User talk:Captainmike/archive 2009

user talk:captainmike/archive 2007 user talk:captainmike/archive 2008

Galloway
Hi Mike, I just wanted to seek your opinion and guidance relating to Dave Galloway, as I know you are a rank enthusiast and hopefully be able to answer my question :D

Galloway has had his rank given as lieutenant in his previous appearances, but in SS TOS (The Secret Empire), he was given the rank of [[sergeant]. This seems at odds with me as it is typically an army rank, but is it possible for him to actually hold this rank?

Secondly, looking through the MA article on Galloway I noticed that the James Blish novelization of "The Omega Glory" gives the name of the officer killed by Ron Tracey as Lt. Raintree, which would allow Galloway to survive for his future appearances. Obviously, MA couldn't use this as an explanation, but is it something we should do? --The Doctor 01:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There have been other Starfleet sergeants -- a sergeant is equivalent to a naval petty officer first class and is an enlisted serviceman with at least a few years experience, but no applicable collegiate education. More advanced sergeants are also normally referred to as "sergeant" in normal address and are equivalent to the various grades of chief petty officer.


 * An exceptional sergeant could be granted a commission as an officer, but the Starfleet rules on this aren't clear -- we've seen that both enlisted servicepeople and ensigns wear no insignia in TOS, so there's no way to tell if many crossed this line. -- Captain MKB 04:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On the naming, we should probably have an article for both Galloway and Raintree -- I lean towards canon in these cases but its a definite head scratcher.


 * For some reason, rank wise, I'm theorizing some situation where he was a "brevet officer" (notice some Lt.s lack rank stripes in TOS on every other occasion) -- perhaps he was a sergeant who was field promoted to Lt. and had some bizarre "Sergeant Lieutenant" rank that a modern rank buff would find ridiculous. -- Captain MKB 13:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The rank issue is certainly a head scratcher considering that standard naval ranks are applied to the other officers in the story. Maybe, its best to include that as a background note.  Looking over his death and resurrection, I suppose its a similar case to Ed Leslie's death in "Obsession", only for him to turn up later.  I suppose Raintree could be a get out, but as you say, the canon would take precedence.  --The Doctor 15:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sovereign Class
Hi, Captainmike. I've corrected the error you noticed in the Sovereign class article. I also see your point regarding the USS Gibraltar's registry. However, in trying to improve the look of the page, I've deleted the references to specific ship registries, so that piece of information should be a non-issue for this particular page. (That of the Gibraltar proper is another story.) . Also, I'm trying to track down anything that might be left of the original attribution regarding the USS Republic, or secure a new one from the author of the relevant book (A Time To Heal), David Mack. The TrekBBS no longer prunes threads, so a new attribution ought to be more semi-permanent than was the original.

--Cicero 23:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for receiving my note! I think the article looks good with the alphabetized list!


 * Well, I'm not sure a TrekBBS post would give us a valid reference to add to this site -- since we are limited to Star Trek books and games. I think we'd have to see it in print in a book or game to really confirm that Republic reference. -- Captain MKB 23:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll add the pageless video game ships to the list.  (Though I can't seem to find the "what links to this" feature to which you directed me.  How does one use it?)


 * Wouldn't a message board post by an author be similar to a statement by the same author in a non-licensed magazine like Starlog, or in some other more formal interview context? The class of the Republic is merely a clarification of the author's intent when writing the book, not new information developed after the fact - rather like clarification of something out of focus or too small to see on screen (but still there).--Cicero 23:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The difference is that if an author makes a comment in an interview, even in a licensed magazine, its still not "part of the story" -- Peter David could joke around in Starlog about Captain Calhoun wearing panties, but that wouldn't make it "true" because it wasn't said in a passage from a New Frontier novel -- see what I mean?


 * if you go to USS Affiliation (Sovereign class) (click this link) -- then look in you left hand toolbox (under the search box in most skins) and you can see "what links here" -- click on it and it will show you which articles link to it -- one of them is Starfleet Command III, the source -- Captain MKB 23:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a clear line, I think, which differentiates clarification from speculation or humor. In the case of the Republic, someone asked Mr. Mack what class he'd intended it to be, since he'd seemed to have had a clear physical concept of the ship in mind when writing (matched, of course, by the text).  He replied that it was meant to be Sovereign class.


 * If he'd speculated about reasons why it might be Sovereign class, having not had that before him while writing (as Christopher Bennett was asked to do when he noted that he hadn't had a ship class in mind for a particular vessel in Greater Than The Sum), the remarks would be clearly extraneous to the encyclopedia. But what he did say seems more like backstage information about a particular difficult-to-see detail of a filmed production (such as the personnel files in In A Mirror, Darkly, which aren't legible even in HD) than it does speculation, or, much less, jocularity.


 * Thanks for the help regarding the "what links here" tool. Hopefully, I'll always remember to keep it in mind. : ) --Cicero 00:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a difference here that hasn't been examined -- the unseen texts from the episodes were actually written before the episodes were released. Any "after-the-fact" author commentary is just that -- after-the-fact. He never wrote down any solid class information before or during the novel's released sections. -- ~!Captain MKB 00:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * He may not have written the information, but it was what he intended while writing. Had the novel been a film, its what we would've seen.  I'm still trying to work out sourcing, without which our debate is relatively moot.  If and when it's arranged, I'll try to offer more significant argument.--Cicero 00:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * At last, I've been provided with a copy of the relevant post by Mr. Mack (which he confirms the content of to the best of his recollection):


 * In case you're wondering, I did decide what those starships were before I wrote the story, but when I was writing the book there was no artful way to insert the information without it coming off as an unmotivated technobabble dump. But since it seems to have impaired your reading experience, I'll fill you in: the Republic is Sovereign-class; the Amargosa is Nebula-class; and the Musashi is Akira-class.


 * I think his comments speak effectively to several of your concerns. Given his obvious intent at the time of writing, I think the Republic 's, Amargosa 's, and Musashi 's classes should be included.  This is a special case of true behind-the-scenes information, which is seldom available in this type.  (Mr. Christoper Bennet, for instance, gave no thought to the class of Greater Than The Sum's USS Einstein until after he finished writing.)


