User talk:8of5/Archive II

Older talk: User talk:8of5/Archive

Please post new stuff after the beep. *BEEP*

Community Article
Thanks for the info about this project, it does seem like there's not a lot of interest, but I figure, what the heck. The page you referred me to, Template:Community article, says it's locked, which makes sense. Is there a way I can get at it? -- Data Noh 03:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Adminship
Hi Eight, I was wondering if you would be willing to nominate me for an admin position. -- Data Noh 16:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers! -- Data Noh 18:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

IDW comics
Hey 8of5, you seem to be the person to ask about the new range of IDW comics. I was wondering if the collections will be available in the UK. Although I have the first two issues from The Space Between, I have to travel to a specialist comics shop in Birmingham, which I only get chance to visit every couple of months, so will probably miss out. However, if the collections become available, then I will be able to continue to enjoy these great comics. Thanks in advance (-: --Vote Saxon 08:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info, I'd hate to miss out on the rest of the series, and the promising Klingon series. (-: --Nul Points 02:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fleetops
Sorry, for not paying attention to the Memory-Beta rules. Could you please send me the last revision of Star Trek Armada II: Fleet Operations so that I can post it to http://stexpanded.wikia.com - Thanks --Matthias 18:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

An idea
Hey 8of5 and welcome back. I was looking over your blog the other day and was impressed by the stuff you were able to learn about and include, stuff which you wouldn't normally find on the other Trek news sites.

Anyways, this got me thinking that maybe we could do a similar thing with the Current events page. Currently the page lies stagnant, but I wondered if we could do a similar thing to your blog with the page as a sort of news page, possibly even writing reviews of products ourselves. Anyway, I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter (-: --Dr. John Smith 22:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and thanks, I do my best, I got frustrated that other sites don’t bother with all the stuff I cover, generally treating Trek licensed products as a curiosity to maybe include as a foot note. So I did myself giving the stuff that's keeping Trek alive the full attention it deserves.


 * Sounds like a good idea, we'd have to set out exactly what to cover, for instance one of my blog posts recently was announcing who the writers and artists will be on the next manga book, that info alone might not warrant a news slot here as it will just be added to the books page anyway. -- 8of5 03:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Great news (-:. I think we would have to include an item on the page for when official blurbs and covers are released on the TrekBBS.  Maybe a review area of recently released products would also be good.  When new writers for things are always announced, you're right it doesn't pay to list them twice, but, just a short note to say that the writers have been announced, and link them to the appropriate article.  Anyway, we should both come up with a list of what we'd like to see, and what we wouldn't.  I was thinking of using the ideas that you have in your blog, with the short and sweet style of the Outpost Gallifrey news page.  --Dr. John Smith 09:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

SCE books
I just discovered that you are following behind me on changing the SCE omnibus pages. I like the "contents" section much better than "information" (which I liked better than summary) but I don't like the "Starfleet Corps of Engineers No. 2", etc. in the series box of the novel template. To me, SCE #2 refers to Fatal Error. It was originally "No Compendium 2" which is why I was changing them in the first place. Perhaps there is a better way to do this? --Jdvelasc 18:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Collision Course cover
Ha! This round goes to me! Better luck next time, my friend! (-; --Turtletrekker 17:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * >shakes fist menacingly<, lol, maybe you're tortoisey relatives helped out.--8of5 17:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

why are you deleting everything I write?
?? Vladar86

re: there was no reason when you deleted changes in references on Shuttlepod One except that links are big (??) and for WWI I thing masoning of Serbia should stay because invasion is cause of ht war Vladar86

Reply to my talk page: Quote 8of5 ["Yes, as I explained in the above section the data you added was unnecessary, the links all already worked perfectly.]

-I added whole new reference for Serbo-Croatians, not some links Vladar86

Format for titles
Hey there. I know this has been discussed numerous times before with regards to the formatting of titles. After studying the Manual of Style on Wikipedia they have stated that italics be used for novels, comics, computer games, films, ship s, ship classes and television series. Quotation marks are to be placed around episodes of a television series and short stories.

