Memory Beta, non-canon Star Trek Wiki

A friendly reminder regarding spoilers! At present the expanded Trek universe is in a period of major upheaval with the finale of Year Five, the Coda miniseries and the continuations of Discovery, Picard and Lower Decks; and the premieres of Prodigy and Strange New Worlds, the advent of new eras in Star Trek Online gaming, as well as other post-55th Anniversary publications. Therefore, please be courteous to other users who may not be aware of current developments by using the {{spoiler}}, {{spoilers}} or {{majorspoiler}} tags when adding new information from sources less than six months old. Also, please do not include details in the summary bar when editing pages and do not anticipate making additions relating to sources not yet in release. 'Thank You


Memory Beta, non-canon Star Trek Wiki

State of the Wiki 2006

As The doctor mentioned, he did post a letter on my talk page. I'm sure most of you have noticed that I haven't been around lately, and unfortunately unfortunately that's not likely to change drastically in the near future. Doc, I hope you don't mind that I've taken the liberty of posting your letter below. I think it's a good summary of the issues the wiki has been facing, some of which are already being debated below. --Chops 01:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. If you need me to do administrator stuff, is probably the best way to do it.

I have seen from the previous State of the Wiki discussion that a lot has changed over the past year, with a lot more users, and a more viable database with nearly 6,000 articles. Definitely a boost from what existed when I stumbled on the wiki in April.

Administrator and Maintenance Issues

But I still have some concerns about the state of the wiki. As mentioned on a recent discussion on Memory Alpha concerning the administrator issues. I know that following that discussion that Lieutenant Ayala came over and deleted images and performed maintenance that was much needed. But obviously one administrator can't watch over the wiki at all times, and so spammers and vandals are allowed to persist. For example, we have had an image of an ass on the wiki since Monday, and the vandal was allowed to put the image on several articles. Obviously we can revert the changes that were made, but can't ban the vandal so could return at any time. And the image of the ass is still on the wiki.

I believe the best option would be to set up a vote for a new administrator(s) that could then aid you in making sure that the wiki was as well as guarded as other wiki's such as Memory Alpha.

Site Name, Logo, and New Blood

My other issues with the wiki, is the overall look of it. 8of5, Ensign Fridan, and myself have spent a while creating uniform templates and navigation templates to improve the look of the wiki, and I believe that we have succeeded greatly. But I think we have to look at the issue of the wiki's name and logo.

For over 12 months, the name of Memory Beta has been suggested and approved by multiple users, and I feel that it would be a good time to execute that change. A good logo for the wiki would be the logo below, and the basis of the colors that we have used to tie into the templates and navigation boxes.


Another issue that should be addressed is the issue of drawing in new members who could work with us to greatly improve the wiki. At the moment we have a core group of members who have done great work with the wiki, but as there is only around 10 of us to contribute articles, we could be here forever. Also we all have our own particular favorites to contribute to, I believe if we were to start advertising the wiki we could increase our members and the coverage that they could provide.

Memory Alpha has achieved this brilliantly, through advertising on Trek related sites, but also through word of mouth and the books themselves. The forewards of several recent novels have stated they would like to thank the contributors of Memory Alpha for the information that they have used in their novel. I would like to see Memory Beta name-dropped in a book.

Thank you for noting my concerns. I am not some random moaner, I just care deeply about the wiki and wish to see it become an excellent companion to Memory Alpha and become the ultimate resource for the Expanded Universe of novels and games.--The doctor 09:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Administrator and Maintenance issues

I knew this would come up eventually, and we have enough users that it's not as easy as with Lieutenant Ayala. Still, there's only ten of us, so the process should go quickly. I'll set up a quick Requests for adminship page. --Chops 01:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Original Artwork

moved to forum: original artwork

Site Name

I just found a problem with using the EU name... and I may be opening a can of worms (and it may already have been opened elsewhere) but has it been discussed that the two Star Trek wikias (other than Memory Alpha) currently have their names switched. There is a fanon allowed Star Trek wikia called Star Trek Expanded Universe.

In most usage I am familiar with, "Expanded Universe" is the semi-cannon stuff like licensed novels, comics etc., and "Non-Cannon" is the unlicensed stuff. —MJBurrageTALK • 15:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There are four Star Trek wikis that I am now aware of.