 * (Mr. Mack's work on the Destiny trilogy avoids this trouble; every ship is identified by class, and nearly every person by full name and position - artfully, no less.)--Cicero 03:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I still don't think a comment made after the fact has any relevance towards the information in the book, sorry. If Mr. Mack was able to include this clarification in his next book, fine, but as a side comment from an author, made without his employers' involvements, this has no weight towards our article material. -- Captain MKB 12:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to further explain my comments, I once felt that there could be a looser interpretation of our site's rules -- I wanted very much for us to use unpublished materials from a RPG source that had been cancelled. A large group of users talked it out, and we decided that since the materials were never published, they wren't actually "part" of the licensed Star Trek universe.


 * I also had a similar situation when I found a list of shipnames in the code from a PC video game -- I wanted to make articles on all of them.. a group of other users discussed it with me and talked me out of it -- because the names were never actually used for ships in the game, so they were never "part" of the game, and therefore wouldn't be part of our site.


 * I was a little frustrated by the requirements -- I had/have to delete a lot of those links. You see, if there weren't other people working here and discussing these things, then this wouldn't be a community website -- and I like taking part in the community rather than working alone. Part of working with the community is recognizing that my viewpoint wouldn't always win when we tried to figure out how things would work. This happened to me at Memory Alpha also -- I proposed a very complicated template for each individual uniform ever worn, and other users talked me out of it because of the sheer complexity of it would be hard for users to deal with while editing and reading -- and I had to be frustrated, take a long hard look at it, and realize they were right. I hope this helps you deal with your frustration about the points we've disagreed with -- when we add to a community, we have to make sure things fit with the community. -- Captain MKB 19:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

2 seconds ago...
Mike, just realized what I did with the Countdown talk edit summary - and feel really stupid, cos it's one of my pet-peeves too - very sorry!! -- unsigned
 * Fixed -- feel free to try again..


 * Please, start signing your talk comments too! -- Captain MKB 23:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - 2 stupid mistakes in one go - it's been a long day! – CommodoreFisher 00:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

USS Titan senior staff Template
Hi Mike. The template USS Titan crew template was intended to be confined to that ship's senior staff, like the Enterprise-E senior staff template. (I can't seem to effect a reversion myself - and leave my explanation on the talk page - so I'm bringing this specifically to your attention.)

There have been at least 60 or so crew members of the Titan named so far, rendering a complete crew list template impractical. This is usual for a starring ship - even senior staff members tend to accumulate rapidly. By limiting the crew template to the senior staff, it remains an easy-access tool to navigate among them. If you'd really like templates which include the other crew, perhaps we could produce department-by-department templates? Each would have at least as many listed persons as some existing crew templates.--Cicero 00:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, 60 crew might necessitate department by department templates -- however, I'd be interested to see how well they fit into one.


 * I think our largest crew template is the template:USS da Vinci personnel -- but I haven't counted through that one.


 * Either way, I still think we should follow the conventions of the other templates and name them using "USS" and then lowercase for all the additional words (for example, the Template:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) medical personnel template) -- Captain MKB 00:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree regarding the capitalization. At the very least, it's much easier to type when looking for the page.


 * For what it matters, the largest template I'm aware of is Template:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) personnel, which carries about 150 names.--Cicero 01:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that if the Titan template had the senior staff at the top and the rest of the crew at the bottom, it still wouldn't be as big as that one.. -- Captain MKB 01:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The template wouldn't be so large now (or, probably, soon), but the crew manifest will continue to grow as the novel series progresses (probably significantly, if the usual Titan novel continues to be at least average in its crew name production). I think we would do well to confine the template as much as is practicable.  Perhaps we could include a link to the complete crew manifest?  Or perhaps each department template could carry links to each other department?--Cicero 01:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Lists
In Singular Destiny I have a long list of dead folks which includes two very important characters. Should I put these names under references? They're already listed on another page, but belong on the book's page as well. What do you think? – AT2Howell 04:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably best under a "casualty list" subsection to keep them separated, but definitely yes. -- Captain MKB 10:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess you still haven't read it? – AT2Howell 17:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't but I am keeping abreast of the happenings now -- great article material. -- Captain MKB 19:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got to say that the two characters on the casualty list really surprised me. I re-read it a couple of times and still didn't believe it. – AT2Howell 19:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * True they are surprising -- and we should be careful to add spoiler warnings to articles that mention them, in case someone still wants to read this story and be surprised about it, they would really think we were jerks if we spoiled it for them, don't you think? -- Captain MKB 18:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

An anonymous vandal
We've got a vandal: Special:Contributions/216.47.197.5. Jono reverted the edit, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention so you can block the jackass. --TimPendragon 06:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Commodore Travers edit from Dec 2008
It's been roughly 2 and a half months, but since it's recently been updated, here goes.

My Commodore Travers trivia was erased because it was unclear:

''Commodore Travers warns Picard of his distrust towards him with the phrase, "Here There Be Dragons." In the TNG novel of the same title, Jean-Luc Picard again is in the middle of Dramatis Personae. With reptiles (not Gorn) essential to the main plot.''

For clarity that was, of course "Dixon Hill"'s dialogue between himself and Travers. Obviously the Commodore didn't buy his bit about the Stargazer (merchant ship), how a non-Starfleet member has an advanced artificial heart etc. Travers then tells him in the novel that "Here there be..." marked maps in the Middle Ages for a reason: to warn captains about possible dangers in the unknown. The novel Here There Be Dragons also makes the connection to that period of Earth history. The dramatis personae comes from the fact that Jean-Luc assumes the alias of his favorite, fictional private eye. In the other novel, Jean-Luc (as Lukas) takes on another identity. Much like he did as Robin Hood in "Qpid". Finally, Gorn and literal dragons are the reptiles that play important roles in both stories.


 * What does "in the middle of Dramatis Personae" mean? Keeping in mind that "Dramatis Personae" is a DS9 episode that neither mentions nor features Picard. If you meant that Picard was a main character, you might've said "Picard was in the dramatis personae (emphasis on the article/capitalization construction for clarity, and not confusingly linked to the DS9 episode), or even better, you might've used English and stated that he was a main character'. I'm not sure how it would be determined he was "in the middle" of it when he is the lead character of the series


 * The sentence fragment "With reptiles (not Gorn) essential to the main plot." was not entirely clear -- perhaps you meant to use a comma and not to start a new sentence. Did you mean that "Here There Be Dragons" had reptiles also? I've never read it. There would probably be more meaning if you constructed the sentence without parentheses, either.