Now definitive reasons haven't been given, but this is what the original Manual of Style was based upon, and is the standard which every other wiki I have visited use. A good example would be the Doctor Who wiki where the original series serials are noted in italics because they contain many episodes, but the new series episode titles are given in quotation marks.

While it has been suggested that the episodes are put in quotations because they are part of a larger work, that would also mean that all the other media would be placed in quotation marks as well. But I propose we follow the "industry" standard as it were. You probably won't agree, but I thought I would bring it up anyway in the hopes of resolving this thing. (-: --Dr. John Smith 09:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Another important question for us is about individual comic titles. The examples given on the Wikipedia page wikipedia:Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) are all series like The Amazing Spider Man or The Dark Knight Returns. This isn't clearly addressed there, but I would think that we should treat them like episode titles (which I think should be in quotes). It is briefly mentioned on the talk page at where the last poster suggests that individual stories should be in quotes. Using this convention, here are some possibilities any of which I think are acceptable (variations of these are okay to):
 * (Star Trek: The Next Generation - The Space Between #1: "History Lesson")
 * (TNG: The Space Between - "History Lesson")
 * (The Space Between: "History Lesson")

etc. --Jdvelasc 15:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you saying episodes should or should not be in quotes? My problem with episodes being in quotes is that it's a double standard, a TNG episode is no more or less part of a series than a TNG novel or comic (which seems to be what you are arguing too?) so why should it get singled out? A novel in a miniseries is clearly part of a series (the miniseries), yet according to previous discussions novels should never be placed in quotes because they're special. These conventions break their own rules, and until we set those rules I'm reluctant to follow them.


 * Per comics, similar problems, like above, individual issues in a miniseries are clearly part of a larger work, the miniseries, but what about the bigger on-going series, should they be in quotes too? Or what about one-shots?


 * And are you suggesting those forms should be how we cite Jdvelasc, because that breaks our current citation standard (SERIES media: Title), a standard which I think negates the necessity for some of this quotes/italics non-sense anyway as it clearly shows they are all part of a larger series and all of a certain media. And I don’t put the miniseries title in the citation too because it makes them unnecessarily long, the citation is to the specific issue in the miniseries, if you click the link to that issue you can find what the miniseries is.


 * Anyway, Doc I'm not entirely sure what your actual proposal was there so I don't know if I agree or not. :) --8of5 06:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Reading what I wrote again I'm confused myself, but my main proposal initially, was that we try and follow the "industry standard" policy which is used on every other wiki, but after reading your statement, it highlighted how we would be a different case as nearly all media lines are part of a series, bar the odd novel, it would suggest that we place the series, i.e. TNG in italics but the title "The Buried Age" in quotation marks. But what they hey, looks like we'll never decide conclusively, so I'll stick to quotation marks, and others will put italics hey (-: --Dr. John Smith 06:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh no no, lets get this sorted pleease. My stance is that everything is part of a Star Trek series so we should ignore that as something to be inclusive of and things in quotes should be those printed in an anthology or those which are part of a miniseries. Which in that case would make "The Buried Age" an odd case, as it's a TNG novel in the TLE series (which is a miniseries really) --8of5 07:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * With that in mind, I've just been over the format which they use at Wookiepedia (the Star Wars wiki), which would have a similar set-up to what we have with several different series and a great big umbrella brand. It appears that they use the method which you suggest and have been using with italics for all separate media, but quotation marks for short stories and collected stories.  --Dr. John Smith 15:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That was big Wookie shaped distraction... Well I've learnt some nice stuff about Jedi knights, I couldn't see anything in quotes there at all. Anyway, saying we adopted that, that would mean short stories and novels printed in anthologies would be the only things in quotes? Or do miniseries also count as collected stories?

I am afraid that I am just not seeing why this is so confusing. It is certainly possible to disagree with my "proposal", but the proposal should be quite clear. I was proposing that we follow Wikipedia (and Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia) by putting italics around novels and series and quotes around episode titles and short story titles. For now, ignore comics. You say this violates that "our current citation standard (SERIES media: Title)" but I don't know where you are referring to. Our style page: Project:Style is exactly what I have been following. Notice that in our own example, A Time for War, A Time for Peace is in italics while "Tears of the Prophets" is in quotes. I am saying that this is exactly as it should be.

