Memory Beta:Community Portal

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)

470395317347

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)

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?

Site Logo

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)

• 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....

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). —MJBurrage • TALK • 06:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Not to say that the blue/white MBeta logo above is not great looking. —MJBurrage • TALK • 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)

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. —MJBurrage • TALK • 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. ) —MJBurrage • TALK • 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. —MJBurrage • TALK • 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.) —MJBurrage • TALK • 13:29, 18 July 2006 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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.

Template:KlolodeClass

--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)

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)

Stardates

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)

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)

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 it...in 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...

• PRE-MONDAY, 25/10/2269 = Killing Time.
• MONDAY, 25/10/2269 - CIRCA. 30/12/2269 = Out Of Time!: The Alone.
• LATE OCTOBER = World Without End, The Girl Who Controlled Gene Kelly's Feet, Chain Of Attack, The Final Nexus and The End Of Night.
• NOVEMBER 2269 = The Final Voyage, The Price Of The Phoenix, The Fate Of The Phoenix, The Procrustean Petard, The Shoulders Of Giants, The Wounded Sky and Rihannsu#1: My Enemy, My Ally.
• DECEMBER 2269 = The Three-Minute Universe, Dreadnought!, Battlestations and First Frontier.
• CIRCA. 23/12/2269 = Prime Directive.
• CIRCA. 29/12/2269 = The Lost Years.
• CIRCA. 30/12/2269 - 2270, EARLY JANUARY = Black Fire.
• 2270, EARLY JANUARY = The Final Voyage and The Lost Years.
• 2270, MIDDLE JANUARY = The Lost Years.
• 2270, LATE JANUARY = Retrospect.
• 2270, FEBRUARY TO NOVEMBER = Star Trek: Federation.
• 2270, EARLY DECEMBER = The Captain's Daughter.
• WEDNESDAY, 14/12/2270 - SATURDAY, 1/1/2271 = Traitor Winds.
• 2271, MIDDLE JANUARY = Trekkers.
• 2271, EARLY MAY = The Eugenics Wars: The Rise And Fall Of Khan Noonien Singh, Volume One and The Eugenics Wars: The Rise And Fall Of Khan Noonien Singh, Volume Two.
• 2271, EARLY JUNE = Recovery.
• THURSDAY, 22/6/2271 = Night Whispers.
• FRIDAY, 23/6/2271 = The Needs Of The One and Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

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. So...post 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.

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)

The 40th Anniversary Community Project

I have been thinking that with the approach of the 40th anniversary of TOS and of Star Trek in general, that it would be great that we could all work on all TOS related articles and greatly increase our TOS coverage.

Now, I know that we all like to work on our own little projects and that some people aren't keen on TOS novels. But if we all work together on these articles it would not be such a daunting task and would be something we could be proud of at the end.

If this project is successful, then next year we could have a similar project for the 20th anniversary of TNG and the 10th of NF. I know that this entire project is something that will never be completely finished due to the continuous influx of new novels etc., but I believe that this would go along way in enhancing the wiki.

I'd like to know you're views, Thanks :-) --The Doctor, 07:32, 18 July 2006

Interesting idea. I've actually been trying to find time to write up info from a bunch of TOS comics (Mostly DC) that I had stowed in a box and recently uncovered (Ah! Lost treasures!). I've uploaded a few various images, but so far Kobry is the only full entry that has come of it, and most of that info came from a TNG novel. I'm just a little reluctant to go full bore on entries from this series, because there was a guy who started entries for the first few issues and a few characters, but I don't think he's contributed for a while.--Turtletrekker 09:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe this would be great. Such a project usually combines many efforts and makes it more fun, at the same time as the wiki is getting enhanced. Peter R 04:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Tis a good idea Doctor, I've only read a couple of TOS novels and the next I plan to is some time off, but I've been filling in some of the basics on the less developed novel pages and have a few TOS comics I could write up for the project -- 8of5 10:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've set up a special page to discuss the project, Here