Cannon-Level Current Name Proposal B Proposal C
Strict: On screen only Memory Alpha no change no change
Expanded: Licensed work Non-Cannon Star Trek Wiki Memory Beta Memory Omega
Non-: Un-licensed work Star Trek Expanded Universe Memory Omega Star Trek
IDIC Wikia
Fan Wiki
Hidden Frontier reality Hidden Frontier Encyclopedia no change no change

As I mentioned above, the current names of the 2nd and 3rd are essentially swapped from their implied meanings (see my first note at the Expanded Universe: Community Portal). Unfortunately, as logical as swapping names might be, it would probably cause much confusion. So I also proposed two other options. ( C is now my preferred choice, as I think three Memory ____ is a bit much. ) —MJBurrageTALK • 19:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I quite like the Memory Omega name, but another one for consideration would be Memory Prime, the name gathered from the novel Memory Prime. --The Doctor, 12:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Memory Prime sounds a little better on the tounge than Memory Omega, and it comes from a novel. (two marks in its favour). But Prime and Alpha are also both ways of implying First/Biggest/Lead, and so it might cause some confusion. —MJBurrageTALK • 13:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the "Memory"-suggestions. Maybe "Memory Omega" is best? I think "Memory Prime" will be confusing, as MJBurrage said. My vote is (for now) on Omega. Peter R 13:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I just updated my table with a suggestion from a user on the third wiki for their name (that I like more than my own.) —MJBurrageTALK • 13:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Memory Beta would be amazing. "Non-canon Star Trek Wiki" doesn't exactly roll of the tongue. -Werideatdusk, Memory-Alpha member

I second WeRideAtDusk, that Proposal B is my preference. Having this place be Memory Beta would be a lot more logical *grin*, as we are the second shell around the core data of Memory Alpha. --Commander, Starbase 23 18:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm torn. I think Memory Prime would be appropriate, as it is a database in the non-canon Trek universe, just as Memory Alpha is a database in the canon Trek universe. I don't see how the "First/Biggest/Lead" is an issue.

Memory Beta makes us seem as if we have an affiliation with Memory Alpha and we don't. In fact with the attitude's of some (not all) of the MA'ers that have come in here (calling us "quaint" or my favorite, "less important" or "less real"), I'm not sure I want to be affiliated with them.

I used to go to MA myself and link some articles to ours by way of the "Apocryphia" sections, but I don't bother anymore. I've even stopped linking my own articles here to MA and even try to avoid using the same images.--Turtletrekker 21:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Any name I would be pleased with. This is one of many issues that I have brought up on the talk pages for Chops and Lieutenant Ayala about the state of the wiki. I think we all care about how this wiki looks and we have all tried to improve it, but we can't perform all of the essential maintenance to the wiki without sysop rights. We can't ban vandals and spammers who put up pictures of asses and goes mad swapping images. Or the incident with Steven Colbert a month or so ago when nearly 100 pages were overwritten with an image.
I don't know whether my points will ever be addressed, I sincerely hope so, because if we can work together we can make this wiki worthy of any of the great wiki's like Memory Alpha or Wookiepedia.--The doctor 22:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I originally suggested IDICanons for the name of this wiki (a name which I now despise, but I didn't really understand the concept of "canon" then), but Angela suggested this name because mine was too obscure. I was surprised enough at getting a positive response that I didn't think twice about it.

It's quite a bit to ask for a wiki to be transfered to a new name, but I agree this warents it. I'll stand by whatever name the community picks (as long as it's not IDICanons) and send the request to Angela myself. I might pop my head in again after giving some more thought, but right now I don't have a lot to add to the discussion itself.

Well, now at least the Community Portal link links to something. The prefix could be catchier than "Non-canon Star Trek Wiki" - Maybe some day this will be a sister project for MA and it can be Memory Beta. ;) --Schrei 02:25, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I quite like Memory Beta. Or how about Memory Omega? Or maybe Star Trek: Expanded Universe is more self-explanatory?
--Mantrid 07:45, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Logo.gif Logo noncanon.gif Logo memorybeta.gif Logo memoryomega.gif

  • I also like "Memory Beta" alot, if a little vague. And I am quite aware of the rather uncatchyness of "The Non-canon Star Trek Wikicity". - Lieutenant Ayala 10:46, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • While I would like "Memory Beta", i think we'll wait and see if we can improve this database first before changing the name, so at current I think the one with the current name is best, and has been uploaded. - Lieutenant Ayala 21:11, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

It's possible to replace the Wikicities logo above the search bar by uploading an image called Search_logo.png - see Furry:Image:Search logo.png for an example. Maybe you could make something for that too? --Schrei 05:33, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • For the record, I have no affiliation with that site and I'm not sure what exactly it's about (see Furry:Furry). --Schrei 05:35, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I was just messing around on Fireworks and I thought I'd try my hand at a possinle site logo. I don't know what you guys think....