Now, The doctor says that Wookieepedia uses italics for "all separate media" but I am not sure what that means. They follow Wikipedia exactly as well in putting italics around novels and series and quotes around television episodes (such as Star Wars: Droids: "The White Witch") I hope that the proposal on everything but comics is now quite clear. Namely, follow our own examples on our own style page.

There is now one thing left - comics. Comic series should be put in italics (like The Space Between and Star Wars: Tales of the Jedi). But what about individual comic titles? The problem here is that Wikipedia does not have a stated policy on their style page (though it has been discussed on the talk page). Here, I was suggesting that comics be treated just like episodes (namely, put in quotation marks as I say, and give examples of, above). Wookiepedia places them in italics (like Tales of the Jedi: The Golden Age of the Sith 1: Into the Unknown)

I hope that my proposal is now clear. Follow our manual of style and in addition, put individual comic titles in quotes. Now for the arguments. As was discussed at length in the Forum:WHAT ARE YOU DOING?? page, novels are always put in italics. 8of5 suggests that novels such as Spock's World are part of a larger series (Star Trek I guess). The claim about "parts of larger works are put in quotes" is obviously a rule of thumb anyway rather than the grammar rule itself. Besides this, it isn't obvious to me that Star Trek is "a larger work" but some novels are part of miniseries which are slightly better examples (like A Time to Be Born.) Why should they be in italics? Here I don't have a great argument other than saying "everyone else does it". For example, Star Wars novels are placed in italics, (not to mention Star Trek novels when cited elsewhere - like Wikipedia) as are books that are clearly part of a larger work like The Fellowship of the Ring. As for episode titles, again, I have no argument other than saying that "it is the industry standard". I guess they are considered more like chapters in the story rather than the story itself.

The only thing left is individual comic stories. Here I was wrong before when I claimed that everyone puts them in quotes. Wikipedia doesn't have an official policy on it (though pages I can find seem to indicate quotes although the most common is The Amazing Spiderman #56 or whatever.) Memory Alpha doesn't mention comics on their style page either, but most pages seem to have quotes for individual stories (like [] indicates.)  As mentioned above, Wookiepedia has decided to put them in italics. I would be fine with that, though I think it doesn't make a lot of sense as individual comics seem to me much more like short stories and episodes rather than novels or series. But I would be happy either way (as long as we made a decision).

Is my proposal now clear? Do we need to go back to a largely forum to have more input? I agree with 8of5 that this should be solved now as we definitely want a unified format. Notice that this does leave several issues open. For example, how exactly should we cite the source? Do we list the same of the miniseries? Also, there are going to be judgment calls - The Space Between seems like a series (it has its own numbering) and usually one-shots like Avalon Rising are standalones and so more like a series than an individual comic, but there might be tricky questions about particular cases. But all that I have said above is about the actual grammar of what to do once you have decided what titles you want to use. --Jdvelasc 16:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually it was The Doctor's initial proposal I couldn't understand, I got your just fine :).


 * The violation of our current reference system I was referring to is that you were listing (Star Trek: The Next Generation - The Space Between #1: "History Lesson") or shorter versions as forms of citation when, irrespective of quotes or italics the system for references we use at the end of each citied section is (SERIES media: Title), so for that example (TNG comic: "History Lesson") or with the miniseries in there to, but as you said lets leave that detail off the discussion until we sort out the basics.


 * Now then, that citation in itself is useful because it tells you both that everything on the site is part of larger work, which ever ST series is cited, and tells you the media. Which to me makes whether the title is italicised or quoted pretty pointless anyway.


 * Now here's the problem, if an episode is part of a larger series, that series is the series TNG, TOS, whatever, and almost every short story, comic and novel is part of one of those series so if episodes should be considered part of larger work because of that then practically everything should be quotes, which under that rule would include novels.