 * Also, wouldn't it be notable as forshadowing, that Travers referenced 'dragons' shortly before he was killed by reptiles? maybe the other novel was less significant than the irony ignored in Requiem. -- Captain MKB 04:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get in the middle of this, but just an observation here. "Dramatis personae" literally means "the masks of drama," essentially "playing a role." I took Ensignsisko's phrase "in the middle of dramatis personae" to mean that Picard was undercover, or pretending to be someone else, as he did in Requiem. Again, odd phrasing, but the meaning wasn't that hard to parse. --TimPendragon 04:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

CaptMike: Yes, I meant the plot device, dramatis personnae-not the DS9 episode. Even though Sisko's the best (laugh). Jokes aside, yes Here There Be Dragons have reptiles. They're something like evil versions of the ones from Berengaria VII. Good point about the ironic twist.

Tim: Thanks. You got the idea. I've read "Requiem" all the way but only some of "Here..."


 * Thanks for the input Tim -- I would've thought he meant that also, but the text was in actuality: "in the middle of Dramatis Personae" -- there was an actual link to the DS9 episode. As I said above, if it had been unlinked, and lowercased, it might've been more apparent. Just one of those things where correct link-code, capitalization and grammar can make mountains of difference towards clarifying your meaning. -- Captain MKB 12:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive
Hey Cap, how do you archive your talk page? In the last year and a half my talk page has gotten quite long. – AT2Howell 15:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just use the "move" feature to move it to a new location -- i usually add "/archive" or something to the end. Then use your original talk page -- by deleting the redirect that is created. -- Captain MKB 16:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Path to 2409
Continuing the discussion from Donatra...
 * Look at Worf. At the bottom is a little indented paragraph that discribes a possible future for Worf.  We have no reason to believe that is will not come to be, yet for some reason it is offset from the rest of the article.  Why don't we do this with the 2409 info? – AT2Howell 20:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Category removal...

 * Category:ENT Novels

Everything that was there can be found in Category:ENT novels. Now just to worry about the ~200 books in TOS, the ~150 in TNG, etc. :) -- sulfur 23:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Some more for you:
 * Category:Stargazer Novels
 * Category:NF Novels
 * Category:Reference Books

Only a buttload left now! Heh. -- sulfur 13:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ban this guy
124.191.130.142 is causing trouble. I reverted his edit of the first federation page. – AT2Howell 04:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Capt Rosal
Might want to keep an eye on User:Capt Rosal and his contributions. --Captain Savar 03:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (Capt Rosal 06:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC))Cole Treewalker has been deleted and or stolen by savar i have contributed just one other story i think this is a rush to judgement and a by what i have deduced by added personnel attack comments on my self who is new here if you put the reason for this  and enable my peace of mind that this is truly deleted or give this back back amin backender  dag.


 * I deleted Cole Treewalker. That article was unacceptable. -- Captain MKB 06:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Was the misspellings in your most recent comment on his talk page ironic, or unintentional? --Captain Savar 21:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * They were delivered in the same vein I believe his were. -- Captain MKB 22:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Skorr/Aurelians
Hey, Mike... You're probably aware of this, but just in case Ensignsisko makes some kind of stink, I figured I'd bring it up. He's apparently confusing the Skorr and the Aurelians, which is a common enough problem amongst Trekkers (and even some authors) who think they know more than they do. The two races are distinct, according to every canon and print source that we have. The difficulty arises in that visually, they are identical, since the TAS animators used the same template for both. Since the species name "Aurelian" was never mentioned on screen, those that haven't read the ADF novelizations or are not familiar with the supplemental material from TAS automatically assume that they are all Skorr.

Perhaps some kind of preemptive, disambiguatory note should be added to the species' respective pages? --TimPendragon 02:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a valid point, and you're right -- a note of explanation of the difference, if phrased properly, would help both the articles. I'm not aware of any of the sources referring to specific quadrants, so I hope the other reversion will be justified also. I'd be fine with a note about the possible connections due to the similarity, but we should be careful about about specifying our assumptions as to their location, relation to each other, etc. -- Captain MKB 03:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Won't make a stink. Trekdom already has enough fishy subject matters. (For example, look up the unnamed Caitian/Kzinti Rura Penthe prisoner (if either was what it was!) @ Memory Alpha's roll call for Undiscovered Country.)
 * That was very informative, as I seem to be part of a larger demographic over the years that made the same mistake between the "birdmen". Whatever's decided is fine with me-can't add nor take away water from the coffee after it's been brewed.– Ensignsisko 07:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

opps
I didn't realise this book wasn't actually out - you can search and read pretty much the whole thing on amazon. Sorry about that. --Joezhanger 21:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome message
Not sure anyone noticed my post on the forum, but I'd suggest putting the welcome and welcome-anon templates in the Wikia auto-notice locations. --Captain Savar 14:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wiki question
How do I change the email address my alerts get sent to from this wiki? I'm leaving the Navy and going over to NASA, meaning I'm shutting this adress down on Monday. – AT2Howell 18:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

From Mjmjr91
I appreciate all of your assistance in regards to welcoming me to Memory Beta as a user. I believe you left me a message which stated something along the lines that it is against the rules to copy from Memory Alpha without explicit consent from the writer of that article. I am more than happy to either go back and get permission from the writer, or undo my changes. The only problem I am having is that I cannot track the writer of the pages. On Memory Beta there is "a page last edited by" note at the bottom. But for this particular page, (Star Trek Countdown #3) I can't find one. And, hopefully I'm correctly leaving you a message. At least I figured out that the user page and user talk pages are two separate pages. LOL I've been reading the Memory Beta wiki for a couple years but never edited anything until now. Thanks, (and I appreciate your help) – Mjmjr91 22:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll have to click on the "history" tab. Or perhaps ask on the talk page for an admin to help. -- Captain MKB 22:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Capt Rosal
(kalas 00:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC))hi it so good to have been made feel welcome by you guys big kidders
 * All your sentiments towards me, I can assure you I feel the same way, right back at you! -- Captain MKB 02:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

sentiments same same vein ironic all i hear is narrative explanations from people i have looked around and found less effort than i put in to my work   just to have you  use trek star argument from another place ,,,, if you have some professional reasoning then go to wiki and tell them what yau hated about my finished article that i have taken down    how fast is come back at  to 20 word and one edit or just more back stabing bull shit in the same vein as trek stars power trip is  this the content you like to spread i made an effort in good faith and all you can do is get personnel with the memory gamma arguments like get there batlef  out i have spent more time haveing to deal with trek stars accusations and your "got a problem"  argument starter crap if you want to make this  personnel then don,t use my story as your script just come out and say it be a man and put yours and trek stars on the line and then wiki can tell us who is craping on ,,,,,,trek star , he has not vandalised yet,,,, is this a good way to start a friendship  and what your doing is worse with this amount of negative how is a person going to be a positive contributor or am i the person you would rather vandlize with some mirror argument as you think you know me all to well no effort is ever wasted excepting when you see them comeing and you have decided with the balance of this personnel attack with all the information at your discretion  all 20 lines of word.

