Memory Alpha


74,020 Edits since joining this wiki
February 17, 2007
For older discussions, see my archives 01, 02, 03, and 04.

Image format Edit

Hello. I'm trying to edit some of the images I uploaded earlier to make them the JPG format, but when I do I'm getting an error saying the MIME type of the destination file is not the same as the uploaded file. I can't seem to change the destination file. How might I go about editing the image so it's a different file format? TrekkieCub314 (talk) 13:52, January 2, 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, the images must be uploaded again ("replaced") as jpg files and you cannot move them with the current format. Tom (talk) 16:02, January 2, 2015 (UTC)
So would I go to the "File History" section of an image page or do I need to create a new image page for the JPG version of the PNG files I uploaded? TrekkieCub314 (talk) 16:15, January 2, 2015 (UTC)
You need to upload a new image as jpg so we can delete the previous uploaded png files. Tom (talk) 16:20, January 2, 2015 (UTC)

Question about talk page formatting. Edit

Hey, I have a question regarding the format of talk pages, specifically related to unnamed humanoids. I've posted several topics in such a page to try to see if the aliens I saw had been seen yet or not. Some of them I'm satisfied haven't been named or categorized yet, while in at least one instance what I thought was a distinct species had already been mentioned on the unnamed humanoids page. Seeing as deleting posts from a talk page is frowned upon, is there a way I can group my topics into things like added species, resolved topics, and uncertain species? TrekkieCub314 (talk) 20:36, January 5, 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. Talk pages are what they are and what I meant earlier when I said "Personally I don't see a point to fill the talk page of the article instead of adding the information to the article." You can only add a note to the talk page topic that the "unidentified species" was added to the article as you did it here. Tom (talk) 22:05, January 5, 2015 (UTC)
Would it be OK if I removed the images from the talk sections that I've already added as the only reason the images were in the Talk page was to make it easier to see the species I was trying to identify? TrekkieCub314 (talk) 12:24, January 6, 2015 (UTC)
Personally I would say yes. It would make it easier to replace with images of higher quality later. But I think leaving them on the talk page would be better. Tom (talk) 13:38, January 6, 2015 (UTC)

Featured article nominations Edit

The FA nomination process is currently being discussed here. Just a FYI in case you missed it in the recent changes. - Archduk3 05:55, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

Erika Biordi Edit

ThomasHL, According to, another word for professor is educator. [1] I wasn't speculating; I was using the English language. Lakenheath72 (talk) 13:37, February 16, 2015 (UTC)

I never heard of and don't use it. I've just checked the page here on MA and it says that every professor is an educator. I removed the category because we don't know if Biordi was a professor who taught students. So it was specualtive. But with the description at the category page here it seems that every professor can be added. So if you want, restore the category but leave the sortkey as it is and don't remove it. Tom (talk) 13:43, February 16, 2015 (UTC)

UK Comics coversEdit

Sorry for may english, but I'm frenchman. I found these whitman covers

also you have by example, #40 with Whitman logo

also, you have this page for more information from comic strips

we must found again numbers from 1292 to 1381 for all covers

for Star Trek Annual (Western), these all covers

C-IMZADI-4 (talk) 17:44, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

No problem at all. I think the covers are already uploaded to Memory Alpha and are in this category. Am I wrong? Tom (talk) 19:20, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

someones are with GK logo others with Withman logo. for The PsychoCrystals you have both covers with variants and I didn't see it in MA database. The preceding unsigned comment was added by C-IMZADI-4 (talk • contribs).

