User talk:Captainmike/archive 2008

user talk:captainmike/archive 2007

Is Expanded Universe Database or MB ??? class
plese select class ships ...http://www.tacticalstarshipcombat.com/FASA/fleets_federation.htm and http://www.starfleet-museum.org/index.htm Is Expanded Universe Database or MB ??? -- unsigned


 * I'm not sure what you are asking. Starfleet Museum is not relevant to this wiki. -- Captain MKB 14:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sectors
With regards to sector names, you have checked the correct sourcing on some of the names. Because every source I checked uses Sector 221-G as opposed to Sector 221G and Sector 418-D over Sector 418D. Just thought I'd point that out. --The Doctor 03:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I figured that to avoid confusion, we could work without the hyphens here on MB. -- Captain MKB 03:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. People are probably more likely to look for the term as written in the novels, but fair enough, I suppose we have a very functional redirect.  --The Doctor 03:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If the sources which name the sectors consistently do use hyphens, then how is us not using them avoiding confusion? --8of5 15:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just for the point of making my list -- keeping them all linked the same way was making it easier to make lists. You might be right in changing some of them back. -- Captain MKB 15:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek Online
I posted this already, but you are the one who usually answers.


 * Star Trek Online has two pages in the January 2008 Game Informer magazine. I want to post the info, but I am really not the guy you want starting a new page of this magnitude. Please help. I can scan pictures if it's legal. I'll even transcribe the article if that's kosher. Just let me know what can be done here. – AT2Howell 02:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as the pictures are screen images from the game itself, they would seem to be legal. Copying the text of a magazine article would be illegal. Hope this helps. -- Captain MKB 02:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The pics in the magazine look like concept art. I've never started a page this big, it'll probably need LOTS of editing.


 * There's nothing wrong with starting off with a very simple version of a new article. The only "minimum" we ask is that you make it fairly obvious what you are writing about, with a few links to indicate what kind of an article it is. Everyone can work together on the rest of it -- don't feel bad about creating an incomplete article -- as long as it contains enough information to be the basis that a larger article could be built from -- for example if you put "Star Trek Online is Star Trek, online", that would be unacceptable, but if you wrote "Star Trek Online is a game published by XYZ Game Company that takes place in the 2380s", that description would at least show that you had information to list about a topic.


 * As to concept art, it might not be allowable, I'm not 100% sure what license it falls under. we would never reproduce entire pages of copyrighted publications like a magazine, but as "fair use" we are allowed to show low-detail excerpts, examples, and lists from a copyrighted publication, as long as we don't reproduce large bodies of work (like photo spreads or entire published articles).. so we try to crop images to depict only one subject we are referring to -- like if there was an illustration of a scene, we might crop the image to only show one character's face, or one starship, to name a couple of examples. IN reference to "behind the scenes" artwork, it usually is preferable if we can cite an image to the final version of the game instead -- basically we'd prefer a photo from the game over a drawing made in the production of the game, because the former is easier for us to cite. -- Captain MKB 04:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How do I cite a magazine as a source? – AT2Howell 04:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem MB and Expan WIKI !!!!
– Petr Kantor 22:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)== Problem!!! == please badly with picture pages as well as editing window and panel implement namely with teak of all pages Problem Problem Problem --Petr Kantor 05:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Mike, there was also a report of this in the "problem reports list" page. I have not seen this happen on any page - perhaps it was a temporary bug that has already been fixed? Or can you imagine the individual users having some setting which could affect this? --Jdvelasc 04:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is both, although I'm not sure it is yet fixed -- I've noticed that there has been some reprogramming done lately, not sure if it was on the wikia site, or if it was the doing of our bureaucrats, as no notice describing the changes has been relayed to the MB admins in general. I'd say check with the bureaucrats, although it seems to be something simple to do with table code. -- Captain MKB 04:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

--- The value of page was wrong filled in There is need to do something with it, because this image is so bad.I cannot edit any page.Could you tell me, how long will the pages image right.--Petr Kantor 19:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Are there any bureaucrats online right now that can help with this? Who was responsible for editing all the MediaWiki pages? Bueller? anyone? -- Captain MKB 21:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki pages, Bueller and anyone is it on kazde unloaded pages– Petr Kantor 22:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm a bureaucrat... but I have no idea what you guys are talking about here... the only nugget of info I can help with is to say that The Doctor seems to be the one who's taken responsibility for the MediaWiki pages. --8of5 22:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem was wikia wide for sometime before wikia changed the edit screen layout, as I noticed the problem on several wikis such as the STEU and Doctor Who wikis. I haven't noticed a problem over the last few days so hopefully the problem has been solved by wikia. --The Doctor 11:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * problem not!!!:) thank you – Petr Kantor 12:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Chech'tluth
Mike, I just moved Chechtlhutlh back to Chech'tluth which is how it is spelled in A Good Day to Die (pg 67) and on Memory Alpha. I see now that it was you that moved it there in the first place. Is there another reference that has your spelling? --Jdvelasc 04:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Klingon for the Galactic Traveler language manual, presented as the phonetic Klingonese spelling. -- Captain MKB 04:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

US Ranks
I like that bit you have on your user page on Navy ranks. If you ever need scans of the enlisted naval ranks, just let me know. We're bound to have a old "All Hands" around the place. If nothing else, I'd go down to the Exchange and get something. Let me know. – AT2Howell 23:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * O yea that is the next logical step... many i convert from wikipedia -- all are public domain -- but the enlisted i might make from scratch -- Captain MKB 03:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliant class
Without wishing to tread on your toes, I would like separate out the out from the. Do you think it's necessary to create a separate Reliant-class template, as I noticed you redirected it to Miranda class? --The Doctor 13:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Borderline -- the Constitution class was so big that we separated it into different templates for Bonhomme Richard, Achernar and Enterprise, etc -- but other ships with subclasses we could keep together -- Hermes class scout, or Oberth class, for example. I think that all the Antons, Mirandas and Reliants could probably stay together in Miranda class but there might be a possibility to split them. -- Captain MKB 14:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. Well I've created a template on my user page for my own reference, which could later be used if we decide to go down that alley.  I'll make sure that that I include the   tag on all Reliant's as well.  I'm assuming that the  is also a subclass of the Miranda, which means that even though the Reliant was refitted from an Anton-subclass into a Reliant-subclass, she was still a Miranda-class starship.  --The Doctor 14:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly -- this was the best way in my mind to reconcile the "Constitution dilemma" -- according to SFTM, FASA, and many other sources, the NCC-1701 was refit from Const. to Bonhomme Richard to Achernar to Enterprise mk1 -- but canon and other books say it was Constitution class the whole time.


 * IN this way, we can consider the same for Reliant -- refit from Anton to Reliant subclasses, but belonging to the Miranda "overclass" the whole time. I also incorporated this solution into Oberth class to explain why FASA's TOS Oberths were called "Gagarin class" and the TNG Oberths were called "Sagan class" -- Captain MKB 14:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

links
Thanks for the comments. I'll start making the changes. joqral 16:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Forged in Fire
I want to reformat the Excelsior: Forged in Fire page to shorten it. What do you think? – AT2Howell 02:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good plan. -- Captain MKB 04:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

USS Shepard
I wonder if you would be able to help solve a problem on talk:USS Shepard (23rd century), as I don't have a lot of FASA sources. Thanks in advance (-: --The Doctor 15:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)