PossiblembLogo.gif I was thinking of putting UN/Starfleet-esque ivy branches around the oval with the stars and the Beta symbol but was too lazy at the time to figure it out. If you guys like it I could certainly look into it. Also if anyone has any other suggestion on how I could improve it, please tell me. Dr. D 01:51, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • More fireworks fun for the logo, stealing Dr. D's topology and idea for the wreath:

though I realize now I need to make the overall canvas a bit bigger so the glow doesn't go off the page... And it's jaggie because I didn't size it yet. DukeEgr93 00:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that Star Trek Expanded Universe works best. It's meaning is understood due to the existing use with Star Wars, and it is clearer than non-cannon concerning what is (or is not) included here. My second choice would be Memory Omega as an obvious play on MA (α & Ω = beginning & end, but it does suggest some official connection). —MJBurrageTALK • 06:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Not to say that the blue/white MBeta logo above is not great looking. —MJBurrageTALK • 06:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks  :) How about something on the order of:

BTW - this is why I love fireworks. DukeEgr93 03:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


As far as the timline boxes are concerned, exactly when are we counting it as "unknown", as opposed to counting back from from the TNG system? And should we bother with the older versions? The exact changeover point has never been established.

The TOS stardates are mostly useful only in relation to each other. The TOS Movie stardates also don't have a clear system but wound up being a bit more rationalized: Events in the 2270s have a 7000 stardate, events in the 2280s have 8000 stardates, and events in the 2290s have 9000 stardates. The timing of events within those decades doesn't fit the neat 1000/decade, but that isn't the point here. I once figured out a system to bridge the old and TNG systems by extending the movie's 1000/decade system, but starting as of 2300 keeping consistent dating a la the TNG system. This system and the TNG system met at some point in 2336. Now, since that was my own little thing is doesn't have a place here, but until something clarifies the issue, may I suggest using the "Stardate: unknown" for years prior to 2337 (or if rounding is desirable, 2340), and the extrapolated TNG system for later years.

(This is mainly to avoid "edit wars" on what is at this time an inherently subjective topic.)--Emperorkalan 01:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It was my understanding that the TNG Stardate system began in 2323, but this has never been confirmed and is still classed as conjecture I suppose, so I agree with what you stated. If you thought an edit war was going on over the issue, I apologise for my over-zealousnous and hope that I didn't offend you. --Bok2384 08:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
No apology needed, Bok. You were correcting an obviously wrong date, which prompted me to check on others, which drew my attention to the "where do we draw the line" problem. The point was to establish a ground-rule to prevent potential edit wars in the future, not to imply one was underway.--Emperorkalan 15:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Since this grey area is unlikely to be addressed properly in any future source, I don't see a problem with using an exrapolation. Personally, I think that Andrew Main's is very well thought out. Are there any other good ones? --Chops 19:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I second Andrew Main's system, as it is the one I use on my own site. It is still the best rationalisation/investigation I've ever seen, but I now have a problem with his whole concept of stardate "issues". For simplicity's sake I now think there should be one stardate "issue", and it should merge. Thus, stardate 0000.0 should be 1st January 2265 and using a variation on Andrew Main's theme flow smoothly into the TNG system. I just tried playing around with another system based on this, but shoving back the start date by a year messes up the TOS episode years. Either that or we keep Andrew's system as is and stardates begin in January 2266. I currently have a system in place (wrote my own C++ program to calculate stardates) which merges Andrew's system with a smooth flow into TNG Dates around 2346 (going from 0.5 dates/day into the 1000 dates/year), completely ignoring the "issues". Anyone have a better idea?
I'm inclined to say "yes", but other folks evidently prefer the system mentioned above. His system of "resets" seems a little overly-complicated to me, but then I guess we had different goals: he was after "accurate", whereas I was after a smooth, seamless bridge. But unless Series 5 (or 6) takes place in the first part of the 24th C, no canon source is ever going to hash it out, so it's all subjective anyway.--Emperorkalan 16:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Date of TMP