Then feel free to upload the missing covers to the articles. Tom (talk) 19:37, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I hesitated, for don't upload them twice. I'm going to class them before. thank you for answers. C-IMZADI-4 (talk) 19:45, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

I've contacted User:Sulfur as he is more into comics than I am. Maybe we'll wait what he says. Tom (talk) 19:50, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

Ok, goodnight ! C-IMZADI-4 (talk) 20:12, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to say that if the covers are identical other than the publisher's logo, it's not really worth putting them online. A couple of the variants we have up are to show the logo difference, and in one case a price difference. -- sulfur (talk) 00:58, February 24, 2015 (UTC)

Starfleet Communications Edit

Looks like I stepped on your toes there, sorry. Thought I would do a quick merge to help you out since I had a few minutes free. Guess I chose the wrong the page. :) - Archduk3 22:53, March 7, 2015 (UTC)

Just thought the same. No problem. ;) Tom (talk) 22:57, March 7, 2015 (UTC)

Cramped episode referencesEdit

The whole point of that category and the template doing what it does is to force us to deal with the properly. Not to break up the reference to remove the category. One solution is to revisit the way we do references for those, and actually tie references to the specific items on the list. I've got a suggestion that I'll put forth later this week, but I'm not sure how well it will fly. -- sulfur (talk) 20:30, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

I see. I though I'll add the episode templates properly (only five in a row) so this category won't list so many articles. I am just going randomly through the maintenance categories. ;) Tom (talk) 20:33, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

Asking for advice Edit

Hi, can I ask you for advice? I've come upon a personal website from way back in geocities days, which includes an account of the webmaster having once pitched for Voyager. Information that would be useful to the unproduced Voyager episodes page. It sounds plausible enough to me, but the thing is, this is just a random person writing on their own website, who can just claim anything they'd like.

I'm unsure what to do, but it occurred to me that you may have dealt with similar situations before, people making claims that they've extra'd or something but there not being much proof apart from them saying so. So I was wondering, are there any guidelines as to what is acceptable for inclusion, or methods for establishing veracity, that carry over from your work to my situation? I know it's a very weird question, but I just don't know what to do with this information. -- Capricorn (talk) 22:25, March 12, 2015 (UTC)

Hey. Here on Memory Alpha we try to confirm and prove any info that is not well documented. Sometimes there are people who claim to work/pitched something on/to Star Trek and some are just con artists unfortunatly. We don't have a policy for this I think. Throughout the last years I've had the opportunity to get in contact with many of the people who worked behind the camera and in front and built a "small web" of contacts. I am also able to verify many information for the extras with the help of a collection of around 1000 call sheets I own. For stories pitched to the production there is no such "list" I can think of. The best way to deal with it is a "deeper search". Who is this person? Is there any further information about his work, life and connections which could be helpful? If you're completely unsure about this, the talk page of the article would be the best way to publish this information and maybe one user or a visitor can confirm this information or find a link/source for this. Hope this helps? And no, it's not a weird question. ;) Tom (talk) 09:40, March 13, 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very useful advise. I've already done a provisional search on the person and turned up next to nothing (despite the person at one point calling himself a writer: bad sign). I'm going to do a more extensive search now, making sure to leave no stone unturned. If that doesn't help, I'll post on the talk page. -- Capricorn (talk) 18:55, March 13, 2015 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I am curious to see who it is. Maybe I've seen the name before. Tom (talk) 19:00, March 13, 2015 (UTC)

Oh I'll just share what I have right now then, I'm not the kind of person that is so territorial as to keep found info close to the chest until I can personally score a point by adding it ;). The guy's called Rick Bamford, here's his site:, and the detailed account is at the the "my pitch experience" section. (I've also found a more recent blog that has the same story but less detailed) Sadly no information about what the stories would be about, but might still be worth adding that a someone called Bamford pitched four stories for Voyager's seventh season - assuming the information can be verified legit, that is. -- Capricorn (talk) 00:11, March 14, 2015 (UTC)

Alas, I've come up empty, can't find anything else to back up the story or at least back up the respectability of the pitcher. -- Capricorn (talk) 10:52, March 18, 2015 (UTC)

Qwizards: Star TrekEdit

Hey, ThomasHL! We're starting to get things ready for the Trek 50th Anniversary, and we're looking for fans of the franchise that might be interested in participating in a Star Trek-themed Qwizards, Wikia's original quiz show! As an active admin on this community, I was wondering if you had any interest in participating in Qwizards: Star Trek? If you're not sure what Qwizards is, this landing page will give you a bit more information. This would probably happen around August, so let me know what you think! Grace @Wikia (profile)•(talk) 16:19, March 13, 2015 (UTC)

