Memory Beta:Community Portal/Archive 1

<Project:Community Portal/Archive

What's in a name? Klingon D7s

How are we going to handle D7s? Is it really a class? or more of a design family, with multiple classes (the nearest Federation equivalent would be the Miranda/Soyuz class)? There are two conflicting licensed sources for the Klingon names for the TOS version (Klolode from one of the TAS novelizations, and K't'agga from the FASA RPG. And is the K't'inga a D7 or not? (I know it's different from the TOD design, but does it count as a D7?)

I propose listing "D7" as the design family, with multiple variants and upgrades that are known by the various class names. But what do others think?--Emperorkalan 01:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

That is a good idea, but if I recall the Klingon D7's have been assigned the name Klolode-class, and the Romulan D7's have been called the Akif-class. I cannot recall were these designations came from, but I think we could do seperate pages for the different types, and a D7 disambiguation page. I have also created a navigation bar for the Klolode-class.

--Thanks, Bok2384

• I've seen it. In fact, it's what prompted my post: Why should the TOS D7's be the Klolode-class and not the K't'agga? What makes one source more right than the other? And if they're different classes, how do you know which ships on the navigation bar are which? A disambiguation page was basically what I had inmind. As for the navigation bar, may I suggest changing it to a generalized D7 bar, without distinguishing any particular class name (since in most cases it's unstated anyway).--Emperorkalan 12:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds good. I didn't realise there was a K't'agga designation. I will change the template now. --Bok2384 13:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Years

We have many year pages that need to be made. I was wondering which year-template to use, because I don't want to use the exact one Memory Alpha uses, but any year bar would be similar. Suggestions? Comments? Mics.? - Lieutenant Ayala 04:54, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think using the same layout would be copying them, because it's just common sense the way theirs works. I'm curious though - is it even possible to chart the year that things in books and games occurred? --Schrei 20:12, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Most newer books give timeframes, so that's not a problem. For the older books I was thinking of using the Official Novel Chronology and some fan efforts, and noting where they differed.

• One thing that's needed is a means to distinguish between real-life dates (for publication/release/airing dates, important dates for production/actors/crew/etc.) and for fictional timeline dates. May I suggest fictional dates use the existing system (e.g., [[1997]]) while real dates append "(real)" after the date (e.g., [[1997 (real)]])? --Emperorkalan 01:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I withdraw my previous suggestion, and replace it with another: an "In The Real World" section (#1 heading) for those years where we need to make a distinction. I used 1993 as an (not completed) example. Thoughts? --Emperorkalan 18:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Another subject: the layout of Year articles. Right now the format seems to be Events, Stories, Promotions and Transfers, and Pictures from XXXX. Would it be better to group all the "in universe" items together (i.e., moving Stories to the last spot, or at least moving "Promotions and Transfers" to directly follow "Events"(They are, after all, a subset of events.))? Does that sound like a logical grouping? or just nnedless busywork?

Picture Copyrights

Several copyrighted pictures are being used without permission on this site, seemingly in violation of Wikicities rules and regulations. Particularly:

• Image:Chateau Thelian.jpg
• Image:ChristineVale.jpg
• Image:LasVegas.jpg
• Image:Akyazi.jpg
• Image:Min zife.jpg

There is also one of President Kennedy out there, which brings me to the point that some of these pictures aren't even remotely related to Star Trek or anything in this Wiki (the CSI image, for example) Some of these need to be either replaced with cover image-croppings, or left picture-less I believe. - Dark Lighter 23:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Seal of the President

You know, I hate to ask this, but the current jpg of the Seal of the Federation President is so small, I'm really wondering if there's anywhere we can shop around to find a bigger depiction of it with better resolution. Anyone know of any such place? -- Sci 10:34 7 April 2006 UTC

Nevermind on the above; I've found and added a larger seal. It doesn't quite have the depth of color that the original version had, but it's much brighter and has a larger resolution. -- Sci 02:11 8 April 2006 UTC

Template Question

So I was checking out memory alpha the other day and noticed that captains of the enterprise template. Think theres some way we could do something like that over here? like adding Bateson to the E or maybe making an Excalibur Template (Korsmo/Calhoun/Riker), then Calhoun for the A. Could be cool, unfortunately I have no idea how to do that --Arcarsenal 02:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

In a similar vein, is ther any page that lists all templates used here? It can be a real pain trying to turn up the right page to edit in additions, etc. --Emperorkalan 22:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

maybe making an Excalibur Template (Korsmo/Calhoun/Riker),

Don't forget Morgen, who stepped down from the Excalibur in mid-2367 as per MJF's Reunion. When I made this connection, I was amazed at how well MJF, PAD, and TNG's use of the Excalibur name fit together.

Morgen steps down in 2367 (MJF), the ship is without an official captain and crew for several months and Riker is temporarily given command in early 2368 during the Klingon civil war (TNG), and soon after that, Korsmo takes over (PAD). --Turtletrekker

Masao Okazaki's Starfleet Museum

The USS Voyager article currently lists "The Daedalus-class vessel USS Voyager (NCC-157) in service in the 22nd century." A quick Google search tells me that the source of this information is from The Starfleet Museum, a non-licensed source. I have suggested before that non-licensed materials might in the future be included after a case-by-case vote. Since I believe this source warrants consideration, I'm going to start the first of those votes. --Chops 03:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Affirmative vote. Due to discrepancies with Enterprise, which came later, I suggest that the source of this material be clearly labeled on applicable pages and sections. --Chops 03:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that there is another wikicity, "stexpanded" that specializes in fan fiction style pieces like fan-maintained websites and underground publications -- information from sources not authorized by Paramount really falls under "fan fiction" when you think about it -- after all, all the novels and comics this here Non-Canon wiki focuses on are all licensed to be published and sold by the owners of the franchise. Not-for-profit, fan-generated type info is really difficult to cite, if its never been published for sale. (This then leaves a gray area for non-Star Trek publications like Ships of the Star Fleet?) -- Captain M.K. Bartel^talk 14:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • If we accept a "gray area" beyond this site's stated "canon + licensed" scope (and there's a few things I think would merit inclusion), we'd need some criteria to distinguish such material from pure fanon. Publication has been mentioned above. Any restrictions on that? And/or any others? --Emperorkalan 18:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Forum?

I've been enjoying your site, and will be uploading entries from my favorite Star Trek books as soon as I'm able. I would like to share my thoughts and feeling about this site on a much less official stage than the community portal. Is there any place where site members can talk? A forum, or private message system? Failing all of that, I'd settle for a list of IM adresses. There should be some way to disscuss ideas without clogging up the information pages, or creating endless debates on the discussion pages. Keras 19:23, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Better late than never responding to this, I guess. With apologies to Memory Alpha, we might as well call it Non-canon Star Trek Wiki:Ten Forward. If you've got something to discuss informally, go ahead and start it up. --Chops 21:27, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Main Page Question

I was thinking about maybe trying to expand it a little and wondered what you guys thought. Since theres only like a book a month or so coming out now, I was thinking about replacing that blurb on The Red King with one on String Theory book 2, as that seems to be december's main offering and adding a brief mention to this month's SCE book. Think that would work? Also, should we try listing some of the larger book series on the main page too (like S.C.E., New Frontier, and maybe Stargazer)?

Agreed. It's not like they're coming out with a new book every week, and I've already seen enough of The Red King. Keras 18:33, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Revision to Book Template

I know that I didn't create this wiki and that I'm new around here, but might I suggest that if the wiki was more visually attractive, it might attract more contributors and users. At the moment the book template doesn't allow for the book cover to be displayed, which is a shame. Also the lack of colour makes the pages look a bit dull. I've created a 'dummy' page in Sandbox to show how the templates might look (adapted from what they use on the Star Wars wiki). Have a look and see what you think. I'd be happy to make more contributions and create more pages for the books like this.
--Mantrid 07:42, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

• Nice. As the current template doesn't account for book covers, (as a wiki that is based mostly around the books) it seems we should have one. The template looks good! - Lieutenant Ayala 10:46, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)
• Mantrid, just go with the Wikipedia saying: Be bold, because if Mr. Ayala up there hadn't done that, this Wiki would probably be on the Wikis Needing Adoption page on Wikicities. --Schrei 04:49, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Conflicts

I was about to begin an entry (which I might still type up anyway) about a character when I realized there were about three or four different sources that contradicted each other.

Now, I always just figured that I could make alternate timelines, or some other such excuse to get the article in, but there's two important questions;

1. Which timeline is the real one? Let's say book A says one thing and book B says something that's completely opposite. Who do we believe? Well, I would guess it's up to the author of the article on a first come/first serve basis. But what happens to...

2. What happens to books that are refuted by CANON information? Ah, there's the heart of the matter. I suppose there's two different types of conflicts. Here are two examples;

'Ship of the Line' had numerous claims later refuted by canon information. The largest was probably the building site of the Enterprise - E. However, while numerous, none of these really affected the book. In other words, if the author had gotten it right, it wouldn't really have changed the events in the book to the point where we'd notice.

The New Frontier series on the other hand, has a bigger problem. Huge amounts of information that the novels depend on are refuted. The most major is probably that Shelby, the first officer and probably the second-most important character in the novel, is quite clearly the commander of the Sutherland in 2374, when she is suppose to be quite indisposed. That's just one of many problems.

Now, the problem is complicated: What happens if I really like this book, but the events that transpired in it were now impossible? Well, maybe we can work around it. Using New Frontier as an example again (since it's one of the few series I've actually read), I guess the first four-book New Frontier series is ok, before David expanded it into about a dozen more, since most everything that happens there is ok. We could also use them as gap-fillers, using information recieved in these novels to plug holes in information we can't get anywhere else. Anything that refutes the rest can be used as a primary, but certain events can be used as a way of expanding the character. For example, if a character makes a comment about themselves or their career in a refuted book, but it's not contradiced anywhere else, use it in your article as a way of filling a gap (cited as a refuted source, of course).

Anyway, just some musings I'd appriciate some feedback on.

I've been taking Pocket books' authors' examples on how to retcon these conflicts. Many apparent conflicts can be reconciled, though it's not immediately obvious how. For example, when Captain Shelby turned up on the Sutherland, Peter David mentioned in a later New Frontier that there were two unrelated Shelbys in Starfleet. If in doubt, note both possibilities in the article. If a plot point relies on a contradictory fact or another source also uses it, that version gets preference.

I'm aware that there are some conflicts that can't possibly be reconciled. A case in point is Starfleet: Year One, which was concieved shortly before Enterprise, but is completely contradictory from the plot to the minor details. Pocket Books admits that this book takes place in an alternate timeline or some such thing. I'm very hesitant to apply this excuse to other problems unless absolutely necessary.

On the other hand, there's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Diane Duane and J.M. Ford came up with extrapolations of Romulans and Klingons, respectively, that were completely contradictory with the later depictions in TNG. They made complete cultural ethos and languages for aliens we had only seen in less than a dozen episodes. However, references to ch'Rihan and klin zha pop up in modern books. So by all means, use information from all the books, even if they are otherwise contradictory.

Hope this helps, --Chops 03:52, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)

How about this, then; I'll write the passage up using what is not contradicted, then afterwards I'll create a new section in which I explain there's more than one timeline for the character and go on from there as if that timeline were correct.

The only other thing I can think of is starting over again in the new section, which I also wouldn't mind. What would you suggest? Keras 19:51, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. Go for it. --Chops 21:22, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)

In the case of Shelby, Paramount had promised Peter David that they would not use the characters they gave him for New Frontiers. And while the writers did (at the time) intend for the Captain Shelby mentioned to be the same Shelby, they never made that explicit on screen. So when their faux-pas was pointed out, they apologized, and came up with the two Shelby's in Starfleet story. (and given the size of Starfleet multiple cases of the same surname would be expected.) —MJBurrage • TALK • 15:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Actors and Episodes

I looked in the recent changes this evening and noticed that actors and episodes are now being added by the user Tough Little Ship. I can certainly see including episodes that have been adapted into some other non-canon form (novelization, comic book, etc.), but what purpose is there for including production info and the like here? Memory Alpha is perfectly capable of handling that sort of thing. Also, what purpose does including actors serve? If it's part of a non-canon work (say, George Takei's appearance in the Starfleet Command computer game, et al), there's no problem but the entries for Colm Meaney and Robert Foxworth certainly don't lend themselves to being part of non-canon works.

If this stuff is germane to the non-canon world, fine. Otherwise, I don't really see the need to cover the same ground as our canon counterpart.--Julianbaischir 02:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I kinda thought the same thing but didn't really see the harm.--Turtletrekker 04:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well the episode pages are there to act as link pages to related non-cannon bits, so the references will link to characters, ships, location, etc which may appear in other non-canon works (and subsequently have articles here) but more importantly is the related stories bit where sequels, prequels, and other related stories are listed so you could look up your favourite episode, say Conspiracy and it would be linked to Unity because that follows up the parasite story, so far that hasn't really happened much, but the episode pages have only just started to be made so it will take a while yet to get going.

That very useful little resource aside I agree, I dont think some of the behind the scenes stuff has a place here, I can cope with the production info because it fills up the info box abit but I really dont think cast lists are necessary. --8of5 23:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all the above. I do want to point out that, indeed, some "real" people need inclusion on this site - these include Gene Roddenberry, J.R. Rasmussen, William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, Sandra Zober, DeForest Kelly, John M. Ford and J.A. Lawrence [User: Stripey1].

The "USS" in Federation Ship Names

Okay, we've got a minor stylistic conflict here that we might like to see resolved. When I put a ship's name on the Wiki, I follow the style used in the Star Trek novels -- that is, I put: USS Shipname. However, many on the wiki seem to prefer keeping the "USS" unitalicized: USS Shipname. To be fair, that is the style favored by many of the 1980s-era novels. Do we want to have a consensus on this? -- Sci 05:33 20 April 2006 UTC

According to the U.S. Navy (see [1]), the USS is not in italics for ship names. Then again, according to the U.S. Navy, the abbreviation for lieutenant commander is LCDR. Also OTOH, the blurb on every S.C.E. book has the USS in italics as do many of the other books I just went scanning through. I'd say for direct quotes, certainly, we should follow the format of the source. And unless directed otherwise, I will likely continue to italicize the whole thing. DukeEgr93 17:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Subjects that we, as a Wiki community, need to take care of.

I realize that our Wiki is still new and will never be "complete", but nevertheless I wanted to point out what I felt currently our "weakest" subjects as a Star Trek encyclopedia.

Remember, that while we as contributors are here mainly to enjoy ourselves, others will visit this site for research purposes. One of the authors that I have exchanged e-mail with commented that he already used our site for reference purposes, but that we had a long way to go.

With that in mind, here are areas that,IMVHO, we need to work on, with our personal feelings about the shows/series put aside.

Voyager

A stub for Kathryn Janeway and a the ship, but that's about it. I have notes for Tuvok that I will soon be putting to use, but otherwise this is our weakest area.

Enterprise

We actually have more for Star Trek: Enterprise than Voyager, and I'll grant you that there isn't a lot of non-canon Enterprise material out there, but there are still too many red links.

Just to show that I'm not all talk, I'm going to add some info from Rosetta to Hoshi Sato and possibly Jonathan Archer's entries.

I've never read What Price Honor?, but with Malcolm Reed on the cover, I assume that there must be something about the character we can add. Anyone read it?

Other Stuff

Star Trek: Corps of Engineers needs a lot of work and Star Trek: IKS Gorkon characters are untouched.

Bad guys: Skrain Dukat, Corat Damar, Tomalok (I know that Tomalok has been given a first name, I just dont know what it was or where I read it. lol!), Redeemers, Androssi, the Borg have a stub, Silik, Shinzon, the Nacene, the list goes on.

I'm not trying to tell people what to contribute. I'm just hoping to make people aware of our weak spots and, hopefully, get some attention focused on those areas. As always, have fun.--Turtletrekker 12:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What if we set up a series of "community project" articles? We could put it on the main page, inviting everyone to help make it as complete as possible. When we're "done," it could the next Featured Article. --Chops 19:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. It could be an interesting experiment at the very least. For the first community project, might I suggest the aforementioned Borg stub. The Borg have had a lot of coverage in the book series and games, and probably most of us here could add a tidbit or two off the top of their head. After we generate interest in the concept with the Borg article, then we throw in Harry Kim, Neelix, and the Suliban. ;-) --Turtletrekker 07:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the community projects are a brilliant idea. I have started working on the early history of the Borg, as well as began the episode listings for Star Trek: Voyager. --Bok2384 14:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Bok2384, you can contribute computer game details to a Borg article as well, ala the details on Picard's page.--Turtletrekker 01:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Votes For Approval of Supplimental Images

I have created Non-canon Star Trek Wiki:Votes For Approval of Supplimental Images to help us spruce up the wiki. One thing I'm not sure about is what to do while voting is taking place. What do you think of what I have?

Year-page format proposal

I've been quietly plugging away for slightly rearranging the organization of the Timeline yearly pages, and I'd like to put it up for a vote to see if people agree, disagree, and whether I should stop bothering.

The sample page is 2370: Basically, "Promotions and Transfers" is moved directly under "Events", since what it deals with is basically very particular events, and in years with long lists of stories it was much less visible and sort of got lost. "Stories" itself is raised one class of heading, and now has two subsections: "Video and Cinema", for listing TV and movies (right now in 2370 I've just listed the corresponding TNG and DS9 season numbers); and "Novels and Short Stories" for prose stories. The "Pictures..." section is still at the bottom, since in most cases there aren't any.

Does this seem like an improvement to anyone else? Agreements? Adjustments? Rejections? Your thoughts, please.--Emperorkalan 14:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Works for me --Arcarsenal 14:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I purposely mixed video and literature together, so that you could see what order stories came in. If you must distingush one from the other, may I suggest indenting episodes and films? --Chops

Actually, we don't "must". Sequencing is a valid point that had slipped my mind. How about instead of having two different categories for video and print, we have a short list of "Series" at the top of the stories list, listing TV season, novel series titles, etc., as a shorthand for the timeframe, then below that the full story/episode listing?--Emperorkalan 12:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Chops 23:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia-Style Infoboxes

So I endeavored to create some Wikipedia-style infoboxes for the various interstellar states, starting with the UFP, a la the Infobox_Country templates. Unfortunately, my attempt seems not to have worked so well. Thoughts? Suggestions? -- Sci 09:36 6 May 2006 UTC

Followup: Community Articles?

It was suggested earlier that we experiment with the idea of a featured "community article". Just suggesting the Borg and others gave us a better article about the species, and a promising history of the Borg Collective, not to mention a better article for Kathryn Janeway and some much-needed attention to the Voyager crew.

I still think we should give the idea a try. If not formally on the main page, then informally here. If we need a suggestion, I think that our article for Data needs serious attention. --Turtletrekker 07:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Romulan Star Empire has been there for a while, so I'm going to call Borg Collective our first community article and start the process. --Chops 03:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm not aware of so dismal a stub for any other main character, so I've taken your suggestion and made Data our next one. I hope there's no objection to either of these; I'm just trying to jump-start the process. --Chops 03:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Novelization Box Proposal

Given that the films and there novelizations share the same page I feel episodes with novelizations should do likewise and as such have but together a proposal for a novelisation info box on the Broken Bow page. It puts together information from novel and episode info boxes into one unit. I wanted to check for agreement on the combination of novelization and episode pages before I did it and any feedback on box as it is, changes and such... --8of5 17:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Reference System

After looking at Wikipedia, and seeing what Ensign Fridan has done with the references on the John Harriman page, I wondered if the method of putting all the references at the end of the article, and just link the references to the particular section of the article would be neater than a long line of references next to a paragraph. What do you guys (and gals?) think? --The Doctor, 08:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I back you, Doctor, for the format Ensign Fridan has shied away from is the format I always use, which is also that used by Star Trek Encyclopedia, Star Trek Chronology and countless others. However, Fridan's method is still perfectly easy to read [maybe even (easier)] and each poster should maintain their individuality (nah-nah to the Bor-org) User:Stripey.

Hello people! Some clarification, I'm was not the one who started testing the ref system on the John Harriman article. (Look). I just cleaned it up when the new Ref system is available here. So, what do you guys think? :) --Ensign Fridan 09:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I thought it was you. I like the new system a lot better, it looks neater and less cluttered. --The Doctor, 09:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No biggie. I just like to credit where the credit is due. --Ensign Fridan 09:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hate to be the one to be negative but I really dont like it, I find it rather irritating to have to jump about an article to find a reference. The majority of articles only have large blocks of text with one reference per paragraph anyway but I can see the advantages of this system for the more reference cluttered articles. -- 8of5 00:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree with 8of5 about annoyance with the jumps. However, it is useful for cluttered pages, and I especially see a usefulness in places like the timeline pages (where the text is kept short, and thus source notes are comparatively long).--Emperorkalan 19:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm for using it on the longer, cluttered pages that would have many references. But the fewer references, the less logical this would be. But keep in mind that a consistant, wiki-wide (oh, that's fun to say) citation system looks better than one where there's a different system on every page. - Lieutenant Ayala 16:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Section 31 referencing

discussion was first started at Talk:Sean Hawk

Why is Section 31 prioritised as the series over TNG, for all the Section 31 books or any other books infact the miniseries is a subtitle to the main series, Rogue is primarily a TNG book rather than S31 surely? -- 8of5 08:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I kept the S31 references to be consistent with references to The Lost Era (TLE) that is also a cross-series miniseries. The TLE is considered the "main series" of those novels. Should S31 be different? --Ensign Fridan 12:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say yes, TLE is effectively a series in its own right, an anthology series, you could try and claim each book is part of one of the main series but they really aren’t, stories on Excelsior, Enterprise-B and with various characters from all over the place. Where as the Section 31 books are distinctly TOS, TNG, DS9 and Voyager books, set on the ship (or station) with the crew you automatically associate with each series. Why should Section 31 be any different than Invasion!, Day of Honor, Gateways etc? -- 8of5 13:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Going from the endpapers in the most recent books, Section 31 is a series in its own right, as is The Lost Era. I'd probably lean towards having the category for the novel based on what Pocket Books says it is - which would also mean Invasion! as a category, DoH as a category, and Gateways as a category. Though - could someone state which pages exactly are in question? DukeEgr93 13:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

At first I thought those cross-series miniseries you mentioned will get prioritized. (Well except for Invation! since the novels are numbered in their parent series.) I'm convinced now that the parent series will get prioritized. I will change all the references in my next round of cleanups. In the mean time, should TLE be added to Template:Series as it is also a series in its own right? --Ensign Fridan 13:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Groovey. I think TLE should be added to the series box (said so a couple of days ago in that discussion page in fact). There are at least two more books on the way, and as I said I'd consider a series in it's own right. -- 8of5 13:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)