Yeah! You go! – AT2Howell 15:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, even though AT2Howell apparently agrees that we have an "alternate history" here, how do we know which is "real" and which is "alternate"?
I think we need to look deeper at structuring the article like this (sorry, AT2) -- Captain MKB 15:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Let's vote. All those who choose to not ignore a dozen novels and a comic book, say "Aye". Those who think a video game can negate all other sources just so we can see the Federation and Klingons duke it out, say "ignore". Evidently, votes Aye. – AT2Howell 15:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry again, but that's not how it's going to work. We don't vote about which sources to ignore and which to recognize.
The point I'm trying to make is that, even though certain points about STO are slightly different that we would expect based on other sources, we shouldn't jump the gun and start "marking" all STO information with disclaimers about alternate history, based on five or ten discrepancies with the current novel series.
Let's use this talk page the right way and list here what doesn't fit between the STO Donatra and the Pocket Books Donatra, and then make a consensus. It's a little pointless to count votes when you haven't explained the points you would expect us to vote on here-- I haven't read any new novels nor have I familiarized myself with STO. -- Captain MKB 16:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The "new" novels are everything post television series. The post DS9 books detail quite a bit which contradicts the developments in the Online story. These include little differences like Bajoran/Cardassian politics and character development of Ro Laren. The post TNG, post Voyager, Titan, Articles of the Federation, and Klingon Empire books lead us to Destiny and beyond, all of which are extrememly contrary to STO on a galactic scale. A multitude of inter-galactic politics and character development is thrown out the window by STO. STO is headed for a Klingon/Federation showdown. The novels are headed for a Khitomer Accord/Typhon Pact showdown. The later has multiple sources to back it up. STO has only itself. My vote is that we igonore nothing, and place this errant timeline where it belongs. Anyone voting to pretend STO agrees with the rest of the universe is choosing to ignore the rest of the universe. – AT2Howell 16:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The point I need to make is that we don't need to note Donatra as being alternate history unles Donatra is different in STO -- please, let's not address the whole here, just what it had to do with Donatra.
For example, if STO and the new novels agree that the USS Lollipop was destroyed in 2381, then there's no problem with us writing the article about the USS Lollipop and NOT noting any of this "errant timeline" problem -- see what I mean? The parts of the STO timeline that don't contradict anything don't need this treatment -- Captain MKB 16:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

STO puts Donatra on the same side as the RSE after Tal Aura's death. The novels put Donatra on the UFP side due to the Khitomer/Typhon split. The two do not jive. – AT2Howell 16:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

However this occurs four years after the current novel continuity’s current extent. We have no idea how long the Typhon Pact will hold together, and while the Online timeline does not acknowledge the Pact there is nothing contradictory about the two Romulan states eventually reuniting. The only contradictions between Online and prose-verse for this particular page are the exact details of how Donatra formed the IRS (and even then they're pretty close).
And as I've noted before on this issue it is inappropriate for us to be using terms like alternate timeline and universe, that the language of fans rationalising, while these are instances of alternate continuities, both the prose and online universes are meant to be continuations of the "main" timeline. --8of5 16:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
To return to the USS Lolipop argument, if a novel says the USS Lolipop was destroyed in 2381 and another novel says the USS Lolipop-A was launched in 2383, I would say that between these two books that this is true. There is then a series of novels based around this incident. If a video game then comes along and tells a story about the adventures of the USS Lolipop which occured from 2382 until it's destruction in 2384, we must call this a mistake. If the video game goes on to claim that due to this incident, the Federation was conquered by the Pakled, we might consider it a tangent. An over simplification? Yes, but an accurate one. – AT2Howell 04:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid you've lost me. We're all aware you disagree with the game's direction, but are you trying to prove reasons why we shouldn't recognize the game?
If one source says a ship was lost in 2381, and another says the very same ship was lost in 2384, seems more like an error than an alternate timeline. If there are political consequences to the ship's loss, then they would have relevance regardless of which date we reference. -- Captain MKB 04:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The Donatra information on STO is more or less in line with the novels I think. There might be one or two points that are different but otherwise I don't see much problem with it. I persnoally think that if there is a minor point between the two novels that are different then it should be noted in italics. I mean its not like there hasnt been two different sources stated before in other articles. Surak's parents are different in the novel continuity when compared to the LUG one. And yet with those articles we don't put alternate universe on them. Just my thought though on the subject. – Darth Batrus 10:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I think we should use the Worf article as an example. Look at the bottom of his page. There is a bit that is offset from the rest of the article in italics. This presents information from a possible future for Worf which has not been ruled out yet. The reason it is offset is because it hasn't happened yet, and there is only one source. Let's do the same for Donatra's article. Italics and offset until we can get another source to confirm this information. Like a novel or two. I do not propose to ignore information, just to balance it with other sources. – AT2Howell 15:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the cited source for that bit on the Worf article, however from the information given there is no indication it occurs in an alternate future (or indeed nothing it conflicts with) so at the moment that information is poorly formatted and should not be an italised footnote but general information for that part of Worf's life.