Disambig pagesEdit

Just FYI, these pages should show the barelinks to the articles in question, rather than using the 'dis' template. They are maintenance pages, so a bit different than your typical beast of an article. -- sulfur (talk) 16:58, March 16, 2015 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for the info. Tom (talk) 17:08, March 16, 2015 (UTC)

No worries. The big thing to remember with disambig pages is that they're used to find out what page you should be at... and having the page name listed there assists both the reader and the editor (to fix broken links! :) ). -- sulfur (talk) 18:09, March 16, 2015 (UTC)

Image credit Edit

Hi Thomas. I'm Brandon from Wikia. Would you mind reverting your change here? That credit came about due to an email to Special:Contact. The owner of the image requested credit and we recommended that they either add it themselves or talk to an admin here. If the credit doesn't remain, then the owner could end up requesting that the image be removed. Thanks! - Brandon Rhea@Wikia(talk) 13:48, March 19, 2015 (UTC)

Brandon: When things are done to articles that break formatting, remove licenses, etc, then practice is to revert the changes and contact the user in hopes that they can explain themselves. In this case, I've updated the image to include the photographer's name and noted the year that it was taken. Do note that if you pass along the information from such S:C requests my way, I'm more than happy to make the appropriate corrections/updates as needed. -- sulfur (talk) 13:52, March 19, 2015 (UTC)
I can see this was followed by other admins while I was away. It is always a problem when an anon user is editing something without explanation, in this case adding strange templates. Previous encounters proved to me that asking them about their edits on their talk page won't get any results. So it is always helpful to fill in the edit summary or contact an admin or use the talk page. In this case nothing happened. Tom (talk) 10:04, March 21, 2015 (UTC)

When I edit a page, Edit

I see a page that looks like a redacted copy of an intelligence document. As the links are now highlighted in brown, blue and red, I am only able to read the text that has no links. I don't know if this issue is specific to Apple products - I have a Mac. I am seeing this on all the pages. Lakenheath72 (talk) 12:33, March 26, 2015 (UTC)

Sounds new to me. I have no problem editing an article. It looks like it should. Wait a while, maybe close, reload, clear your history. We'll see if the problem still continues. Tom (talk) 12:55, March 26, 2015 (UTC)
See here. wikia is dumb and probably assumes we edit white text on a dark background. I can fix this, but not today, and that's assuming we're "allowed" to. - Archduk3 13:04, March 26, 2015 (UTC)
Note that for those who are colour blind, this new syntax highlighting is impossible to use. :)
To remove it, there's a simple preference in your user preferences under 'editing'. -- sulfur (talk) 13:30, March 26, 2015 (UTC)

Block request Edit

Tom, I notice you have made a recent edit so this is why I'm asking you. I was hoping you could block anon for vandalism to a number of articles, namely Cardassian, Kivas Fajo, Jean-Luc Picard, United Federation of Planets and for adding "The Feldon Resistance"? I have reverted the edits for now but I don't want him to carry on what he's doing. Thanks, --| TrekFan Open a channel 16:05, April 13, 2015 (UTC)

DarkHorizon already blocked the anon user. ;) Tom (talk) 16:22, April 13, 2015 (UTC)

Ah, no worries! Thanks anyway. --| TrekFan Open a channel 16:31, April 13, 2015 (UTC)

Having trouble editing a page Edit

I'm trying to make a modification to the page Unnamed Humanoids (24th Century), and said edit has been repeatedly undone by another admin. The reason behind the reversion of my changes was that the change was apparently breaking something, but what was being broken was not specified, nor does it seem that the user made any attempt to fix the resulting problems themselves. Can you help me identify what I was breaking so I can try to fix it? The change itself is accurate. TrekkieCub314 (talk) 15:27, May 19, 2015 (UTC)