Just creating a space for those who want to debate this issue--Emperorkalan 00:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There is not that much to debate on the issue. For many years people believed that the first five-year mission ended in 2269 (thank you Michael Okuda), and then based the dating of TMP on the line by Scotty that he has spent 18 months repairing and refitting the Enterprise. This means that TMP would take place in 2271.
However, what is now thought and used by Pocket Books in their novels and reference books is the date 2273. This date is based on two things: (1) Thanks to the VOY episode: "Q2", we know that the five-year mission now ended in 2270, which is great as it allows an extra year to add TAS and a lot of novels. (2) People now forget the 18 month reference by Scotty, and look toward the line by Decker that Kirk had "not logged a single star hour in 2.5 years", so we known that it has 2.5 years since the end of the mission, hence 2273. Thank You, Goodnight :) --The Doctor 07:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I know that, and you know that, but I'm trying to draw the anonymous poster who keeps changing dates into a discussion rather than just a pointless edit war. He or she apparently hasn't learned how to use the discussion pages yet.--Emperorkalan 10:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you will. I believe he/she is an idiotic spammer who can't change things on the Main Page anymore and is attacking other pages. If you'll notice, the same edits were made with two different IP addresses. Very Suspect :) --The Doctor 11:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
My count was three IP's. Over the weekend he/she/it added (somewhat snarky) explanatory paragraphs (check the edit histories). If it's a troll, I can't help that. But if it's someone who just needs a little more guidance on how to participate in a wiki, a link to lure them someplace where there can be some back-and-forth can't hurt.--Emperorkalan 11:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong I thinks it's a good idea to do what you've done, as I think there should be a bit more guidance for new users on the wiki. I had problems at first, but I looked at previous contributors to look at their style, to formulate my own. I just think that this particular troll is attempting to get a rise out of us and succeeding in some cases (hangs head in shame) :) --The Doctor 11:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I feel your pain Doc. ;-)--Turtletrekker 20:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Your words "idiotic spammer" and "troll" are SOOOO lovely. Very open-minded and very Starfleet. I AM new to adding/editing Wikipedia, so coming across namecalling was not pleasant. I am happy to discuss debates of all varieties, but I have never been a "spammer" nor do I believe I wrote those bracketed explanations in a "snarky" or "hoping to cause a rise" fashion. When you've both returned to the original reasons you made a link to THIS page, I'll be happy to debate, but DON'T call others lowlife names. I hope you notice I've namecalled neither of you. - User:Stripey

Oh, and another thing. My re-read of your posts above had me notice a reference to two or three I.P.'s. I'm not responsible for a second or third. Other fans are clearly returning the likes of 2273 to 2271 as I was. If you want to say THEY are spamming, go ahead, but I'm not them. - User:Stripey

It's been a few hours, I think, since I posted the above, so I decided to google 'troll', being unaware of it's use. I am not a troll. Wikipedia's entry includes references to beings who think/consider ideas in a...different...way, sometimes mistaken for troll behaviour. That's more accurate. I have a very long file of my Trek collection, and entries surrounding TMP, such as Black Fire and We Are Dying, Egypt, Dying cannot be placed in other years in my opinion. I might be willing to change TMP in my list from 2271, but it will mess up the surroundings a lot.

That being the case, I apologise wholeheartedly for insulting you. When this was all happening it was after a heavy speight of troll vandalism on the wiki offering viagra etc., during that time we became very irritated by constant trolls. I can't apologise enough for what was said and hope that no serious offence was caused.
Getting back on topic, I also presumed that TMP also took place in 2271, but as stated above many reference in the last 6 years do strongly suggest a 2273 date. I known it is annoying to have your long held ideas questioned, but I few it in the way that it is a learning curve. A lot of the early novels/comics etc. had a strange idea of the chronological order of the series. For instance the novel The Vulcan Academy Murders is clearly set before "A Private Little War" as M'Benga was introduced in that book, but it also states that it has been two years since "Amok Time" which in the modern chronology was about six months earlier. So I tend to go against many dates given in the early TOS novels and go with later references. :) --The Doctor 09:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted [though I still hurt]. I, like I'm sure most fans do, don't take EVERYTHING that claims to pin a date down, at face value. I recall Gateways: Cold Wars saying M'Ress was taken from Ceti Alpha V. Not an easy thing to believe whatsoever, LOL. As I said, I am indeed new to editing wikipedia. I've done some adding to Alice Liddell, Dorothy Gale, Susan Pevensie and Wendy Darling recently, and enjoyed the resultant success with italics, colour, etc.. As you point out, observing brackets, etc. will help me learn. Thank you. I still can't find that vertical line you put between the two versions of 'The Doctor' though... User:Stripey.

First off: Welcome Stripey! Sorry about the misunderstandings -- The Doctor pointed out some of what was happening immediately prior to your arrival, and I'll add to that the fact that short text messages like this are probably the worst form of commumication ever invented, because people are completely unable to tell if they're being misinterpreted until well after the fact. (That's part of why diplomatic and business correspondence is so long and bland.) And it works both ways (e.g., you had no intent to be "snarky", but that was how it came across at the time). Hopefully we can put all that bad news behind us. As for the vertical line, on my keyboard it's at the right end of the "QWERTY" row, as the shift of the "\" key (the symbol on the keyboard shows a line with a gap in the middle, not the solid veritcal line that shows onscreen). Your keyboard may vary. Also, you should go to the main page and register: it doesn't cost anything, but you'll be able to use the automatic signature/time/date stamp tool instead of typing it out every time. (the sig/time/date stamp is the second button from the right immediately above the edit text box: it adds "--~~~~" to your post, which is automatically converted to your Username, and the time/date you save your edit).--Emperorkalan 12:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Gods, I'm such a failure, heheh. I tried to find how to register, but got to a members page and made a hash of adding myself to it.  :( User:Stripey.

Lol. The best way to register is to look at the top right hand corner of the screen where it says "Log In/Register", just click on that then enter your name and password, and you're away. :) --The Doctor 12:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Dating TOS and TMP

Now, what I'm interested in hearing are what the obstacles are (in your view) to shifting TMP to 2273. --Emperorkalan 00:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So long as you don't mind the LENGTH of my answer, I'll give bits. I'll show you what my list has between just before October 25, 2269 and go up to Star Trek: The Motion Picture itself. I would be pleased to hear any way in which my dates can be rearranged...

That lot has taken years to put in order. I would find it difficult to place them elsewhere. I will relate my collection of 2271 - 2274 soon.

Stripey: I hope you'll forgive my presumption, but I've edited your post to format it in the way it looks like you were trying to in the edit view. In wikis, a single carraige return won't create a new line; two will. Also, using a * at the start of a line creates bullet points, and :'s at the start of a line will indent that section (multiple colons will increase the level of indent)--Emperorkalan 15:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid simply listing them out doesn't explain why you don't think the arrangement can't be altered or extended in light of new information. Especially since many of those were written before the current general timeline was established. Maybe the second list will shed more light --Emperorkalan 15:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that. I'm first showing you all what I have surrounding TMP, as a starter toward the debate. TMP, I have...

  • CIRCA. EARLY JULY 2271 = Tomorrow Or Yesterday.
  • SEPTEMBER 2271 = ...Like A Woman Scorned!.
  • OCTOBER 2271 = All The Infinite Ways.
  • NOVEMBER 2271 = There's No Space Like Gnomes.
  • DECEMBER 2271 = "Chekov's Choice", Yesterday's Son and Home Is The Hunter.
  • 2272 = We Are Dying, Egypt, Dying!.
  • THURSDAY, 31/10/2272 - 2273, LATE APRIL = New Earth: Wagon Train To The Stars.
  • 2273, JANUARY = A Piece Of The Pie.
  • 2273, MAY - SEPTEMBER = The Past Comes Back To Haunt Dr. McCoy! Past Imperfect and Enemy Unseen.
  • 2273, OCTOBER = To Hellguard And Back, The Pandora Principle and Introducing Saavik! Worlds Collide.
  • NOVEMBER 2273 = A Piece Of The Pie, To Wherever, The Blaze Of Glory, The Kobayashi Maru, Firestorm and Ice Trap.
  • DECEMBER 2273 = The Better Man.

Audio Books

We have three categories which to me cover the same thing but maybe are different enough to keep, they are Category:Audiocassettes, Category:EAudios. Category:Audio Books. I suggest having a single Audio Books category. -- 8of5 16:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Categories & Contradictions

Hi. I'm new here. I have been adding some entries here and there, and when adding some Titan and Voyager relaunch characters I came across some strange category problems. I did some work on trying to make them match up, but I kind of don't understand the need for separate categories "Chief Engineers" and "Starfleet Chief Engineers" or "Chief Medical Officers" and "Starfleet chief medical officers" and the like. I wonder if maybe we could do without one or the other.

Also, I am very unfamiliar with the video games used as sources. Which is considered more "canonical," novels or games? For example, there is an entry on a game character named "Dr. Stevenson" who is supposedly the CMO of the Enterprise-E in 2380. Technically, I suppose, Crusher could have left again or been killed in the year following Death in Winter, but it seems unlikely. If Crusher does end up being E-E CMO for the whole year, does Stevenson automatically become less "real?"

Thanks for listening. --Trebligoniqua 22:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the category issues, 8of5 and myself are currently reformatting and rejigging the categories and we just haven't gotten around to sorting those categories yet. A huge amount of work is needed in sorting out the categories, as seen in my recent sorting of the starship categories which has taken me nearly two weeks to complete (finally finished (yay!)). The best advice is to just bear with us on the category issue.
On the note of "canonical" placement as it where, I think our stance is to respect the so-called heirarchy of sources, e.g.
  • Episodes
  • Novels
  • Reference Books
  • Games
So in the case of Crusher and Stevenson we would note the discrepancy on each of their pages about their situation. I hope this all helps. :-)--The Doctor 22:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)