 * Wikipedia's citation system works on the fact that wikipedia covers everything in the world, of course to them Star Trek is a very limited little entity. But to us Star Trek is the entire world, I think we need consider that before we follow a rule which isn't even consistent with itself just for the sake of following it. --8of5 17:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Copying
Hay 8of5. Thanks for the info.--Jex 17:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! A lot of the formatting and categorizing and stuff is pretty complex, so I'm doing my best! -Steve 19:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Starship class lists
Looks good to me apart from the piped thingy between the entries, but thats a stylistic problem.

Another problem I have though is with regards to image size in the sidebars. With the image size at 250px the side-bar becomes a half-a-page bar which dominates the page. I think a a size of 200px would be better, as it doesn't dominate a page, and lets the article speak for itself. --Dr. John Smith 20:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears we have something else we don't agree on then. Oh well. --Dr. John Smith 21:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, 220px looks pretty good to me and would make a good compromise. Please excuse the grouchy comment above, I'm channeling Doctor McCoy today (-: --Dr. John Smith 21:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Links
Quick question - is it better to respond on my own page so that it is easier to see question/response or respond here so that you get a notice that I responded? It seems others go back and forth between pages.

As for your post on my page, I am not sure which link you are referring to. For example, in "Return to Raimon" the series is Star Trek: The Next Generation (DC). I have been changing the general TNG link to the DC link in the "series" heading under the cover image. If you mean links to individual comics in the Connections box, which ones are that useful? Sorry - just not sure what you mean. --Jdvelasc 02:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Picture sources
8of5, you uploaded the following pictures on May 14th: Image:JemCarrier.jpg, Image:JemStrikeCruiser.jpg, and Image:'vort cha.jpg. I like them, but where are they from - Dominion Wars? --Jdvelasc 14:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, if I had only followed the pages that link to them it would have been obvious (but please note the source on the image description page). Sorry for the bother.  --Jdvelasc 14:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I do generally, those were uploaded over smaller versions of the same images. --8of5 16:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comic adaptation covers
We already have the covers for the TOS movie comic adaptations here and here.
 * Ah, excellent! --8of5 20:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Convergence
Thanks for fixing the Convergence Timeline. I was attempted to find dates for the various releases of the Titan books and it was quite confusing. In the process of changing the Maelstrom links I obviously lost my mind. The Convergence collection is confusing for other reasons as well. The Titan Books website doesn't seem to mention it while the Star Trek Comics Checklist disagrees with Amazon about covers and release dates. Amazon has the UK version released Dec 07 and the US version released Dec 08. Do you know what is up with this book (and the other Titan books)? --Jdvelasc 21:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd noticed Amazon UK dont sell it themselves yet. They did for a few fews back in March but then flipped to the US release date. However you can buy it through private sellers on Amazon UK so I'm pretty sure it is actually came out. The Complete Starfleet Library also has a complete listing for it which would seem to confirm that it is out there. What other Titan books would you like to know about? I'm affraid I don't know of any books planned after Convergence yet. --8of5 21:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes to Vor'cha class citations
8of5, are we both working from different style guides?

I was unaware that MB was using publishers as part of the citation, as you did when you added "Decipher" to the various Vor'cha class articles.

After all we don't use the format (DC TNG comic: "Title") or (Pocket DS9 novel: etc...)

Also, the Starships manual is part of an RPG but it is not an RPG adventure itself. It is, as I cited it, a reference book (albeit one that contains RPG info).

also also, is Armada a TNG game as you cited it? it has elements from other series and does not say "Next Generation on the cover or in the title... -- Captain MKB 21:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The manual of style doesn't actually cover it but it's the form that has been used for RPG's here for as long as I can recall. The books if you want to be entirely accurate are "RPG sourcebooks", true that's a form of reference, but it's not in the same vein as the other reference books and it is most definitely an RPG product.


 * On Armada II, yes the front cover does not say "Star Trek: The Next Generation - Armada II", but on the back it does say "crew: The Next Generation", and the story just clearly is TNG, it's centered around Picard and the Enterprise-E. --8of5 22:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

in the edit summary of the Vor'cha class article you accused me of blanking something (which I'm not sure what you mean). Care to converse with me about it rather than just taking a snipe at me like that?

Does it have something to do with my use of "reference book" notations or anything else bothering you?

I'm sorry, but I do disagree with you on the addition of the publisher names, especially if it is not covered in the manual of style. i've been removing citations like that for months now to try and get things as the MoS describes.

but I haven't blanked any articles i know of -- Captain MKB 22:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've explained by issue with your edit to Vor'cha class page on the talk page you just initiated. My addition of the publisher names was simply following what was previously established as the standard RPG citations. Even if you think they shouldn't be included, and I'd be open to that (like I said just following what I thought was the rule) I do think the fact that they are RPGs should be included in the citation. --8of5 22:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In some cases previously, i have used the form "RPG reference book" or "RPG sourcebook" -- do you think these would be all right as a compromise? -- Captain MKB 22:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That'd be dandy (I prefer the later of the two personally) *shakes hand* --8of5 22:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Though sourcebook appears to redirect to RPG, which would seem to make linking to both a littlt pointless, so reference it is I guess. --8of5 22:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Early Voyages content
Hi there, I was wondering if you would be able to help me out with my massive overhaul of the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) page. I was looking for information about the Enterprise during Pike's era from the Star Trek: Early Voyages comics, but I don't access to these comics and I've noticed that you've done the majority of the work on them.

If you can, I'm ideally looking for information where the Enterprise was a key part of the story or something major happened, as I believe the ships are just like any other character, and stories that don't directly involve the ship would be left out for other, more relevant articles. Thank you in advance :) --Bok 17:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Good articles
Hi 8of5, I was just looking at the comments made on the featured articles page about Q. I happen to agree that it doesn't (yet) reach the standards of a FA, but I was wondering about creating a system for recognising good articles. These would be articles that are well written, but haven't been expanded or detailed to be worthy of featured status, either with content, or like the Q article, lacking information from some sources.

Looking around this afternoon, I've noticed several good articles such as the article, and I believe the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) page could be worthy, with just a bit of detail added to the missing headers. Anyway, let us know what you think. --Dr. John Smith 17:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me then. I definitely think that the Worf, son of Mogh and Romulan Neutral Zone articles should be downgraded.  I'll have a look at whipping something up tonight, but I suggest that we don't go for the normal voting system, just have one or two admins (or users) finding an assessing articles. --Dr. John Smith 18:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made a listing of some good articles here, if you'd like to take a look and leave your opinions. --The Doctor 09:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Upload log error
I noticed that when files are "overwritten" on uploads, it doesn't list anywhere what the file that was actually overwritten was. See as follows from the upload log today:


 * 14:12, 11 January 2008 8of5 (Talk | contribs) overwrite
 * 13:22, 11 January 2008 8of5 (Talk | contribs) overwrite ‎ (More of Cuba in shot, as that's the only page this is used on)
 * 12:57, 11 January 2008 8of5 (Talk | contribs) uploaded "Image:Kobayashi Maru cover.jpg" ‎ (Temporary cover art for . )

Might be worth investigating to correct that error. -- Sulfur 20:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've noticed it myself, I presumed wikia just changed the system... you can still see what's been uploaded on the recent uploads page. --8of5 20:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it's a mediawiki issue, especially as we don't see that same behaviour on MA/en... might be something to talk to the Wikia staff about. -- Sulfur 20:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. I haven't got much time now, but I definitely sort it out tonight (-: --The Doctor 07:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

T'Bonz
An anonymous user has just added the TrekBBS members name on the T'Bonz, which was the inspiration for the character. I posted a note on User talk:74.229.52.5 asking for validation, and we may get an answer, but I wondered if you would be able to contact T'Bonz and confirm if (a) she wanted her name included and (b) if she made the edit in the first place. I'm only asking because I know you visit there, thanks in advance (-: --The Doctor 10:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, no worries :) I've sent her an PM to ask. --8of5 17:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Disambig pages
I noticed I probably did something wrong on the Intrepid disambiguation page. Perhaps maybe you and Captainmike should discuss the correct formatting on disambiguation pages and let me know what the final decision is. Thanks (-: --The Doctor 22:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You didn't do anything wrong at all - Just different to how I choose to format them myself, so when I edited the page I adjusted the style. There's never been much discussion on what the proper formatting should be other than Mike's idea a while ago that there should only be links to the main disambiguated bit (rather than every linkable bit of the descriptive sentence). And if there ever is a discussion (fell free to kick that off if you want some sort of clear guideline) on that then there's absolutely no reason why you shouldn't make your thoughts known on the matter as much as Mike, I, or anyone else. --8of5 10:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly right -- my main concern with the linkages was a technical one, as some wiki have a special page that reads a list of all links on all disambiguated pages -- meaning that if you linked to "Federation" from "Intrepid (disambiguation)", the software would tell you that "Federation" is a synonym with "Intrepid" -- obviously a problem. There are other wiki that have strict rules about what can be disambiguated, some that I think are not useful (disambiguations for first names for example, which I like to do here even though some other wiki say this is excessive). The only other corollary to my concerns is the addition of images -- there's hardly a need to try and find a symbol that "sums up" a disambiguation -- I find that distracting and pointless and I'm glad we are getting away from "random picture additions" -- Captain MKB 12:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Constitution class
I wondered if you could give your opinion on RR Lyrae's recent editing to the page, and tell me if you think its for better or worse? Thanks. --The Doctor 16:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, I just wanted to check because a lot of information seemed to be getting cut, but I guess its true what they say, "less is more". --The Doctor 17:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well if you spotted something that was actually removed wholesale then of course that's a bit of streamlining too far and should be reinstated. I missed any such removal if it occurred. --8of5 17:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Eightof: Thanks for yours, and the Doctor's, help on standardizing the changes made to Constitution class. To clarify my aim, I am indeed looking to streamline the content while preserving meaning, which I believe you both feel has been preserved. | I'd been meaning to ask, nonetheless, about your change of a few weeks ago, from 'exploratory' missions to missions 'of exploration', because the second sounded to you a lil more majestic. I understand the idea of the page here is to present facts, but is it really also our job to convey majesty? Let me know. RR Lyrae 19:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC) RR Lyrae


 * You are right our job is not to convey majesty. But that doesn't mean we can't write with a little flair to make an article more enjoyable to read. "five-year missions of exploration" flows better, so is easier to read. And a more whimsical note, it (while not exactly the same text) is more evocative of the TOS opening monologue, which I, and I would assume the rest of the Trekkie readership of this site, will find more enjoyable to read. --8of5 13:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To answer a question that was posed to me a while ago, I'm against a lot of the changes made to the Constitution class article -- most of the useful database links that were there were removed or de-formatted, just for the sake of slightly restating in different words what was already written there? doesn't seem worth it at all to me! -- Captain MKB

User-created images
I noticed that in the article for Avatar, you put in a photomanipulation you did that puts Odo and Laas together. I was wondering whether other forms of art are acceptable, and whether or not such content is preferable to screencaps, or only used in addition to them. I ask because I have recently completed a portrait of Tekeny Ghemor that IF such things are permitted, might be something I could upload for use somewhere. (The non-Trek writing can be edited out, of course.) This is a link to my art gallery where I have the portrait. I use the name "Minstrel Ayreon" there. http://www.sheezyart.com/view/1840275/ Don't worry about saying 'no,' of course...I just wanted to make the offer. Nerys Ghemor 05:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Anything new?
Hi everybody... I've been away some time, so wondered, is there anything new I should know about, policy or formatting changes etc? --8of5 16:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Format
Wish I had known about that when I started :), but I will go back to The Cage (where I began) and fix it from there. I apologize for the mistake, but I thought governments sounded better and it was rather confusing because 2 or three pages would have the same look and then the next 2 or 3 were something else.--Long Live the United Earth 20:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)