Are you using the VisualEditor when editing the page? If so, that editor tends to break a lot of our custom formatting. The best way to go is to switch your editor to the source editor in your Preferences. -- Renegade54 (talk) 16:20, May 19, 2015 (UTC)
As Renegade54 said. I assume you're talking about this. Tom (talk) 16:23, May 19, 2015 (UTC)
I am referring to that page, and I used the source rather than the editor. The preview page seemed to work fine when I made the initial changes. TrekkieCub314 (talk) 16:55, May 19, 2015 (UTC)

Category name changeEdit

Just FYI, I "corrected" the new 'menus and features' category to be all small letters so that it matches the rest of the category capitalization styles we use. :) -- sulfur (talk) 15:34, June 3, 2015 (UTC)

I've followed your changes. I know that and I am not sure why I used the proposed caps in the rename template on the old category. ;) Tom (talk) 15:53, June 3, 2015 (UTC)

Call it a brain fart. haha. :) -- sulfur (talk) 18:02, June 3, 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Webster Edit

Hi. This is admittedly a pretty pathetic last resort type of thing, but euh since by your edits you seem to have some interest in the Webster thing, I don't suppose you could weight in on this discussion? Sorry if this is a totally nuts thing to press you on. -- Capricorn (talk) 21:05, June 3, 2015 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks for the link and I wrote my opinion. Tom (talk) 13:33, June 4, 2015 (UTC)

Wow thanks :) -- Capricorn (talk) 19:15, June 4, 2015 (UTC)

Biology reasoning Edit

I was thinking because bacillus spray was supposed to rid his plants of bugs, it's a gardening or botany thing too. I couldn't find a category for that. --LauraCC (talk) 16:13, June 11, 2015 (UTC)

I won't put it in the Biology category. It's like putting a communicator in the categories Humans, Klingons, etc. just because they're wearing them, IMO. Tom (talk) 17:14, June 11, 2015 (UTC)

It's used for botanical purposes. --LauraCC (talk) 17:15, June 11, 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Edit

Didn't know there was a category for scans. Is there one for tests in general (not explicitly said to be scans) too? Procedures seem more like an operation or resetting a bone, not getting blood drawn, say.--LauraCC (talk) 17:04, June 12, 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is a category for tests. Tom (talk) 17:12, June 12, 2015 (UTC)

Question on your Richard Dix source revert Edit

I have the newly created article on the actor on my watchlist, and hence noticed how you put up a citation needed thingy, the original creator added it, and then you reverted it as invalid. Now, I'm very tired so I figure I'm missing something, but doesn't that invalidate the whole article's existence? Since that imdb link was presumably used as a source for creating it. -- Capricorn (talk) 23:05, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source. IMDb as a source was discussed on several talk pages over the years. Many information on the IMDb are simply false. When this information about Richard Dix is true there has to be another source, a reliable one. And a source would back up the article. Tom (talk) 23:13, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

Cyprion cactus redirect Edit

I see you've deleted the redirect after I moved the Cyprion cactus page. I'll freely admit that I forget to supres the creation of such a redirect almost more often then not, but in this case it was actually intentional. Cyprion cactus is what it was called in the encyclopedia, and by extension in at least one novel, so I think this is a usefull and justifyable redirect to have. Wouldn't you agree? -- Capricorn (talk) 09:55, August 1, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I would. But when you go to the search bar and type in "Cyprion cactus", the first thing you'll see is "Cypirion cactus". So a redirect in this case is not necessary thanks to the search bar. Tom (talk) 10:11, August 1, 2015 (UTC)

I imagine that can be said about each of the non canon redirect though -- Capricorn (talk) 03:22, August 2, 2015 (UTC)

Citation reversion - William Harwood Edit

Could you enlighten me on why an entire Reddit post or user page is a more appropriate source than a direct link to the comment presenting the information itself? Thor214 (talk) 17:04, August 3, 2015 (UTC)

Yes sure. Because of the history. There is not only one comment regading his appearance, there are a few and the history is more informative than just one post. Tom (talk) 18:13, August 3, 2015 (UTC)

Comic creator listEdit

Just FYI, this list is sorted the way it is intentionally -- please do not alphabetize it. :) -- sulfur (talk) 15:11, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Though a more "complete" list would be a better choise, what means not listing "only" the comic book staff. Tom (talk) 16:17, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

Well, my aim was to deal with the comic people, and then could have a separate list for the others. That allows me to focus on the comic people biographies, as they're of more interest to me than the novels, reference books, etc. Haha. -- sulfur (talk) 16:23, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

I see. ;) Will adapt the other list. Tom (talk) 16:25, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

Btw, check out the {{RequestedLinks}} template. That's what I've used on the comic creator list. Puts in a "whatlinkshere" link automagically. Might be worth adding into other pages eventually too... -- 16:27, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgotEdit

I spend most of my time in althist and I can edit anything there any time.

I won Best Editor three or four years in a row and am number two.

Bil EoGuy (talk) 22:13, August 27, 2015 (UTC)

Stop undoing my edits. I am trying to make your website better. --TimDowling813 (talk) 19:40, September 20, 2015 (UTC)

Groener vs. Groner Edit

The screenshot of the Raymond family okudagram list appears to have spelled her name wrong; while it's a bit blurry, there's definitely another letter between the "O" and the "N" on-screen, and the letter looks to be an "E". The first letter isn't clear enough to distinguish between "C" or "G", so per Sarah Paul it's a "G", but I think we should take what's on the screen for the Raymond family relative, i.e. "Hilary Groener Raymond". Thoughts? -- Renegade54 (talk) 18:52, September 29, 2015 (UTC)

Having a closer look to the screenshots again you might be right and there is an "e" so "Hilary Groener Raymond" seems right. Sorry for the late reply. Tom (talk) 07:15, September 30, 2015 (UTC)

No problem... thanks Tom. -- Renegade54 (talk) 13:10, September 30, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Rhoda Williams Edit

WHY DO YOU DELETE MY QUESTION? I am asking a question regarding the contents of the article, and that's what discusion pages are made for! Who are you to decide that it is unnecessary? Your reasoning that "if the info would be available it would be in the, unnecessary...." is pointless in my opinion. There are many pages that are missing information, it's the nature of a wiki to be a work in progress. No page is 100% complete. So if a randomly visiting reader sees that someone is interested in that information, he may know the answer to the question and add it. -- Klingonteacher (talk) 06:27, October 16, 2015 (UTC)

Hey. Regarding your comment on "Talk:Rhoda Williams". That is not the place to discuss that. You can post this on my talk page if you'll see a problem with my actions. I saw questions over questions which I considered general discussion regarding the policy for talk page content. To answer your other questions: Hi, I'm Thomas and an editor on MA since 2007. "There are many pages that are missing information, it's the nature of a wiki to be a work in progress." - correct. So that's why we create and expand articles instead of filling talk pages with (sorry for the word, it's just my personal opinion) "unnecessary" stuff. Would it be ok for you to move the content from the talk page to this discussion? Tom (talk) 08:44, October 16, 2015 (UTC)

Hi Thomas, nice to meet you ;-) (I just moved these discussions to the right place, I hope that's okay here.) My anger simply resolved from the fact that you deleted my message even within few hours after being posted, as if it were a spam attack. I was indeed asking a question about the article, i.e. making a suggestion for improvement of it, which I believe is part of the policy. I think that's what talk pages are made for. I think that asking for more information is not "unnecessary", but encouraging writers to do some research to improve memory alpha. It's not that I was talking entirely off-topic. By the way, I have asked for information in talk pages several times, and usually received positive reactions and mostly even answers to my questions. -- Klingonteacher (talk) 11:35, October 16, 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, did not to provoke anger. For me it was late in the night and I saw another talk page filled with questions over questions...what recently appears in a massive amount here on MA. For several performers especially voice performers we don't have specific information and there are unfortunatly no (or not many) sources giving these information. So I saw no point in asking this on another talk page. Tom (talk) 10:53, October 17, 2015 (UTC)

Cover renameEdit

Wow, you are fast. Thank you for helping on renaming the cover. I accidentally forgot to add the image title and it used the title from the Star Trek site. - Roger Murtaugh (talk) 17:51, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

No problem. ;) Tom (talk) 17:53, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

Deleted image Edit

You recently deleted an image I uploaded, saying that it's a "file without license". Do you mean that no license was selected when I uploaded it? The only option the drop down list gave me was for no license. Ian128K (talk) 22:47, October 24, 2015 (UTC)

I deleted no image, I removed the file link from the discussion. You'll have to add a license tag for a file uploaded here. See also Memory Alpha:File use policy. You can also add the license later as there is no need to add it when you're uploading it. Please be aware that files without a proper license will be deleted after 5-7 days. Any questions? Tom (talk) 22:51, October 24, 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you! I'm editing the image description right now. Is there any way to customise the fields in the {{image paramount}} template? Or do I need to change the defaults at all? It defaults to "See description" for the Source and "N/A" for the Rationale, and I thought I should fill those in. Ian128K (talk) 23:10, October 24, 2015 (UTC)

If it is a screenshot you've taken from the Blu-ray/DVD you just have to add {{image paramount}} as the license. And don't forget to link in the description to the episode you took this screenshot from with TOS-R: "The Cage". Tom (talk) 23:16, October 24, 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again! I just updated the image. Please let me know if there's anything I missed. Can I re-add the link in the SS Columbia talk page now, or do I need to wait for approval? Ian128K (talk) 23:22, October 24, 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. I've added a category and links. Please note for further uploads that we prefer .jpg files instead of .png files. Tom (talk) 23:31, October 24, 2015 (UTC)

cm Edit

Hi. Thanks very much for correcting File:Iggy Pop and Christopher Shea.jpg. Sorry for the initial, dodgy upload. --Defiant (talk) 20:06, October 27, 2015 (UTC)

No problem. You're welcome. Tom (talk) 20:09, October 27, 2015 (UTC)

Polaroid images...Edit

Hey, I was looking through some pages and came across continuity polaroids you uploaded. What's the origin source on those? For example, File:Continuity polaroid, Times Arrow Part II 7.jpg. -- sulfur (talk) 12:57, October 30, 2015 (UTC)

Hey. The original source are the makeup and costume continuity polaroids made by Paramount during the production. A friend acquired them by auction and sent me the polaroid pictures (photographed) as images with the approval to publish them on Memory Alpha. Hope this helps.... Tom (talk) 14:31, October 30, 2015 (UTC)

OK, that does help. We should document that they were sold at an auction/etc. Was it one of the "big" auctions along the way? If so, let's document things properly -- ie, that they were acquired at auction, and the purchaser gave permission for their use on MA. -- sulfur (talk) 14:55, October 30, 2015 (UTC)

I have to it was some time ago. Tom (talk) 15:05, October 30, 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Not urgent to get it resolved today -- just longer term in the desires to be as accurate as possible. Thanks dude! -- sulfur (talk) 15:45, October 30, 2015 (UTC)

Mercy Hospital redirects Edit

I'm adding in anchors. The redirects will always go to the anchors, no matter what the title of a section is. The anchor should stay set, the section titles can change. -- sulfur (talk) 18:49, November 3, 2015 (UTC)

Ok. But please try to avoid the hash tags in the article sub-headers (sections). It looks odd and over the last years we've tried to avoid and replace them whenever we can. Tom (talk) 18:53, November 3, 2015 (UTC)

Problem is, 90% of the links I've seen are with hashed numbers like that. Each one should be numbered regardless, so then we should change those to "Patient 1". The only issue there is that those anchors will then conflict with other anchors when the numbering isn't in the proper order on the anchors from top to bottom (ie, original Enterprise Operations personnel). The hashtags in a header aren't a bad thing, and if we're going to start removing them, we'll need to figure out another method of identifying the anchors when they aren't the same. To my mind, it's simply easier to leave the hash sign in place. -- sulfur (talk) 18:56, November 3, 2015 (UTC)