Species Categories

I'm continuing a discussion that started on my talk page. This is what we've written so far. Peter R 17:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Pjotr'k, I think I understand why you've been adjusting all the pages categories; to avoid repetition on the category pages themselves. However having the multiple categories on each page is a useful navigation tool, for instance: The Klingon page now has a single category, Klingon, so if someone was on the Klingon page and thought, "hmm, I wonder what other species live in the Alpha and Beta Quadrants" they now have to go to Klingon category, or find that category by some other means, which maybe isn't that awful but it just makes things that little bit less convenient. Do you not think you should have at least discussed this in the community portal before going ahead and makes such substantial changes? -- 8of5 17:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you are right. I believe I have done the right thing, but will take it up in the community portal. See you there! Peter R 17:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

My motives for this action (and I apologize if I didn't take it up here first, I will try not to make that mistake again) is: - I believe that the best organization is a slim organization, and this requires that we don't put i.e. the article Klingon in both Category:Klingons, Category:Alpha and Beta Quadrant Species and Category:Species (or for that matter in the Delta Quadrant Species category, since they've also been establishing a foothold there - according to VOY series). It is better, IMO, that we only list that one in the category Klingons and see to it that this category is listed appropriately. - I think that the most likely scenario, if someone goes to the article Klingon, that they actually are interested in knowing more about the Klingons, instead of searching for neighboring species. (Small point: Since the Klingons have been at war with most of alpha/beta species, they are probably mentioned in the article anyhow) What do you others think? Again I apologize for me not taking it up here first. Peter R 17:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with you. Even such a broad category as "Characters" at least helps sift out authors, real-world production people, etc. And specifically your example above: Listing the "Klingon" article in the Klingon category is something of a catch-all, since the page is mostly a listing of individual Klingons, but that way one can go to the species page and find a direct link to the character listing. And personally, I think it's a very useful division to have separate categories for "Species" and "Alpha and Beta Quadrant Species", since there are uses for a listing of all species, and other uses for a listing of species within the main "playing field" of the ST universe. Technically perhaps the latter should be a subcategory of the former, but the real effect is to add one more step in between you and the page you're looking for. And are there that many pages where the Categories are so cluttered? (and the klingons are neither native to the Delta Quadrant nor is there more than a trivial presence, so no, they would not be listed in that category). A little pruning can be a good thing, but I think you've been going a little overboard.--Emperorkalan 19:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

One objection: I haven't meant that we shouldn't list the species categories in both Alpha/Beta and Species - they are all listed as that now, and that is correct. Alpha/Beta is also now a subcategory to species, and I understand that we should maintain the double listing on this point. However: Why list the article "Klingon" as part of all three of them? Why not list that article only in "Cat:Klingon" and have our focus on ordering mainly the category itself. It's easier to maintain, even when we decide to change standards in the future, and we get a better view on all the articles in this great wiki. BTW: How is the "Cat:Characters" benefitted from having maybe 1.000 characters listed in alphabetical order - it's not what we "sift through". What people mostly do is to start at their favorite series / subject and look there, or just make a Q&D search on the wiki search function. Peter R 20:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at, and actually I agree in part: the current situation is due to excessive cross-listing of categories. The biggest difference may be in how to organize it. For instance: I think it's proper that the article "Klingon" is listed in all three ... it's "Cat:Klingon" that should NOT be cross-listed in the species categories. Reason: the article points to Klingons as a species, whereas the Cat:Klingon page is primarily a listing of individual Klingons (and can effectively be considered a sub-page of the article) -- It's the species article which is the natural organizing point (at least on this matter; other topics will have other organizing points that we'll have to sort out). (And upon further reflection, given the nature of this wiki, "Cat:Character" is a bit redundant, since it can be considered a default condition. It might be that in a place like Memory Alpha, which pays more attention to the actors, writers, and other real-life production people that such a category serves a more useful purpose, and not so much here.) Is this making any sense?--Emperorkalan 21:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your last thoughts about "Cat:Character" being a bit redundant. Should we remove it completely, you think? I believe we should aim at having this category as a top category over all the categories that it's now having.

I understand what you are saying about the comparance Article/Category, but I see it as the Klingon article is to be seen as part of, or as "sub" to the Klingon category. This is where we can't meet in unison. Of course, if more people would involve themselves in this discussion (we'll give it some time, I think), then we could have some sort of vote. If the majority says one thing, I'll of course go along with that decision. Peter R 04:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

A vote could be done. One thing to consider, though (and why I didn't make a big issue of it when people started the excessive cross-listing), is "Is this really that important to tackle now, or wouldn't the time be better spent generating the basic material: going through the novels and other materials and creating the write-ups for the assorted characters, ships, and whatnot that appear -- the basic purpose of this wiki -- before getting all worked up over how the category trees hang?" My answer, obviously was for the basic material, otherwise you would have already found the cats all tidied up (albiet the way I think they should go ;). (One final point: if you get too particular about how you think the categories should be organized, be prepared to spend a lot of time "policing" the matter, as not everyone posting will adhere to the rules (whatever those rules may be).)--Emperorkalan 11:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Or, maybe we should take the discussion now instead of later... However, I see your point, and take your side on this. We wait with the debate (if not someone else feels up to it again! :) ) and see to it that it comes up again in time. Peter R 15:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think whilst it is of course important to keep adding new material I have to agree with Peter that sorting out categories is kind of important, if only because if we don’t do it now it means a huge amount of work for someone(s) when we do decide on something. However I firmly believe the Klingon article should be the focus of any link to Klingon, if I go to the species page and click on Klingon I expect to arrive directly at an article about Klingons not a list of things related to Klingons. There is already a link to the 'Klingons' category right at the top of the page, maybe a similar link to the 'Klingon culture' category should be added, and *poof* there's your hub based on the article with quick links to list of people who are Klingon and all things Klingon. ‎-- 8of5 16:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Amazon Standardized Inventory Numbers

Anyone who's spent much time at Amazon knows they sometimes assign inventory numbers which are different from the product's actual ISBN. In some cases, such as the VHS editions of the original series episodes, these are all digits and can still be wiki-linked as ISBNs. In others, such as the Braille edition of The Devil's Heart, ASIN B0006QS0GE, they contain letters and cannot be linked as ISBNs. Memory-Alpha recently overcame this problem by adding an ASIN template, and I was wondering if this wiki could do the same--Robert Treat 21:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Titan

I've created a template on Titan that I think could be used on all Titan articles (novels, main article, etc). Do you think this would be a thing that we could use? And, in a longer perspective, is it a standard we could use on other book series as well? It's just a start, but I created it so that you could see how I thought it. I also suggest that the Titan novels will get their own category that we put under Cat:TNG novels, what do you think about that? Peter R 09:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The template looks good to me. Informative on all the ships and characters associated with the series. Good work. :-) --The Doctor, 09:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, and indeed should be roled out for other series. One thing, whilst Romulus and Remus are prominet at the start of the series, Titan isn't headed back to them anytime soon. Where as the rest of the series is to be set in the Gum Nebula region isn't it? (I've only read the first one so far so only have second hand info). Also when the cover of book 4 is revealed I think it would be abit prettier to add the image of the Titan along the right side or something. -- 8of5 10:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh and completey agree with that particular category idea, same for Stargazer. And Vanguard under TOS too maybe. -- 8of5 10:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Okey, then I know how you think and since the reaction was so positive from you, I will add the template to the appropriate pages. 8of5: Is the region called "Gum Nebula"? I haven't got book #2 with me anymore, so I can't check it. The Romulus/Remus notice was just a start, since I couldn't remember the rest. We should probably add some characters as they are becoming more and more regular. Peter R 10:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe so, quite a few Titan related pages link to the Gum Nebula page. But I dont really know for sure having only read Taking Wing so far. Dependant on how others feel I think it would help to keep te now/next boxes. I know all the books are listed in the Titan box but it just makes things in line with the way the rest of the wiki naviagtaes and means if you arn't familar with the Titan box you can quickly find what you want in the common now/next box. -- 8of5 12:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this information becomes redundant and it's cluttering the pages, when it's also seen in the Titan template. And the fact that I experience the whole start box not at all nice (=good looking) has something to do with my standing on this issue as well. It is, however, not that big a deal, so if others think as you, I will comply (as they say in the Borg complex). Peter R 07:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not miss my second question, about Titan novels in their own category (as well as NF novels in their own category). Peter R 12:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)