, November 6, 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'd predominantly working on BGnotes (which have been removed as irrelevant), but since I'm in the flow so to speak, I see where I can add these, as I go along--Sennim (talk) 14:30, November 6, 2015 (UTC)

Real-world info in background sections Edit

Sennim, just to let you know that I'm going to raise a forum topic about the amount of real-world info going into background sections, because I am concerned that there's a lot that isn't relevant to Star Trek, and sometimes not to the subject of the article either. Since you've been adding a fair bit of that sort of material, I would appreciate your views in particular once I get the topic up. Thanks. -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:18, December 2, 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll await the topic--Sennim (talk) 16:24, December 2, 2015 (UTC)

Covers Edit

Hey. If you need any German Trek magazine covers and cannot find them online let me know. I think I own almost every issue and could scan them. Tom (talk) 10:53, December 18, 2015 (UTC)

Good to know, I'll keep that in mind. Thanks Tom!--Sennim (talk) 11:02, December 18, 2015 (UTC)

Displayed page titlesEdit

...should never be different from the actual web address/real page title. The DISPLAYPAGE magic word should not be used to add in the "-" used in the displayed page name in links. - Archduk3 03:21, March 29, 2016 (UTC)

Well, my thinking was, to have the page titles correspond with the {{class|xxx}} templates as displayed...Yet, if this is not in accordance with perceived practices, I've no problems in abiding with these practices as perceived...Sorry if breaking the mold...--Sennim (talk) 18:40, March 29, 2016 (UTC)

Asimov Edit

Hi, Sennim. These Are the Voyages: TOS Season One states Isaac Asimov was invited, by Gene Roddenberry, to write for Trek, in 1966. Was just wondering if you have or know of any information to the contrary(?) --Defiant (talk) 17:06, April 9, 2016 (UTC)

Hey Defiant, I was aware of the Heinlein invitation, and I knew of Asimov's active involvement with fandom, but I apparently missed him being actually invited to write, so by all means, correct me. To the best of my knowledge Clarke was not however, which is a bit odd, considering Roddenberry's insistence on scientific accuracy, as he was the most hardcore tech scifi writer of the era...--Sennim (talk) 17:16, April 9, 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it was to do with the locality of the writers(?) Clarke had immigrated to Sri Lanka ten years prior. --Defiant (talk) 17:28, April 9, 2016 (UTC)

That is as good an explanation as any other; if memory serves, even fax did not yet exist at that time--Sennim (talk) 17:33, April 9, 2016 (UTC)


I couldn't figure out how to make the page reference which article I was commenting on. Sometimes it's easy to get lost in the instructions. :) --LauraCC (talk) 16:09, May 10, 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, and no worries, you'll get the hang of it, if you're around as long as I've been...Sennim (talk) 16:13, May 10, 2016 (UTC)

Picard family albumEdit

Hi. I was just very curious about where that note you added about one of Picard's ancestors being represented by Robert Nivelle general Nivelle was based on. I assumed you must have spotted him in the set of pictures from that Generations dvd extra and thought it would be cool to upload a picture to support that identification, but although I found one French general of the era, he didn't look much like Nivelle to me. So no I'm very intrigued, is there some other stash of picture, perhaps somewhere available online, that I'm not aware of? I've just always been fascinated by that album, so I'm just damned curious haha. (or maybe I just skipped one in making my screenshot set)-- Capricorn (talk) 18:55, May 19, 2016 (UTC)

No, no other stash than the DVD special, but you are right about the misidentification; it isn't Nivelle but rather Marshal Ferdinand Foch. This link provides an undistorted version of the pic, which was an actual contemporary postcard, disseminated in 1918 on the occasion of his promotion to Marshal of France and elevation to allied supreme commander. Good catch--Sennim (talk) 07:39, May 20, 2016 (UTC)

Oh, it occurred to me that that guy looked a bit like Foch, but I wasn't certain. I guess I can add that picture now. Great work finding that postcard. -- Capricorn (talk) 13:41, May 20, 2016 (UTC)

Contact Edit

Hi, Sennim. Can you please email --Defiant (talk) 12:54, August 22, 2016 (UTC)

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki