User talk:Darth Batrus

--The Doctor 14:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, please try and cite your entries, some of your more recent ones have been lacking in this area. -- 8of5 15:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, will do so -- Darth Batrus 13:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I request a favor. Click the "This is a minor edit" box when the edit is, well, minor. When I check recent changes, I tend to use the "Hide minor edits" function, which is useless if the edit isn't catagorized as such. Thanks. (-: --Turtletrekker 02:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, don't forget, we derive our sources from many types of media so its helps to specify what the sources are when citing, eg: (VOY episode: Barge of the Dead). -- 8of5 13:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Darth: do you have any leads on better pictures of the BotF ships? Not a complaint, mind you (and thanks for your work on this), but if we can dig up larger/brighter ones it would be a Good Thing(tm).--Emperorkalan 19:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sadly I do not, I found them on this website and that was the only size they had :-/ -- Darth Batrus 19:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I gotta say the implication of that and your previous comments around the site really concerns me, its really not the best idea to working from secondary sources, it doesn’t take much for fanon info to slip in. Have you actually played any of these games yourself? Not to deter you from contributing, you’ve really added a lot to the site in areas which are so far mostly neglected, it’s just a concern. -- 8of5 20:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I will be honest with you. I have not played Birth of the Federation or Klingon Academy but I think the sites I am using are quite reliable. The first game well no official words beyond stats are present on the site and I tried to make sure I did not put exaggerated figures in there. This unfortunately makes the articles very small but sadly thats the price that has to be paid in that regard.

I will show you the two sites I have been using if you guys want. http://members.aon.at/zelli/game.htm thats for Birth of the Federation and the other one is http://klingonacademy.3dactionplanet.gamespy.com/view.php?pg=GameInfoIndex for Klingon Academy. I know I made the mistake before of using secondary sources like that time with the Klingon dialects and am trying to make sure that does not happen again but sadly it seems like I have nothing else to contribute to the site :( -- Darth Batrus 20:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The main problem is separating what was actually in the licensed game vs. later independent mods and other fan additions. As long as you can do that somehow, you're all clear.--Emperorkalan 20:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I still have the game... somewhere (I got everything! Hey Mikey!). Again, no promises on a timetable, but when I can I'll try booting it up and seeing what I can pry out.--Emperorkalan 20:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I know for some games if you search around you can find pdfs of the game manuals which should give you some good stats about ships and such. And on images there are plenty of screencaps about of most games, how well framed they are is a bit iffy sometimes though. -- 8of5 20:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Class names
Me again, just to note, when making a ship class the page it should be title Name class with the type of ship science vessel, scout, etc noted in the article. -- 8of5 12:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah right, thought that was only the case with starships. Thanks for that, will remove the additional designation in the next vehicle articles I am doing. -- Darth Batrus 13:00, 3rd December 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm.. not actually sure there now you mention it, I'd go for any kind of vehicle being just the class name, but other things, such as your Kang class disruptor battery having that full description. -- 8of5 13:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What about structures? Because I have found the game manual for New Worlds and I am going to add all the unit and structure articles because I have always found this game to be one of the most reclusive on articles, along with Invasion. Even if they arent that great games.... Darth Batrus 13:06, 3rd December 2006 (UTC)

Editing style
Darth can you please take care when editing. You just uploaded a new image of the Klingon Raptor claiming the old one showed the Romulan raptor, the only reason it did so, is because you uploaded the image of the Romulan raptor over the Klingon one! Also could you maybe trying looking around the rest of the site for style precedents, you shouldn't be using the thumb function on images in the infoboxes and when you are using thumbs you shouldn't set a size as thumbs are automatically sized to user preference. -- 8of5 15:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Me again =), just a note to be careful when you are creating links Vulcan's Soul: Exodus gets nothing because no such page exists, however Vulcan's Soul: Exodus, will create the correct links like so: Vulcan's Soul: Exodus. If you preview your pages before posting broken links show up in red, of course not all articles exist yet but some widely used ones will so if they don’t show up you'll know and can fix it. -- 8of5 17:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how that happened, must not have noticed it when I did it. Sorry about all that though and will make sure I don't do that again. -- Darth Batrus 16:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah right, I was wondering about that. So would it be like TOS Vulcan's Soul: Exodus? Just want to be sure because I got the two Vulcan Soul books and plan on making a lot of updates with the contents of the book. Thanks for that 8of5. -- Darth Batrus 18:27, 16 December (UTC)

Maybes
Hi Darth, I'm a little concerned about your sometimes use of maybes and might haves when adding information to articles. In most cases sources are reasonably certain about things and if not it would be best to make note of why there is an uncertainty, as simply stating that something might be the case is rather abstract. -- 8of5 22:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC) The one about Vre'katra made me bother to mention it, I'm sure there were a couple before, the only one I can recall off the top of my head was on the D4 class page where you added from Legacy that the class may also be known as the Predator class. That was a little difficult because the name had then to be applied to at least two designs for the class which lead to me writing a background section to explain the problem, but from the start it would have been better to just say “The D4 class, or Predator class….” Rather than adding some uncertainty when there wasn’t really any.
 * May I ask which articles they are? If its the recent Vulcan's Soul Exile articles such as those on the Watraii, its because Spock makes quite a few deductions and its just not actually 'seen' so I was not entirely confident if it was 100% accurate. Still reading the book though. If its not that then I think it might be that I am wording it wrong so will change those. -- Darth Batrus 23:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

On the Vre'katra page you added "They may also have been known as an 'Urn of Memory'.", either that is so,, in which case you could have just added it to the existing opening sentence like so "A vre'katra, katric ark or Urn of Memory, is a receptacle used..." or, if there is some uncertainty it would help to explain why it’s uncertain that the Urn of Memory is a type of katric ark. -- 8of5 23:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As a possible solution, may I suggest using the discussion pages. If there's something to add that you're not really sure about, post that bit to the discussion page with a note (e.g., "I'm not really sure how to put this exactly. Does anyone have any suggestions?"). Rarely hurts to ask.--Emperorkalan 00:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah right, ok I think I will us the discussion pages then though to explain in relation to the Urn of Memory well they never mentioned calling it a katric ark or that name plus the description was a bit off though it filed somewhat the same purpose but I wasnt sure whether it should be called an Urn of Memory or not. Anyway, thanks for the mention guys and I will use the discussion pages for that now. -- Darth Batrus 10:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Lists in lists
Hi Darth, might I suggest in the cases where you have lists as a part of an already long list you put that list on the page of the thing it is a sublist of. For instance on the Klingon Empire page there is list of battle in the Dominion War which would be more suited for listing on the Dominion War page, similarly on the Federation page there is a list of divisions of Starfleet which would more appropriate on the Starfleet page. -- 8of5 18:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, ok if you guys think that best. Just to confirm, I can leave the major conflicts in the 'States Conflict' section but the sub-battles like the Battle of Rashanar or whatever, leave them in the Dominion War article itself rather then list the State with such a huge list right? -- Darth Batrus 18:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think, though that's me rather than us guys, if you want to know more about the Dominion War you can look at the Dominion War article after all, just makes the page a little shorter and concise and little less a big list. -- 8of5 18:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem, it sounds a sensible choice actually and cuts down on clutter. Thanks for that 8of5. The next couple of times I am editing, will make note to do that. -- Darth Batrus 19:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Images
Darth thumb images should not have sizes set, the site does that automatically depending on user preference. The only exceptions might be if the image was very tall and thin or not very tall at all but wide so might need to wider than the top default size of 300px. Also images should not have copyright info and all that marked on them, that should be on the image page, which should include a description of the image, a source and any necessary copyright/ownership stuff. --8of5 14:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm, when i'm uploading an image for an article, I shouldnt alter the size setting or? Just to confirm. Also, how do you edit an image to add where the source comes from or add a description to the image or would I have to upload another image and delete the old one to do so? Sorry about that. -- Darth Batrus 15:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are placing the image as a thumb you only need say it's a thumb, it will automatically set sizes depending on user preference and automatically place it on the right side of the page. If you are using in an infobox you need to set the size because that shouldn’t be as a thumb. You can add text to the image page either as you upload it in the summary section or after the image has uploaded by clicking on the edit tab like any other page.--8of5 14:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Whilst I'm pestering you, if you are intending to add these numbered classes to the ship pages you should wikilink them and make pages explaining just what a class 4 vessel (etc) is. --8of5 14:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks for that. Though one problem on the numbered classes thing is that the Dominion Wars site does not explain the class system just that certain ships fit certain classes. I can't find it being based upon a size setting so I can only fathom it being based on a purpose or power setting namely class 5 are battleships and dreadnaughts while class 1 are fighters, gunships and escorts etc. -- Darth Batrus 15:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Has a look at site (whilst pondering the appropriateness of using a website, official or not, as the primary source of information from a computer game), yeah, I wouldn’t be sure those are even meant to be in-universe, if you look at the captains page there's a similar system, rank 1, rank 2, etc. --8of5 15:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Should I remove the class references then? As to the website, wouldnt it be considered a licensed source and thus be part of the material that can be included? I mean, if the official website can't be considered part of the material to be added then I'm not sure what else could be to confirm the Dominion Wars game material. Not trying to be aggressive or anything, just saying as its effectively second only to the game manual or the actual game itself. -- Darth Batrus 16:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You summed it right up there, the game and maybe the manual are the source, I can't really tell you not to use if you are contributing licensed Star trek info, but personally I would not add information from a game I have never played and cannot access right as I am making additions to verify facts. The numerical classes might be explained as something in the game, I don't know, I haven’t played it and evidently you don’t know either... --8of5 15:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Darth I think you've miss-understood the purpose of the image gallery on the source page, they are intended a place to store images from that source which we have on the site anyway, not just a place to collect random images from the source. And please don't upload images with watermarks, the least you could do is crop or edit them out but better would be to get your own screencaps. --8of5 21:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, noted. I think I just might avoid doing images since I have been doing it terribly from the start. Anyway, sorry about that again. -- Darth Batrus 12:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't give up, everyone makes mistakes and you are always willing to learn. :) --8of5 11:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sand and Stars
Darth you've made several citations of "Sand and Stars" recently, that book is an omnibus of two novels, you should cite the specific novel not the omnibus, just as you would a short story in an anthology. --8of5 19:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah right, will do that then, wasnt really aware of that actually. Thanks for the mention 8. --Darth Batrus 20:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Would would would
You might wish to add your thoughts to the current discussion on tensing, but irrespective of the outcome of that I really think you over use the word would, when, for example in your recent additions to the Confederacy of Vulcan page you constantly use it, when instead of “this would lead to this, that would cause that”, it should be stating “this did lead to this, and did lead to that” (not that you should just replace every would with a did, try a bit of variety in your vocab). As is your articles read very uncertainly and the tensing is confused. --8of5 20:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm ok will try, still working on the Confederacy, Vulcan and Surak pages but will try and tone that down abit. -- Darth Batrus 16:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Linking articles to sources
Hey there. Just a brief note to remind you that when you create an article, can you please connect it to the original source and any related articles. The reason for this is that the article can then be accessed instead of becoming an "orphaned" article. Although you aren't the only contributor to do this (I know its difficult sometimes, I've done it myself), it does mean that there are currently over 400 hundred orphaned articles on the wiki which can't be accessed from other pages, thus denying visitors to the wiki the chance to view every page easily. Thanks (-: --Dr. John Smith 23:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, do you mean that when an article is created I should make sure I put the name of the article in the references section of the source page? Like the last contributions were from Spock's World and I should put them in the references section there or do you mean something else? Just clarifying that and thanks for the comment Doc :) --Darth Batrus 11:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I mean when you create a new article just make sure that you then link the article in the reference section of the source page(s). Thanks (-: --Dr. John Smith 15:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Klingon ships
In the article, you added the names of two Klingon ships, the Hurgh'ragh and the TajHu .. i was wondering what the source was for those.. -- Captain MKB 05:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Its been a while since I wrote that but I believe its from the game Legacy. -- Darth Batrus 12:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Treasury Guard
My apologies, I inappropriately deleted Treasury Guard. However, based off the concerns of several users and the wider viewing audience which has been expressed, we have many stub articles which say little or nothing, I have decided to prune out some of the smaller stubs, which would then allow someone to create these articles from scratch and create a complete article.

Anyway, I was wondering if there was any further expansion that could be done for this article. Sorry to bother you (-: --The Doctor 12:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't currently possess the book anymore but from what I remember, it was only a short line that stated that they were defending Fereginar during an Orion attack, beyond that I don't think there was more added to the term. :-/ Thanks for the message though :) -- Darth Batrus, 12:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"Minor" edits
Darth: just to note: a "minor edit" is things like fixing typos, tweaking layouts, updating a page with markup templates, adjusting categories, etc. (mostly procedural stuff). When you add whole paragraphs (see your recent Klingon and Qo'noS posts), it's a big enough change that you shouldn't check the "This is a minor edit" box. The "recent changes" page has an option to ignore minor edits so people can weed out the mostly-tweaks stuff, and by ckecking the minor box that option weeds out your posts (with more substance) too.--Emperorkalan 18:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah right, I thought it was for existing articles which were being added to, will note that for the future, thanks for the mention. -- Darth Batrus 18:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Looong section titles
Hi Darth, nothing official just something that bugs me personally, I don’t suppose you could cut back on the long section names you add to articles, especially when they could have much more concise headings. For instance Beliefs, Religion and Mythology would function just as well simply as Beliefs, Marriage, Children and Family Life could be boiled down to Family and Psychology, Society and Interactions with Others works as a nice and simple Behaviour

Now on a more official note, could you also think about the rest of the article when you add information. Your recent addition to the Andorian article pays no attention to the information already presented on the page and as a result has made the page rather repetitive with your addition giving information that already existed. When integrating information into an existing article you must think about appropriate placement and pay attention to what already exists. --8of5 19:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Noted, I just thought it was better to lump the entries into one big lump article rather then multiple ones but if that clutters thing then will change my approach. In regards to the new information being added, I was planning on consulting the other members of the wiki in integrating the new material into the existing articles in order to make the best use of both worlds as right now I am kind of quoting from the books. Its because I want to add some of the new information but am somewhat hesitant on removing previous information without some guidance from either you or Kalan or Mike or someone else who has been here longer then me. -- Darth Batrus 19:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well when you add new information you don't have to do it in big chunks. Adding a small new fact and the citation to a pre-existing part of the article would be preferable to repeating information by lumping all the information from each source into a paragraph that only gives information from a single source.

And I hope that was just a bad choice of words when you said "I am kind of quoting from the books" because that is entirely not allowed, it's copyright infringement. Your additions should be in your own words. --8of5 19:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Bad choice of words but will double back to ensure I havent quoted stuff directly if its ok. -- Darth Batrus 19:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

One other thing, typically the section title "background" is used for real world background information on subjects. So when adding information to in-universe articles you should probably avoid that one. I'd suggest "Overview" as a suitable substitute. --8of5 20:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)