Saying it hasn't happened yet is nonsense. The entire reason Memory Beta is written in past tense is because we have no present, we deal largely with information from three distinct time periods, with a minority of sources adding information from the far future and distant past. The leading edge of most of the 24th century prose stories might be 2381, but comics now take us up to 2387 and the Online game soon to leading the way into the 25th century. --8of5 17:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There really is no reason for that information to be seperate on this page or any other unless the books contradict it, in which case a solution can be found when that happens. --Long Live the United Earth 22:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

suran's first officer Edit

User: recently edited the personal timeline section to indicate Donatra was Suran's first officer from the moment she first served with him in 2367. Death in Winter describes Donatra's transfer to Suran's ship, when she was a centurion, twelve years prior to 2379, and later that she was "still serving as Suran's first officer" years earlier then 2379. I don't see evidence that when she first transferred she was first officer. --8of5 17:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Also the sidebar says she was born on Romulus, anyone know where that's from? --8of5 18:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

STO appearance Edit

The MA article on Donatra claims she re-appears in an STO mission. Are there any STO players that could provide details of this appearance? --8of5 02:07, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

"Bump" Still seeking information on this appearance. Any STO players out there? The STO wiki has a transcript of the mission here can anyone confirm the accuracy of that page. Or whether this picture of Borg-Donatra is also from the game? Does the game give any more information than the STO wiki can offer as a secondary source? --8of5 16:48, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

the Borg in ST online is Donatra its supposed to be the assimilated version of her

alternate continuities Edit

Are we set on 'online' and 'destiny' or are we open to 'novelverse' and 'onlineverse'? – AT2Howell 13:43, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Well the discussion on the matter never really seemed to reach a conclusion. I'm backing Online timeline and Destiny timeline myself, as it at least incorporates partial in-universe usage of the term timeline even if the descriptor is real world. The -verse suffix also introduces a technical issue in that these are not different universes, just different timelines (check out the alternate reality article to wrap your head around that one). Also, Mike has previously noted his severe dislike of the -verse suffix. --8of5 13:51, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

That works. I think that the multitude of books continuing to constitute the 'Destiny' timeline might deserve a broader nomenclature. We're going to have hundreds of books following a timeline named after a trillogy. Eh, well maybe some better name will present itself in the future. – AT2Howell 14:01, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but for now at least that name isn't obvious, Destiny is major point of divergence, and the effects of Destiny are defining how the series all go forward; The Typhon Pact, Project Full Circle, Titan's new mission, are all directly brought about by Destiny. --8of5 14:20, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