Earth Starfleet ranks
As I'm entering data for the Earth Starfleet personnel mentioned in the Star Trek: Destiny trilogy, I was going to put their rank images in the sidebars, but I'm not sure if they're uploaded to this wiki or not. Memory Alpha has them, but the image pages indicate the copyright belongs to you. So... any objections to uploading them here? I'll work on the Earth Starfleet ranks page. --Captain Savar 20:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm flattered you noticed! Any illustration I made and copyrighted for MA is applicable for reuse in any Wikia site as long as no edits are made to the image file and the attribution notice reflects my authorship and that fact.


 * However, since I made those, a newer style has really taken hold here on MB and on the ST Expanded wiki -- rank images by Kuro-RPG, another fansite. Kuro's ENT ranks have all been uploaded to stexpanded.wikia.com and are a nice set, I think they'd fit better with the size and format we use here (when I make images these days I try to make my style choices fit with Kuro's) -- Captain MKB 22:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about the standard set or the special set? --Captain Savar 22:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Only about half of Kuro's standard set is really derived from canon (and there is no licensed data on the ranks) -- so only the canon ones should really be used here... -- Captain MKB 23:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand, but which set do you like/should we use on this wiki? --Captain Savar 23:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * They are pretty much the same except the special edition has a slightly different size and a lot of extraneous ranks. I think we've already started with the special edition -- image:Earth cmd capt.png. But like I said, we shouldn't use the whole set for all those extraneous ranks that we'll never reference here -- Captain MKB 23:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's narrow it down: [[image:Earth adm.png]][[image:Earth vadm.png]][[image:Earth radm.png]][[image:Earth cdore.png]][[image:Earth cmd capt.png]][[image:Earth ops capt.png]][[image:Earth sci capt.png]][[image:Earth cmd cmdr.png]][[image:Earth ops cmdr.png]][[image:Earth sci cmdr.png]][[image:Earth cmd lt.png]][[image:Earth ops lt.png]][[image:Earth sci lt.png]][[image:Earth cmd ens.png]][[image:Earth ops ens.png]][[image:Earth sci ens.png]][[image:Earth cmd crew1.png]][[image:Earth ops crew1.png]][[image:Earth sci crew1.png]][[image:Earth cmd crew2.png]][[image:Earth ops crew2.png]][[image:Earth sci crew2.png]][[image:Earth cmd crew3.png]][[image:Earth ops crew3.png]][[image:Earth sci crew3.png]][[image:Earth cmd crew.png]][[image:Earth ops crew.png]][[image:Earth sci crew.png]]


 * Unfortunately, canon hasn't shown us anything about what a Chief would wear. -- Captain MKB 23:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Of course you named them completely different from how I did as I was working on the table... alas.  --Captain Savar 00:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There was one (the command captain) that I had uploaded last year using this naming convention and I went with that -- sorry. -- Captain MKB 00:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization
Hey Mike. Saw you made this edit to the Earth Starfleet ranks article. I'm rather curious why you uncapitalized near about everything. Ranks are titles, and should be capitalized at the very least; and having some things uncapitalized just looks unprofessional. I've noticed you tend to do it a lot elsewhere - like when typing categories and such. I've even noticed you go out of your way to un-capitalize things that look just fine the way they are. So, why? --Captain Savar 17:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it is my personal typography preference for some of the stylistic things like tables, but specifically for ranks, I've tried to carry across the same way things are done on Memory Alpha, where a rank is only capitalized as a title when referring to a specific person -- There is "Lieutenant Commander Data" when used as a title, but then when you say things about "the history of the rank of lieutenant commander", its not a title referring to a person as a proper noun, its being discussed as an improper noun as a general thing being discussed.


 * In reference to wiki markup, it makes linking easier to remain lowercase in as many situations as possible for words that could be expressed in either lower or upper case.. this is as the search box 'go' function might not return "Lieutenant Commander" if you type "lieutenant commander", but it will return "lieutenant commander" regardless of whether or not "lieutenant commander" or "Lieutenant Commander" are typed, unless we go ahead and make a redirect, so the lowercase situation lowers the amount of redirects we'd need to labor through to use to predict search behavior. -- Captain MKB 18:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Cap
There's a lot of chatter over at the Star Trek Online forum claiming that the events of the new movie and the Countdown series are in an alternate timeline from the rest of Trek. You heard anything about this being official? – AT2Howell 02:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We won't really know until someone actually travels through time, will we? Do you think that I've seen the movie yet? Well, I haven't. I haven't even gotten issue 4 of Countdown. How would I be able to answer this without knowing anything about the movie or issue 4? Keeping in mind that "chatter" isn't a source we are allowed to use here. -- Captain MKB 03:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The USS Destiny page has some extra symbols in random locations (Klingon Cardassian alliance) and I don't know how to remove them. No, chatter isn't an acceptable source, but do you have any knowlege of J.J. Abrams saying this is in an alternate timeline?  That's what they're claiming.  Evidently this new picture is being promoted by it's makers as a "reboot" for Trek which will negate some previous cannon. – AT2Howell 15:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Those symbols aren't random, they're in the list of Sovereign class starships -- they show the affiliation of the one Sovereign class starship that was built by the Klingon Cardassian Alliance.


 * As to the "reboot theory", I think (based on an incomplete synopsis of the film) that there is time-travel involved so that means that an alternate timeline will be created. If someone travels back in time, and creates an alternate timeline, Memory Beta doesn't consider the original timeline "negated" at all, Since it did exist at one point. As to canon, this means that both timelines will exist in canon. Please also notice how I correctly spell the word "canon".


 * Anything further on this, I'm afraid you're going to have to discuss somewhere else than this site -- Memory Beta isn't a chat forum. Have you ever tried TrekBBS? -- Captain MKB 15:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, I don't really go for that hard-core trekkie stuff. I just like to read and take notes.  That's how I ended up here in the first place.  I was reading Articles of the Federation and was completely lost.  I hadn't read trek in about ten years.  The navy gave me a good chance to catch up, but now that I'm at NASA, I don't know if I still can.  So yeah, I barely have enough time to write here now, let alone argue on some fan site.  Maybe it'll change when I move closer to work next month.  Sorry about the whole cannon/canon thing. – AT2Howell 17:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me know when you finish Countdown. I have a question on the series as it applies to the rest of the universe, and want your input. – AT2Howell 00:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ranks
Hi Mike, I just wanted to ask for your advice with reformatting the rank pages. Now you did offer advice when I first worked on the articles a couple of years ago, but I got all stroppy and just ignored the help you were offering at the time. I'd like to apologize for that, and ask for your advice now. :D

I was thinking that I got the Federation Starfleet ranks (2371-2373) uniforms and ranks completely wrong, because the uniforms and insignia were seen in use for the first two seasons of DS9 (2369/2370) and Star Trek: Borg had them in use as early as 2366/2367, so presumably they are an alternative uniform for the two-piece uniform introduced in 2366. --The Doctor 12:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem -- I felt bad because I was too late to stop you from naming the files differently, so I could understand how it could be frustrating. Besides, that kind of discourse was not the worst I've ever seen here.


 * I think that the uniforms were totally coexistant also -- but I never had a source for the variants in use prior to 2369. I would've pushed the issue, but I didn't want to start a fight so I've just used the system in place. The ST Borg's 2366 use validates my theory -- they were always in use alongside the others, just not on the Enterprise until 2370 or so. The pages for the rank insignia should probably be merged.. -- Captain MKB 14:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the image naming issue is a problem, but I suppose I could always upload them with a name format more akin to your upload for the 2350s/early 2360s ranks. Before that, though I'm going to work through and find the "canon" ranks and weed out the "fanon" ranks.  The only issue would be with speculatory rank images based off information given in novels.  --The Doctor 14:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The filenames could be slowly changed, after all, they aren't immediately visible to the casual reader so they don't really scream "wrong date" unless you are editing a table, which we could sort out better in the future as we work on the various aspects of these..


 * On that speculatory topic, I'd be OK with deconstructing the controversial insignia and suggesting speculatory versions be run through the supplemental images voting -- for example, O'Brien is canonically a Senior Chief and his canon tab had three chevrons and two pips -- which gives us reason to believe that a Master Chief would be 3 chevrons/3 pips and that a regular Chief would be 3 chevrons/1 pip. We just have to see how many people would agree with that, with the supporting evidence that the structure is similar to the US system, which makes it clear how all the prominent enlisted titles could be approached.


 * The ones I'd worry about this site's treatment of would be the versions that are completely made-up -- like the ENT era chiefs, where we really don't have a good idea about the size or shape of their chevrons -- not enough to make more than an educated guess. My take would be that they would look like mirrored ENT crewman stripes (as in the US Air Force forming an upward chevron), but the only available reference (Kuro's fanon ranks) says different, with sideways military chevrons... things like that are more unclear and lead to fanon creep... -- Captain MKB


 * Yes the supplemental image approval would be the best way to got with speculatory images. On this page I've started a comparison of canon rank images, to help whittle down what is OK and what isn't.  Although, I made need your clarification on some of them, especially the ENT era ranks.  --The Doctor 15:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Quick side question: For the Kenneth Dalby page of used the blank rank image, but I'd like to upload the rank image which has the provisional bar with a black pip which indicates a provisional crewman (at least on Voyager), so what image name do you think would be the best to use?  --The Doctor 15:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I started with [[file:Flt Adm 2364.png]] with adding my knowledge of sourcing to the images themselves -- for ENT era, I limited the uploads to those that canon showed us -- its clear-cut as there's no real non-canon ENT ranks source. I'll start making similar notations on all those uncited insignia and ask me if there's any you aren't sure of! -- Captain MKB 16:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * For Dalby, i'd say [[File:2366 ops enlisted (alt provisional).png]]? I'm thinking of adding the "alt" notation to all the DS9-Voyager uniforms... i'm not sure about abbreviating "provisional" either, and I used "enlisted" because the blank bar seemed to be used for all noncoms, but that part isn't 100% clear either so i used the vague term -- Captain MKB 16:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Mike, I've uploaded the image. Back to the main thrust of the conversation, I believe the 2366-2370s ranks should remain open-ended as the TNG two-piece uniform was seen as late as 2375 ("What You Leave Behind"), which surprised me, but I'd say they were definitely being phased out by that year as the new admirals uniform debuted in 2374 (at least Ross had his by then).  --The Doctor 16:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a good point -- we might need to make many of these unspecific -- after all, uniform styles overlapped in numerous places.


 * Vanguard has the new station using the TOS uniforms while Kirk's crew still hadn't replaced their 2250s uniforms (which John Byrne's CREW now shows are also 2240s uniforms)...
 * Kirk's TOS uniforms were still in use even though Decker and Starbase 10 got the TMP uniforms early in DC's ST Annual...
 * Kirk insisted on getting the maroon TWOK uniforms early while the rest of the fleet wore the TMP "pajamas" in New Earth.
 * The FASA contiuity has an interim design between the Movie uniforms and the TNG uniforms that was to be used by gamemasters when visiting personnel out of contact with SF command.
 * The 2250s TNG uniform was still in use until 2368-2370 on junior crewmembers after the 2366 uniforms became widespread.
 * The 2366 Admiral uniform, dress uniforms, as well as some other command uniforms remained after the 2373 style took over, as you note.
 * Maybe we should be vague and say "2360s" for all these uniforms, as their "changeover" dates take past 2366? The same for the "2370s" that took hold past 2373? -- Captain MKB 16:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, keeping it vague could be the best way. An alternate suggestion would be to have the introductory date as the first date and leave the second open-ended, but the problem with that is that we don't know the introductory date for all uniforms.  --The Doctor 16:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * To list we have


 * Earth Starfleet -- there are two variations, where the later versions add superfluous epaulets and a nametag but no changes in the rank insignia scheme, so these can remain in one overview. 2140s is our earliest known use, 2161 the latest
 * Early Federation -- unfortunately, this is blank. There is a FASA reference with a Romulan War era trooper, but it seems to intend it to be a Coalition combat uniform, and not specifically an Earth or Federation uniform. Descriptions in "The Forgotten War" describe standard blue uniforms and jumpsuits and tunics with division colors, creating the mental image of a combination of ENT uniforms, which is coincidental, and TOS uniforms. The ranks are only vaguely described as stripes, seemingly along the later TOS scheme. There's also a Young adult novel with a not-so-specific cover image with color coded tunics from about this era.
 * Early 23rd century -- the upcoming film has something on this, from about the 2230s. No solid ranking info yet, just some pictures from licensed websites
 * Mid 24th century -- the Captain Pike uniforms are first seen in the early 2240s and last until 2265, and into 2266 on others who seem slower to change over. There are contradictory references to red versions of these even though no red ones were seen onscreen. Rank insignia don't always stay consistent either, onscreen or off.
 * There is a variant from the milieu of the new movie -- this seems to replace the Pike uniforms, but in an alternate reality... no info on that here yet, obviously
 * TOS uniforms - "2260s-2270" works as a description, as the replacement uniforms don't appear anytime before 2270 and these uniforms don't last anywhere past 2270.
 * TMP uniforms - maybe call these "2270" -- they last until at least 2273, but not past 2278. No solid dating info on the changeover since the date of "New Earth" is nebulous... the Marvel Untold Voyages might specify different, we should look there for more info.
 * Movies - call these "2270s-2350s" ? They have a variant when the collars and belts disappear, but this doesn't affect the ranks.
 * TNG season 1 - "2350s-2360s"
 * TNG/DS9/VOY - "2360s-2370s"
 * First Contact - "2370s" -- as long as "Countdown" stays in-timeline, we can call these "2370s-2380s" -- as we know they end between 2381 (Destiny) and 2387 (Countdown)
 * Whew! -- Captain MKB 17:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Blimey that's a hell of a list :D. I agree with the set-up, as for the red uniforms in use in the 2240s-2260s page, I remember some of the USS Saladin (Baton Rouge class) and USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) crew members wearing red in  set in 2264.  Tenuous, but it could be an indication, otherwise they could have just used the TOS uniforms and forgot about the old uniforms in use in "Where No Man Has Gone Before".  --The Doctor 17:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They still had the Cage/Where No Man collars in that comic though -- the colorist just wasn't paying attention as the artist got other details right, like the wierd little viewcreens growing on stems out of the stations. A mistake like this also creeped into John Byrne's crew where a redshirt is seen, but his shirt turns back to beige again a panel later. Also strange, there are both beige and brown uniforms in that one. In the same era, George Kirk called himself and security companions "redshirts" which would be odd wearing beige like we'd expect.. Possibly, for onscreen we saw a crew wearing all "low visibility" variants and other postings had the other more colorful uniforms. -- Captain MKB 17:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

More ranks
Hi Mike, while going through the ranks for the 2370s, I noticed that in two guards stood behind Picard are wearing what could either be a chief insignia from the early TNG era, but there is a chance it could be ensign junior grade. Rather than make an arbitrary decision, I'd like to see your opinion. image at TrekCore. --The Doctor 23:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * By the time O'Brien got the updated chief insignia in the 2370s, they started using the "hollow" pip anomalously... Nog wore it, and was referred to as "ensign" even though he was still an academy cadet on battlefield commission as an officer. In real life, the technical term for his situation is "midshipman", but since he was referred to as "ensign" i think it creates a situation where a 2370s "ensign junior grade" and "midshipman" being the same thing would be a good explanation, since it would explain his position and also explain the rank they referred to him as.

as soon as I have a day off, I'll get back to work on the FASA pins. they are a handfull. one discrepancy is that FASA states that all officers except fleet captains wore silver pips.. for all cases where we know this is not true, I'm substituting the gold pips actually worn in canon but I need to write down the explanation. the admiral ranks are also a heavy project, as they hadn't quite been figured out by TNG season 1-2... -- Captain MKB 23:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

USS Essex
I'm just working through the articles and I wondered about the registry number for the USS Essex (Constitution class). Three different registries have been given from three different sources, but I noticed that the Essex appeared in a FASA sourcebook ("An Imbalance of Power"). I wondered if a registry was supplied, if so it could tip the balance with the naming of the page. If not, then perhaps we could take the "official" registry of NCC-1697 given in the Star Trek Encyclopedia. --The Doctor 23:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll check that when I get home -- I might go to the IMAX tonight for a second time around -- I forgot to take notes on the USS Kelvin uniform insignia!


 * I have Imbalance of Power as a PDF, I'll peruse it later... -- Captain MKB 23:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ensignsisko (not a defense)
Hey, Mike... I only noticed this because Ensignsisko's talk page is still on my watchlist from the last round of conflict. Unless his comments on User_talk:Roger Murtaugh have since been edited, how is saying "Even though they aren't up to Memory Beta 'high standards', keep up the interesting work" an insult? I agree he has no room to talk but how is that comment (an invalid opinion though it is) terribly hurtful or worthy of a ban? I know there might be a tone of sarcasm in there you're picking up on and I'm not, but I just want to get your thought process here. Is there something else going on? Has he been obtuse in other ways lately? -- 17:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Its a dig at Roger and myself because I asked Roger to change some writing and Roger complied. Roger's work was exemplary, and Ensignsisko was insulting both of us by implying that there was something wrong with asking him to alter it according to the rules. Whenever ES comes out of the woodwork, its usually when I communicate with a new user about our standards, so I decided to put a stop to it -- in this case, he was attempting to disparage the fact that a new user was participating in and responding to the concerns of another user that ES dislikes (me), which was disruptive.


 * Since he often leaves snarky messages on talk pages, but does not involve himself in article content, it makes him disruptive and counterproductive to anyone else getting to work on article content, so I've had it. Since we've already tried a trial ban and it did not improve his behavior much, I extended it. I'm open to any established user who considers themself to be ES's friend to approach me on his behalf, however -- but I doubt he has supporters here. -- Captain MKB 17:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm certainly not his friend. And I've long since given up on trying to get through to him about his writing skills, though I suppose I did have success at one point. You'll get no argument from me. I just wanted to understand. Thanks. :-) -- 06:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Film data
What's the consensus on incorporating material from the film. Are we going the Memory Alpha route of separate pages for the new "versions" of major characters? If there's a post up with the policy, I can't find it. -- 17:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

My IP Address
I was wondering if there was anyway to just ban Ensignsisko cause somehow he had the same IP Address as I have at home and since it got banned I can't edit at home. Thank You for taking the time to read this.--Rkdew0 14:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a little unclear on how to handle this... how do you have the same IP? couldn't you get yours reset to a different one as his? Also, I find it strange that you chose to start editing our site from his IP on the weekend he was banned, as you've never been around here much before. -- Captain MKB 03:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason I haven't been really active on here is I'm really active on the Yu-Gi-Oh! Wiki. Thing is I didn't no the IP had been banned until I had logged on that day. I honestly don't know what happened to how we both had the same IP addresses, as my Internet stays on 24-7 while the PC is on. So idk.--Rkdew0 14:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad Man
I think that might be a vandal. Please stop him. – AT2Howell 18:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
I'm not saying that the discussion is vandalism. I agree with 8of5 that there should be a separate section. But while we're discussing it, Savar is making changes to the page. To be more precise, he is removing information. That is vandalism. – AT2Howell 16:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And now 8of5 fixed it. I really do like him. – AT2Howell 16:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure this is great from your overly-simplistic view of things. The point is, the forum page is about discussing what section to put those references into. Removing them or moving them to try a new format is not vandalism, so you need to get over making that kind of accusation.


 * We may end up moving them somewhere you don't agree with. Tell us why you agree or why you disagree, and leave out the outlandish accusations. -- Captain MKB 16:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I like what 8of5 did. I think it looks good.  Do you have any idea how annoying it is to systematicaly record every reference you can faind on a book, only to have some dude come along and remove a few bits on a whim?  If I did that, you know you'd call it vandalism.  Sorry if I'm not allowed to use the "V" word. – AT2Howell 17:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm a little tired of your attacks on me. I'm not removing things on a whim.  I spent a week and a half pouring over the novel three times.  I've also got a e-version of it, so I can quickly do searches.  Nothing that I've ever done on this site would brand me as a vandal, so stop calling me one.  --Captain Savar 17:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's how you use the word, AT2Howell. I realize you are annoyed, but you are acting like a child and making it impossible for use to work with your viewpoint. The information you added is not removed -- it's all in the article history and can be recalled with a push of a button. We will decide where to keep it in the article based on your input. If your input is nothing but to say others shouldn't mess with what you wrote, then you are missing the point. We're waiting for you to make a suggestion, but you can't get over how annoyed you are that someone would want to change something you did, so you can't see the big picture that we actually want to keep what you wrote, but simply move it somewhere else. We've had to deal with you being like this before, and it's not the kind of behavior that helps wikis run smoothly. -- Captain MKB 17:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

FASA Stardates?
I've been adding a lot of material from the FASA books but I don't know how the FASA Stardate system works and translates into years. The only place I can see that seemed to have translated it is the Dixon Timeline website. Wanted to ask, is that website accurate on the dates? I'd rather not use if it isnt but it would help me with some articles which has me constantly referring to the Stardates all the time. Any help is appreciated :) – Darth Batrus 18:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The general idea is that we would measure these by a few key landmarks -- like their stardate for the Federation founding would have to take place in 2161, their SD for Kirk's birth in 2233, their SD for V'Ger's dissolution in 2273, their SD for TNG Year one in 2364, and so on.


 * Their formula we use "SFC Years" which are our articles for their chronology, the Spaceflight Chronology. If a reference stardate starts with "1/61", then it takes place in the year "2161 SFC", which may or may not have any correlation with the year "2161" in the regular timeline. However, they spaced events apart differently, so there's no solid formula for translating. In SFC years, the UFP was founded in the 2080s, Kirk was born in the 2170s, Vger arrived in the 2210s, and TNG started around 2300 -- see how they don't line up with a one-to-one year ratio?


 * I always write the link to reference stardate and form the date as 2/34 where the first three digits equal the last three of the year. -- Captain MKB 21:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So if "1/61" is 2161, does that mean "-1/0401" is 1904? And say "-2/2536" is 1825? Is that correct or have I made a mistake? Sorry about this, its just I want to add some of the early Romulan history from FASA into the Romulan history article and it would look a lot cleaner if I managed to remove the constant references to the stardates :) – Darth Batrus 21:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You got it! Anything before the year 2000 is prime material to be converted to Earth year dates. -- Captain MKB 21:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for that Captainmike :) much appreciated. – Darth Batrus 09:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Boob boy is back
70.68.160.237 is still obsessed with Kilana's breast size. I fixed it, but he'll be back. – AT2Howell 12:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Residents to your personnel templates?
So, even though we've agreed that (residents, civilians) are NOT personnel, I can't help but feel that we should add a link to 'em in the personnel templates you've been making - from a navigational standpoint, I see the mentality as "everyone who's on the ship", not just "all the personnel on the ship". With that said, I suppose the grander question is: why are we linking to, say, USS_Enterprise_(NCC-1701-D)_personnel, instead of the Template for Operations personnel itself? I hate having to do the same thing twice, and it seems odd that, whenever a new person is mentioned, we have to add it to that personnel page, and then add it again to the template page. That's wasted work but, more importantly, forgettable work, meaning the data could get outta step. --Morbus Iff 20:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: the two systems: In some circumstances it works with everything using the templates. But not always, and this is one of those instances, the templates only list the names, while the crew manifest pages list the ranks, positions and dates as well. --8of5 20:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I realized that as I was making supper for teh kidz. What say you about adding residents to the "see also" of the template? (And, naturally, we'd create a residents template, similar to the personnel ones; I'll probably end up doing this tonight...). --Morbus Iff 20:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm against directing a user to a template, because it's not actually a page that someone could necessarily make sense of. The full personnel page has a lot more navigational possibilities to offer a user, while a template is more in the sense of something we add to the page, not presented as an article by itself. -- Captain MKB 20:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, fine. --Morbus Iff 21:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Still looking for comments on:


 * Me creating a Template:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) residents.
 * Including all the citizens from USS_Enterprise_(NCC-1701-D)_personnel.
 * Renaming the "citizens" section to "residents".
 * In the "see also" of all the other personnel templates you've just made, adding a link to residents.

--Morbus Iff 21:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * All of these seem fine to me. -- Captain MKB 21:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments need on Style...
http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Memory_Beta_talk:Style#Story_article_layout

Bureaucrat
Sorry Mike I didn't realise that you weren't a bureaucrat. Although I've changed ' rights, would it be easier if I upgraded you as well. Considering all you do for the wiki its certainly well deserved, and with real life eating up my time, another bureaucrat would be a good idea. --The Doctor 15:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Doc! I'll serve until I die or until you find someone better! Hoo ra! -- Captain MKB 15:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I gratefully accept your eternal servitude and knight you, "Sir Captainmike, Bureaucrat of Memory Beta". :D  --The Doctor 16:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The wording is different on different sides of the pond... as long as it doesn't come with a promotion to admiral -- i'd have to change all the graphics on my userpage. -- Captain MKB 16:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you don't get promoted to Admiral until 25 years of loyal servitude. You also get given a gold watch and an additional item from our exclusive catalogue.  :D.

Table Standardization
Hi Mike, I saw you simplified two of the TNG tables. Just a heads up, you changed the coloring system on those, so they don't match up to the other templates on that page or the 30-some other templates on TOS, DS9, VOY, and ENT that have already been created.--Tim Thomason 06:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup, we have a lot of work to do until we bring all of those in line with the new standardized, less complicated table code we started experimenting with last week... -- Captain MKB 06:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Only a handful of them left to update actually. I noticed Mike you've done a few of the small templates with the side images level with the title bar. I have been intentionally moving them below the bar across the board for the sake of standardisation. I can understand the logic for the smaller templates that it reduces the height somewhat to put the images across the title bar and content section, but by the same token I think the fact they are that small means a little extra height does no harm, while maintaining a consistent style for all the templates. --8of5 12:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm.. that's a different view. I've been preferring to cut off the extra height to make it look better. -- Captain MKB 15:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny, I think it looks better with the title bar going right across the top :P (what we need here is a third head me thinks) --8of5 15:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

alternate reality
Hi Mike, if you were unaware of it: There is a template, alternate reality, so that references to occurrences in alternate realities can be linked to the specific reality in which then happen. So for the new-movie universe you would input, which just creates the text "alternate reality" but with more specific linkage. --8of5 16:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

...ong
Just curious, but what's going on with your "...ong" edits? It's very interesting, but I was wondering about the source material/reasons for adding/editing that way.--Tim Thomason 05:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Random choice. All of the articles seemed to need minor edits, I figured I'd use a syllabic correlation to choose which articles I'd work on. -- Captain MKB 05:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Cadet Arrowhead (alternate universe)
Ok im confused if he wasnt wearing a blank arrowhead then what would this be on his cadet uniform



--Rkdew0 04:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * All the cadets in red dress uniforms wore no pins except for the arrowhead on their collar -- which is illustrated in the red collar image. Since there were no pins except for their collar, it seems that was both their rank and badge. Only the black uniformed officers wore the larger silver arrowheads on their chests, regardless of rank. I hadn't realized anything was on this other uniform. -- Captain MKB 04:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Cause all i knew was that the red cadet uniform was a somewat u could call a cadet dress uniform and this is a i think duty uniform cadet, just speculating --Rkdew0 04:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The silver graphic was illustrated showing a metal pin (with the shine marks on it), but I suppose it could be used as his service insignia as it was shown, a stamp on the cloth uniforms he wore. -- Captain MKB 01:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

broken affiliations
Hi Mike, I've noticed in some of your recent edits you've been using the  code to separate items in sidebars. I don’t think this is a good idea, it just makes the bars unnecessarily taller, and makes them read oddly, Federation Starfleet makes sense as one line of text, it doesn't need to be broken. And when several items are listed (weapons and auxiliary craft etc) I would suggest using semi-colons. This way everything is listed, and moves to the next line as the amount of text dictates, rather than making tall thin lists. --8of5 01:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about this too -- just throwing this out there, but maybe we could think about separating "governmental affiliation" with "employment" or "service" affiliation, to show those who have loyalty to one of the bigger governments, but service an organization or employment within that government. Perhaps, to save space, we could even monkey around with sidebar code some, we could line the subjects up horizontally rather than vertically?


 * My original basic idea was to have links to both "Federation" and "Starfleet" in all Federation Starfleet character articles, but as I went on, I realized a majority of characters has two loyalties to speak of: the government and the immediate employer. If we added this to the templates, we'd generate more links to the multiple articles rather than just to the one overall affiliation. -- Captain MKB 01:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I can see the case for that on characters; I think the character template is already set up for it though. See Nano for example, his general affiliation is Federation and Starfleet, and then in the career section his occupation is a Starfleet communications officer.

That wouldn't make any change to ships or facilities though? --8of5 01:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe so, those are 'assignments', and are working pretty well, by being supplemented by a "service record" if they number more than two or three.


 * The governmental loyalty rarely changes, and we simply annotate characters based on their latest affiliation in the rarer cases where there are more than one. Most characters don't move on to a third, ever. Immediate employer changes somewhat more often, but usually not as drastically (i.e. many Starfleet retirees don't find new work after retirement, and most everybody under certain government affiliations are portrayed as self-employed if not in government service -- there are only a few major employers under each government, and most of the civilian companies and corporations don't seem to have many known employee characters). -- Captain MKB 01:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I uh, agree with all that. Is there an argument for some formatting specification hidden in all that?

While you mention it, the service record is something I've been meaning to bug you about. I'd suggest we open that up to "personal timeline" (see Seven of Nine for example, though that doesn't include ranks as she's never had one). That way it can also incorporate other important events for the character such as birth, death, marriage, childbirth, temporal displacements, etc. --8of5 01:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On the sidebar, I think that we should look towards splitting the fields of the items that I've been  tagging, but am holding off proposing it because maybe we should plan out something more detailed like possibly including the symbols and badges into it, perhaps automatically to save some of the code involvement that's currently going on to try and show those symbols and affiliation. The only thing is writing the amount of code to have that recognize all the governments, organizations with and without insignia, and even ships involved with the badge images. Seems like a big project, but it would be a desired result.


 * As to the service record, it would work but the whole concept was to show the assignments and rank insignia, so adding the birth information might seem a little wierd next to all the official stuff.. -- Captain MKB 03:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you'd have to work up a generally proposal for redesigning the sidebar to start including stuff like that. I'm not sure I entirely see the advantage of replacing one line of text (two words) with a sub-title bar, pictures and text! It's a big chunk of additional space to give the same information.

Per the service record/timeline. I can see that is your area of interest and what got you putting them on a lot of pages. But I think it would improve the general usefulness of that section to make it a more general biographical timeline. --8of5 03:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)