A question I've got is if B-4 should be considered deceased or not? If his personality was overridden by Data's in the 2380s does that mean that B-4's personality no longer exists? Servo 03:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yet to be established. --8of5 23:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Alt timeline
He was declared a 'person' in the Destiny timeline. This is part of the discussion on how to handle Destiny/Online separation issues. AT2Howell 20:30, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm still not clear on what the difference between the two timelines. Didn't the same thing happen eventually in both? Maybe if you went into more detail than one sentence that doesn't really address the question... -- Captain MKB 20:54, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
I haven't read the Online book yet, but the Path to 2409 made it pretty clear that he was property, where the Destiny timeline had him become a 'person'. I see the user that added this recent bit talked about how Data didn't want to override B4's programming, but I notice no one is yet addressing that La Forge thought everyone would be cool with him killing Data's mentally handicapped brother. Maybe they'll cover that in the next Online book. AT2Howell 21:11, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
- If you haven't read the Online book, I fail to see how you are qualified to make judgements on whether users are entering valid info as the basis of your reversion. The same events occurred in both continuities, making this part of the "shared version" where both continuities meld, excepting of course minor inconsistencies that occur between related works. -- Captain MKB 21:43, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
In the Destiny storyline, Starfleet wanted B4 to be dismantled and studied as a piece of property. Thanks to intervention by The Doctor, he was declared a 'person' and therefore would not be studied. Path to 2409 has him considered property to be studied. They study him so they could kill him to replace Data. The new Online book evidently says Data felt real bad about this, and B4 sacrificed himself. The two storylines don't jive. Why do we have to fight this battle for every single topic? The Destiny timeline will never be the Online timeline, no matter how much you try. AT2Howell 14:22, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
- And why is it so hard to get you to explain that coherently? On a regular basis no less -- you consistently refuse to explain things like this unless someone calls you out on it. It's pretty strange for someone who obviously hates to write a complete thought to frequent a wiki. Why not take up knitting?
- I understand a lot more from you expressing a few thoughts in a paragraph, when compared to your "see discussion" comment where you didn't even have the courtesy to direct any users to the imaginary discussion you referred to. It's called courtesy and involvement -- and I expect every user in the community to give others in the community enough respect to explain why they are reverting edits. Including you. -- Captain MKB 00:24, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
While we're at it...
I know we haven't touched on this in a while, but I see, in a disclaimer for this article, the line "It is unknown whether the events of Star Trek: Countdown are set firmly in the STO continuity or if they occur in both." I only read Countdown once, but I remember that Spock was worried he didn't have enough red matter, and would have to use it all. I only saw the film twice, but I remember Spock's ship had a butt load of red matter. I submit to you that Countdown exists in neither continuity. AT2Howell 21:16, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
- I know you must be joking -- that's not at all a valid conclusion to be drawn from a simple and minor observation. You must know, Memory Beta does not ever 'declare' an alternate continuity derived from a minor inconsistencies. This inconsistency is unconfirmed, actually -- while one source worries after a shortage of the red matter, the others do not touch on whether the 'butt load' you observed actually fits the characteristics your own assumption makes for it. Simply put, no source ever stated whether it was 'too much' or 'enough' so the worry of a shortage might just have been a mis-estimate on Spock's part, and not an inconsistency - or it could be an inconsistency of multiple sources in the same continuity.
- If you're going to start trolling for fights over your own imaginary continuity concerns, I'd advise you look for more robust source material -- this one isn't even worth the time it took to write a response. I'm glad you didn't disrupt any articles by adding faulty data based on your flawed interpretation of how much red matter was there. -- Captain MKB 21:43, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
- There's nothing in Countdown that the novels in the non-STO track have contradicted. To this point. I don't even see a need for that disclaimer at all to be honest. -- sulfur 03:07, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
Picard
So, Picard kinda throws a wrench into things. --WTRiker (talk) 07:37, January 25, 2020 (UTC)
- yeah i'm considering resuming work on the continuity notice we discussed two or three years ago -- captainmike
09:27, January 25, 2020 (UTC)