I think some sort of manner of annotating the change in realities should be found, I rather like calling subsections about the STO history 'The Path to 2409' as that describes what is going on to a tee -- it is the history of the STO stuff previous to 2409 and also the name of their major publication so it clicks with writers and reader that this is where the subsection is going.
As for the novel history, now that Destiny is over it might become a non-sequitur to use that word as a descriptor but I have also used the word 'destiny' in subsections to show alternate takes between the two.
One thing, I read the STO novel on AT1 Howell's extremely obsequious suggestion and found that the 'alternate reality' is not completely alternate -- after all, there are parts that remain the same and incongrous with each other -- Dulmer's recollection of Destiny for example.
It reminds me of DC Comics continuity after Crisis on Infinite Earths and Zero Hour, where the space-time continuum became so destabilized that universes merged and different inhabitants had different recollections 'within the same reality -- so the reality itself is not completely alternate, but some, but not all, of the people who inhabit it are.
In those stories, it depended on the situation but dead people showed up alive and not remembering their deaths because they were from another branch of reality where they had not died -- in particular, Hawkman became merged with multiple alternate versions of himself and retained memories of many timelines. I think 'fractured reality' might be a good descriptor but I'm not sure how to put it into use. -- Captain MKB 14:28, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

In this, I rely entirely upon your judgement. While I do own the Online book, it may be a very long time before I get around to reading it. And, of course, I refuse to play the game. It's kinda like the last season of Highlander. You know, those people who refuse to accept that Richie got his head cut off? Yeah, it's like that. Don't look at me like I'm crazy, you know what I'm talking about. – AT2Howell 14:35, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Couple of problems with the suggestion of using The Path to 2409 1) The STO timeline runs beyond it, into 2409 and events of STO itself 2) it could be misleading, making readers think the section deals exclusively with info from that source when it in fact can contain information from any of the Star Trek Online sources.
The "Destiny/Online timeline" headers make sure the readers can be sure which reality we are talking about by using the most major and defining title. But without restricting it to implying a single publication because the use of the word timeline implies more, these are dealing with the timeline Destiny or Online fall in, rather than just the events of Destiny or Online.
And are you still trying to argue for not separating this subjects Mike? In The Needs of the Many Dulmer recollections are given in the context of him, as a seasoned time traveller suffering temporal psychosis, recalling events from several alternate realities already established as realities, rather than just the ramblings of a madman. But also that's not the only source, Star Trek Magazine articles also set the president precedent in referring to the events of either reality as different timelines. --8of5 18:16, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, 'The Path to 2409' suggests it comes entirely from that online publication. A broader term like 'Online' would be prefered. Star Trek Magazine had a UFP president aware of both timelines? Where can I find that? Seriously, I'd like to read it. That would clear up a LOT of confusion. – AT2Howell 18:21, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Ha, whoops, weird typo, precedent! And yeah, a broader term would be great for the Destiny timeline too, but there isn't really one that springs to mind other than prose timeline, which is also misleading as not all Trek prose is in this timeline! --8of5 18:24, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record, I'm still against the changes using "Star Trek Online timeline" and "Star Trek Destiny" timeline as section titles in the body of the article because it breaks POV.
In the POV of the Star Trek universe, nobody would refer to events as "those from Star Trek Online" so this is a definite problem to staying in POV.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't note the divergence of these two flavors of reality, I'm saying we should find a way of annotating it while staying within our POV.
Since AT2 Howell is currently going through articles making these numerous changes to section headings, I'd like to have a discussion about what could be done to bring his edits in line with our prescribed POV. -- Captain MKB 14:19, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

8of5 and myself agreed that this was the best way to note the timeling. We discussed this back in June. It is now almost August. Are you telling me that you didn't have enough time to put your input into the discussion that we ALREADY had? I vote to keep calling it the Online timeline. – AT2Howell 14:22, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

I've identified the use of the term "Online" in section titles to be somewhat out of POV. There is no 'time limit' on an admin identifying a problem with how a POV policy is being followed, I have a concern, I'm bringing it up now. I've put input into previous discussions and am not satisfied by the outcome, but regardless, I don't feel like my previous POV comments were considered, and I did place such concerns into discussions, so obviously you missed them, but don't hold me responsible for your own lack of attention.
And no, I didn't have time, thanks to other problems with how people use the wiki, i was otherwise occupied. Since you identify this occurrence as being agreed upon by yourself and another admin, i think it would be best for additional input from people besides yourself and 8of5 who can add additional discussion and maybe not ignore some of the things i've tried to add. -- Captain MKB 14:50, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Then let's call this matter open for discussion. I like Online and Destiny. Opinions? – AT2Howell 14:56, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to repeat myself, but I'd hate to be accused of not putting input. "Online" is a name of a video game and describes our mode of access to it in real-life, a real world perspective -- we access it 'online' -- this term has no meaning in describing the events within the star trek universe.
For example, in the point-of-view (POV) of the star trek universe, you would never hear a character say to Captain Data "sir, that happened during the events of Star Trek Online" -- that would break the POV of the character existing inside the fictional universe.
Our POV policy recommends we stay within the POV of the Star Trek universe when writing in the body text of articles, so this word is not suited for a section title. We should find an intuitive way of describing these events. Unfortunately there isn't an easy way to figure out a pithy way to put this, but that's what we need to do to satisfy POV.
Our section titles should be more along the lines of "25th century", or "After the Long War", or "Alternate reality" to show these events from that perspective. "Destiny" still works as a term in this case as it is descriptive of what happened, albeit in a poetic manner i.e. 'the Borg met their destiny'
Section title terms like "Star Trek: Online reality" and "Shatner's universe" really break this rule. -- Captain MKB 15:05, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

"25th century" and "After the Long War" don't work because they imply that those events happened 'after' other established events. I like worlds like "Alternate", "Timeline", and "Continuity", as they are more reflective upon the differences we are trying to illustrate. – AT2Howell 15:13, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

About that those 'don't work' -- I'm not sure you understand correctly. These are examples of possibilities. There are events in STO that involve the aftermath of The Long War -- so using "After the Long War" would be perfect for describing something in the timeline that happens after that established event. It implys that because it is true, what part of that doesn't work for you. The sections we are talking about are describing events and implying when and how they happened.
"Continuity" is also not appropriate for POV -- it is a term used to describe fiction and stories, so it shouldn't be used to describe in-POV events.
Since I used 'alternate' as one of my suggestions, you could tell i approve of that one already, but it is only for use when the timeline or reality is provably alternate. Like, we have to versions of Donatra's fate, so one is 'aternate'.. We don't have two versions of Deep Space K7, so we might choose to use the date description "K7 in the 2390s" rather than adding in more timeline confusion to a short article. -- Captain MKB 15:22, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

I might be open to "Long War timeline" and "Destiny timeline". That make you happy? Even in an article like K7, to present the history of the station as being that of one of many timelines would do a great diservice to our readers. Since we have more than proven that these story lines are mutually exclusive to one another, we cannot pretend that they are sometimes the same. If an episode said that Data's plant was named Phil, we create a Phil article. If online says that Phil took control of the Ferengi and destoyed the Gorn in 2392, we MUST put this info under "Online" or something similar. True, it hasn't yet been countered by the "Destiny" series, but it should not be presented as being the universal outcome of Phil. Phil might just be a petunia in "Destiny", so it cannot be assumed his rise to a galactic power status is absolute to the Star Trek universe. We are obligated to note that information as being restricted to a single timeline. – AT2Howell 15:45, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

I think that we still are on different pages here. I accept that we need to note that the Borg, Donatra and Risa, etc. all have two different histories now. But tangential topics like DS K7, and Phil are not affected. It would be a disservice to impy to the readers that there is another history for Phil when none exists.
If STO says that Phil destroyed the Gorn in 2392, and no other source describes Phil doing anything different, it's not alternate to anything. It has nothing to do with the alternate timeline, so it would be off-topic to create a note like that in Phil's article. It would almost be like we were making up our own alternate history for Phil. Just because Phil has only been described in one timeline, it's not our job to theorize and create supposition that Phil will do anything in another timeline because there's currently no source describing alternate Phil's actions.
It's kind of like you want to create a fan fiction where Phil is a petunia and then describe it here. There's only one Phil in one licensed source, so of course he is the only Phil we need to describe. Petunia Phil is only in your imagination until he appears in a license novel that takes place in one other alternate reality. -- Captain MKB 16:03, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
And this sort of thing is exactly why I try get people to talk about issues and move forward with putting policy and guidelines in place! As soon as we got sources clearing up these are divergent timelines I started a a forum page about it to try and develop a policy to deal with it, and as ever it never got anywhere. Meaning when AT2 comes along months later and tries to get on with neatening things up he gets shot down!
My stand on the names, I support the Online/Destiny timeline headers. And here's why: I agree in general it is preferable to maintain in-universe headers, I suggested several we could use in that aforementioned discussion. But because there is no single event that split the timelines it is very difficult to come up with a succinct, accurate, and easy to understand pair of in-universe headings for these two timelines. And we also have to consider making the articles accessible for casual readers; I believe it will be much easier for readers to identify with titles indicating two major branches of Star Trek story telling than it will be to refer to a potentially obscure event that happens within either of those branches. In this particular instance using a real world header just makes things so much neater and easier to understand.
AT2, as Mike described you're totally off about examples like Deep Space Station K-7 though. Both of these timelines are the official continuation of the prime reality. If there is no contradiction then there is no reason to note it. For K-7 and examples like it the prime reality simply continues into the Online timeline, we don't know anything about it in the Destiny timeline, so there is nothing to differentiate! --8of5 16:12, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
8of5, I agree guidelines are great as you've championed them, but unfortunately our numbers are thin and I can't seem to edit often enough to get input into many of these these discussions, especially when they get intense and we have three people repeating themselves over and over again. As I've complained before, my last commentary is about a kilobyte, your response is almost 2 KB of text. Reading and annotating each point in paragraphical text just isn't working for me to get involved in every discussion, on top of editing, which i actually enjoy, and other admin tasks, like trying to get new users to source images, starting deletion discussions that few of our other admins care to participate in, and other admin tasks like cleanup and patrol, again, where I'm not getting a lot of help from our mostly-inactive admin group. I'd appreciate if my input could be listened to when I offer it instead of these continued admonitions to have spoken up sooner. My points are valid no matter when I add them, and I am just one man. It would be great if we could find a way to bullet point and distill long texts into votes or separate issues in some magic way that would make everything super easy when discussing/making policy, so that details like this don't get lost in the cracks.
I appreciate also your view on this discussion.
  • I agree with you that there are no other effective intuitive descriptions to avoid the "Online timeline" terminology -- I wish there was as I hate breaking POV. If we woke up tomorrow and they revealed that the changes in the timeline were caused by a villain using special Antitachyon Technology, we could call it the "Antitachyon reality" and be done breaking POV in that way... but there isn't, so we're going to be stuck here for a while. The shortest descriptor i could think of would be "Long War timeline" (but only for things pertaining to the Long War, so this isn't 100% effective and can't be used for every facet of the new reality like the STO franchise name does) In DC Comics they started calling them Earth-2 and Earth-Prime when things started to get divisive.
  • I agree with you that AT2 is going overboard, I hope I made my example clear to what you were also trying to say. -- Captain MKB 16:29, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

So, we've got one compromise, right? "Long War timeline" and "Destiny timeline is agreeable to all? I see your point about not identifying the difference in an article that has no alternate story to it, but you must try and see mine. The Long War timeline, the Destiny timeline, and the new film's timeline are all very different stories that do not belong together as a single narative. To not note a contribution as being exclusively from one of these is wrong. The bit with the parentesis is good, but a header would be even better. We have an established story for a thing. We then get more story on this thing from one source which has proven to be isolated from all other timelines. To leave this data, or lack of data without notation is negligence on our part and potentialy confusing to the reader. – AT2Howell 17:06, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

And Capt, please stop the edits until we come to an agreement. – AT2Howell 17:08, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
AT2Howell, the discussion has progressed and both 8of5 and I agree that those edits to K7, etc as they stand are not desirable. I don't know what other kind of agreement you are waiting for but we have one.
Again, you're missing the points we're trying to make. Each STO article will have a source citation, and that tells the reader plenty about what kind of story it is from. I'm not sure why you can't get this. You don't want Star Trek Online to be a continuation of the Star Trek timeline, but it is, and it's currently the only one in the 25th century, so there's no contradiction to note, it is the only narrative in the post-2387 era. There's no negligence in omitting other realities that do not exist.
As to the compromise, I agree that "Online timeline" is our best possible choice even though it is a technical violation of POV policy, as 8of5 agrees, we have no other recourse as we have a lack of in-POV descriptive terms. Other timelines we can call "Anti-time reality" or things like that, but no such luck here yet. We should be waiting for a replacement term, but we can move forward with this in cases where more intuitive but less convenient terms like "Divergent reality of the Long War" just sound a little too verbose to be efficient or desirable. -- Captain MKB 17:20, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so now you're cool with Online and Destiny? So, we can just keep using that nomenclature? Okay.

Now, you say that I'm trying to keep Online out of the "Star Trek timeline". I must ask, which timeline are you refering to? The Online narrative is not a continuation of the Destiny timeline, it is separate. And it's wonderful that Moulder or whatever his name is remembers the Destiny timeline, but this just establishes that he has been to more than one timeline. Destiny does not create Online. Online exists, but has nothing to do with Destiny. Let's just consider them seperate but equal, shall we? – AT2Howell 17:29, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

What Mike is referring to is that both the Online and Destiny timelines are the continuation of the prime reality. Labelling only the Online timeline in some articles is disingenuous because it is only as alternate as the Destiny timeline. As you say, we must treat these equally. --8of5 17:34, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could label articles with Online only or Destiny only bits as what timeline they come from, rather than just those from Online. This would be fair, and keep a high visability for those looking for information from one universe or the other. – AT2Howell 17:43, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that based on your use of the terms and our previous discussions about how to use them, we are compromising to use the terms until we can find a more intuitive in-universe descriptor which unfortunately doesn't exist, although I will still hope to experiment with the use of some type of "Divergent timeline" type usage that describes the same situation without breaking POV.
As to labeling every article containing info about certain sources, that sounds problematic. You are free to democratically suggest it in a proper location (a forum page proposing your idea) but I couldn't stand behind such a thing as you describe it now, I personally don't think it makes sense. I'd vote against it unless you really worked out the logic of how it would operate organizationally. -- Captain MKB 17:57, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Look at Species 8472. I've separated three different timelines to make the article understandable. You've seen the articles that just have a label in the middle that denotes everything below as being from Online only. What I was proposing was a similar label for that part in articles where the data takes on an entirely Destiny perspective. – AT2Howell 18:03, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Lol, way to pick an inappropriate example AT2! Have you read Places of Exile? It basically establishes 8472 exist in all timeline simultaneously! Anyway, I don’t see any problem there anyway, the setup there is pretty much exactly what Mike and I are talking about; information on 8472 is given in both timelines, so needs to be labelled as such. No argument there? --8of5 18:16, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

That's why I separated it like that. The article contains three very separate visions of the species, and must be presented that way. I was suggesting that Online and Destiny be treated the same way. Labled, but most definately apart. – AT2Howell 18:21, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone has argued against that, so long as there are two different things to label... --8of5 18:24, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Death? Edit

What is the justification for her death happening in 2381? – AT2Howell 14:26, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Same guy added the information that Sisko was divorced that same year. -- Might be in one of the new Typhon Pact novels. -- sulfur 15:44, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Not in the first one. Read that already. The second is set in 2382, so that doesn't work either. – AT2Howell 15:50, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

It's from Rough Beasts of Empire. The novel is out and for sale. - Nx1701g 21:30, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Cool. So she died before the novel (2382) and is mentioned in passing or something? – AT2Howell 21:35, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.