[Edit conflict]Saw you've reverted the edits. Where is the problem to name these sections "Patient" and "Patients". We have other sections on articles like this as well ("Personnel") where many people are grouped together. And not every face needs an own entry. So please remove these hash tags. There are other ways like I've mentioned before. These hash tag entries look odd and destroy the style.
The only pages you'll find these hash tags are the Unnamed personnel pages from TOS. I am against these hash tags in the headers and still asking where is the problem to create anchors for "Patient" and "Patients" instead of using the hash tags? Tom (talk) 19:01, November 3, 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I am getting something wrong. Why splitting "Patients" into "Patient #2,#3" and leaving all the other groups like they were ("Visitors", "Team in corridor", "Personnel")? Why creating hash tags for just this one entry? Tom (talk) 19:09, November 3, 2015 (UTC)

The eventual goal is to have each "individual" with their own image, section, whatever so that when people are found, we can easily locate the images for them, the details about them (etc).

That's the idea for the anchors -- each anchor is an individual anchor (the "general personnel" and "visitors" aren't right now, but the long-term goal would be to have them identified as such). I'm doing a lot more cleanup of incoming links than I'd anticipated because we've moved people around from page to page and never fixed the "incoming" links to those. With the new redirects to the section on the bigger page, that'll make life a lot easier. That's partly (read: mostly) why I've not been splitting larger sections at this point in time into individual redirects and such. I'm ok with "Patients", but really dislike "Patient" and then "Patients" right after. It doesn't flow well, and the question then becomes "why are they separate?" -- sulfur (talk) 20:14, November 3, 2015 (UTC)

I see your point but still dislike the idea that sometime in future every "crowded" entry of such a page should be split into an individual section for every single performer/image. I've recently started to add "All" background performers and I am almost done with TNG Season 1. The reason the patients are split is that the first had a line of dialog and the other two were "just" background performers. Tom (talk) 20:24, November 3, 2015 (UTC)

Hrm. Maybe we should consider splitting off things in that way. Those that have lines get individual entries, while the others get grouped. For recurring background unnamed people (ie, those in multiple episodes, without a name, without a line), they also get an individual entry.

People in those groups get individual links when we've identified the people (so that we can track those people more easily, as in with respect to images, etc.) The only situation that becomes problematic is when you have multiple of them because "Patient 1" will conflict with the anchors being set/used. We need a better way of indicating those.

So, that'd work with the Mercy Hospital stuff in the sense that the two patients would still get individual links, but we could have a "Patient" (for patient #1), and "Background patients" (for patients #2 and #3).

Thoughts? -- sulfur (talk) 20:37, November 3, 2015 (UTC)

OK, think I may have a workaround for this -- but I won't be able to test it out until tomorrow at the earliest... it'll remove those hash marks (which I still have no real issue with, but meh). -- sulfur (talk) 21:01, November 4, 2015 (UTC)

Like the last idea of yours. Looking forward to see what you can do and thank you very much for your patience and time. From tomorrow on you'll have a week without my disturbing comments. ;) Tom (talk) 21:05, November 4, 2015 (UTC)

Republic Registry Number Edit

Hi Thomas,

The other day I edited the USS Republic's page to correct the information presented about the source of the Republic's registry number. Apparently, the original author of the page was under the impression that the registry number NCC-1371 originated in Mike Okuda's "Operation Retrieve" chart, and the rest of the paragraph presents the 1371 number as conjectural and not confirmed in canon.
The fact is that the 1371 number IS canon, because it comes from the "Court Martial" episode itself. Captain Kirk plainly states the number 1371 while speaking to Commodore Stone. If the 1371 number appears in the "Operation Retrieve" chart, the chart is NOT the original source. I edited the main page to reflect this information.
I made an entry in the Republic's Talk Page to explain the edit I made to the main page, although it doesn't seem like anybody noticed the Talk Page entry. I suggest that the main page is reverted back to my edit, since the information on the page is now currently inaccurate. Promus Kaa(Comm Chatter) 21:47, November 9, 2015 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki