Memory Beta, non-canon Star Trek Wiki

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


Memory Beta, non-canon Star Trek Wiki

Older talk: Archive and Archive II

Please post new stuff after the beep. *BEEP*

Early Voyages observations[]

You're really pulling apart ST:EV lately -- looks like pretty good work you're doing! I tried to make an EV-only encyclopedia as my first website, pre-wiki in the GeoCities era. You've already surpassed what I had done, obviously.

I was wondering something -- the last crew pic you uploaded looks like the colorist had abandoned the operations/command color difference present in The Cage. in The Cage, Colt and Tyler both wore beige, not gold. By most presumption, Grace and Nano should wear beige also. I remember them being mostly accurate early on, but you might want to see how often they gave up on trying to accurately show the difference between the similar uniforms. -- Captain MKB 15:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

*flip flip flip* looks to me like they consistently went for "everyone wears yellow or blue", ops and command look to be consistently colored in exactly the same tone - there's the odd instance where one looks a bit darker or lighter, but it appears to be about being in shadowed areas, as they're the same color in other panels. The only variation I spot is a couple of higher ranking people (admirals and such) wearing greenish tops, and the technicians on Starbase 13 who wear bright orange jumpsuits rather than the typical blue ones. --8of5 15:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and thankies for the compliment :) --8of5 15:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The image of Miri's homeworld is a picture of Earth!!!--Not Spock 02:17, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Borg history[]

Really? I was being facetious. – AT2Howell 22:06, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

I don’t particularly care what you were being, the Star Trek Magazine was kind enough to provide a pretty neat explanation of the seemingly contradictory Borg histories; the article was long overdue an update to reflect the information provided by one of our sources. --8of5 22:10, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Alright, dude. The timing was just weird. Capt and I were just talking about this. – AT2Howell 22:11, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Talking is a rather euphemistic term for your... persistence... :P Can you guess how I found myself on that article noticing how out of date it was ;) --8of5 22:18, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Foreign covers[]

The foreign cover of Gods of Night looks awesome, thanks for sharing it. It amazes me that reprintings get nice illustrative covers, but American print editions have photoshopped garbage on the front of what is essentially the same book. Go figure! -- Captain MKB 14:45, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least we get to see them. Good ol' internets. I agree, the Germany covers for TNG relaunch are way better too! --8of5 04:49, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Images from DVD features?[]

I'm not a big follower of DVD extras/eastereggs -- is this the source of the drawings of the ST09 ships someone is uploading right now? -- Captain MKB 22:31, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

I think a couple of the ships schematics flash up briefly in one of the featurettes, so yeah it's probably accurate. However the same style of diagram of all the ships is also in the Art of the Film book, so we can probably get better quality images of the whole fleet from there. --8of5 22:42, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
I got a little shocked as one of the images was uploaded -over- an actual screencap.. but then i saw i had actually uploaded the screencap over the drawing months ago. :P - now we just need to categorize all those crazy new ships. -- Captain MKB 23:25, March 3, 2010 (UTC)


Good job adding some style to the ufp presidents! -- Captain MKB 22:59, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, tackling that page has been on my to-do list for some time! :) --8of5 15:20, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Admin stuff[]

Hey 8, there's a new user challenging the 'do not copy' rule - do you have a take on this? I know the rule is kind of vague regarding other wiki sources

Thanks for your help. -- Captain MKB 13:35, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

The situation has escalated, someone is trolling on facebook trying to convince new users to come onboard and challenge our policy, and me personally. I find it very distracting and want you to be aware I might need backup if the 'singling out' continues.
I'm not the only admin here, but at least two new users with no actual article edits are making their presence known, criticizing our site, calling for my 'removal' from the site. I'm going to have to take this personal and would like to count on your support in enforcing my own defense against personal attack -- so it doesn't appear like i am the only person on this site who has a problem with disruption and sockpuppetry and trolling. -- Captain MKB 16:19, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
Consider my support counted, though I'm confused, I don’t see indication of some sort of mass outside attack going, just one persistently bothersome user --8of5 16:42, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
A-ha, found it, on your talk page; yes that is rather annoying... I guess we shall have to see how this plays out, if these random new user continue to do nothing but attack you, and especially if they are not contributing to the site in any other way, I have no problem having a word with them. --8of5 16:52, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Cross Cult[]

Hi 8, great work on the Cross Cult article, I think its brilliant that we're including additional stuff which was done in different languages, top stuff. And I must say, that some of their covers are better than the Pocket Books ones. :-D --The Doctor 10:20, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Well I've been adding the covers for a while (and agree they have some great ones), I figured it was about time I collected them a bit :P I'd like to expand our coverage in this area, although the only non-English language publishers I know anything about are Cross Cult, so keep your eyes open for others! --8of5 10:23, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
Will do. There may also be scope to upgrade the article on TOS novels published by Titan Books in the 80s/90s. They used a different numbering system and, IIRC, had many different covers as well. I'll have to do a bit of research, as I have many of the old Titan novels with me. --The Doctor 10:32, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it the different cover art that really keeps my attention on this sort of thing. I have one or two of those Titan repints, but not a lot as I don’t own most of the older novels! I'd love to see more pages like Spock, Messiah! for example, I tracked down a whole bunch of different editions for that a while ago!

New comment: Great work on the article, but I've removed the mentioning of the audiobooks from it, since Cross Cult isn't really publishing them. While their translations are used, the actual publisher is Since both seem to be represented by Marcus Rhode for PR purposes there is heavy cross promotion and both are represented on, which is run by Markus Rhode's company, but the novel line and the audio book line are separated. --Defcon 11:29, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Style guide[]

I'd like to contest the phrasing of 'publisher's description' in the style guide, and change to a new standard. could we start a talk page about that too? -- `Captain MKB 16:25, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Though you might not need to start a new page as if you look you'll already see a rather long discussion (of which you were one of three contributors) that led to current formatting on the style guide talk page. --8of5 17:30, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
That's the problem with long discussions -- who has time to read everything they're commenting on? ;-) -- Captain MKB 22:13, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

People who give a damn?... --8of5 21:57, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Well, here's some "people-relation" skills for you, 8of5 -- if there are only a few people who give a damn, and you want to reach an agreement with someone who gives a damn, try not being so snide and rude, saying that that person's initial commentary is 'utterly ridiculous', and then calling said person 'too lazy' to keep up when they say they turn their back on your rudeness. Now you've dragged the whole group in to see the debacle (people who don't give a damn, i might add).
What exactly am I supposed to do? Will you continue to characterize my edits as "vandalism" because I disagree with your decision to reformat the style guide? I already put in my comments, you dismissed them as ridiculous, and I admitted being too lazy to write a book on that talk page. Does that make me a vandal if I reformat the USS Lollipop article later, because I refused to play your game? A vandal because I want to edit articles in-universe instead of defending myself against what is starting to feel like a personal attack on my ridiculous argument and my laziness? -- Captain MKB 14:11, June 20, 2010 (UTC)


No, not Mike ;)

There's an anon putting all sorts of garbage on some of the articles with mouseover java code/etc. He's done it to at least a couple of articles so far, and it might be worth putting in a temporary block to take care of it for now: -- sulfur 16:11, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Sorted :) --8of5 16:19, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Alternate reality (Nero, 2233)[]

Do you think the page Alternate reality (Nero, 2233) could have more information on the reality.--TyphussJediVader 20:47, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

A lot more. It could have a history section, and a section detailing differences between it and the prime reality, for instance. --8of5 21:59, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

I would like to work with you on Alternate reality (Nero, 2233) page, adding more to the page. Write me back when you read this. --TyphussJediVader 01:24, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

We could do the sections like that:

History (First)


Alteration (2nd)

Destruction of Vulcan

I don't quite understand the sections you have proposed, could you elaborate? --8of5 01:35, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Nero's ship comes from 2387, we could talk about the destruction of Romulus. Nero's ship gets pulled into a black hole and goes back in time to 2233. Nero attacks the USS Kelvin and Lt. Kirk is killed that starts the alternate reality where everything changes at that point. Understand now.--TyphussJediVader 01:42, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well, while the destruction of Romulus is key to Nero's motivation, it doesn't actually occur in this new timeline, so would be better explored in full detail on other pages, such as Romulus, 2387, and Hobus supernova. It will probably need to be mentioned in the exploration of the new timeline, but the article should stay focused on the timeline itself. So the starting point I think should be the arrival of the Narada and the destruction of the Kelvin, and the effects that incident had. --8of5 01:47, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Right. So do you want to work with me on that page then.--TyphussJediVader 01:51, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

It's a page I plan on working on at some point, so sure. If you want to make a start I'll be happy to add in any bits I feel you miss and/or suggest further additions/improvements :) --8of5

Comics stuff[]

A couple of links you may not have seen:

Thought that you might be interested. -- sulfur 11:54, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Have seen, but thanks very much for thinking of me :) I'm rather worried about the very steady decline the numbers show, especially when I note IDW have been releasing only two new issues in several months this year. Hope they're not planning on just gradually giving up! --8of5 13:46, June 29, 2010 (UTC)


So myself and another user were having a bit of a back-and-forth yesterday on the Edward Jellico talk page that ran the risk of turning into a multi-page edit war, so I went to Mike for help, and he rather wisely set up Forum:Presuming titles, ranks and insignia in licensed character articles. Unfortunately, when I contributed to the discussion there, he decided that the question I had asked didn't really need addressing and changed the topic, even going so far as to change and partially delete my commentary (moving it to my talk page) when I made the error of addressing the original question. He also seems to have taken one of my sources as a personal affront for some bizarre reason. I really hate to ask this, but if you have a moment, would you be willing to scan over things and possibly be willing to come mediate between me and the person I had asked to be the mediator?
--IcarusPhoenix 21:51, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

The topic was whether ColumbiaClipper should assign ranks to characters with unknown ranks based on their positions. User IcarusPhoenix tried to turn the topic into a question of whether non-canon ranks actually should be recognized at all, which is a different discussion.
I will even start a separate forum regarding canon ranks, but I'd much rather follow two forum discussions with one topic each than a large forum pileup with multiple topics. That's why I specifically started the forum that stated that no other topics besides the title would be discussed. I've responded on my talk page and we can move your discussion forward now without being a jerk about it and polling the rest of the admins about why i chose to follow my own rules when you asked. -- Captain MKB 22:09, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
When Columbia and I were on the verge of an edit war over sources (not just assumptions), I did what seemed sensible; I asked you to moderate. When you got offended that I had discussed exactly the problem I had asked about, I figured that arguing with you would be unwise, and did exactly the same thing... asked for moderation, this time from 8of5. These actions are pretty consistent if you ask me.
--IcarusPhoenix 22:17, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Perhapes guys you could just try and state your arguments and evidence and leave the personal stuff out of it entirely? I'm afraid this particular topic is not one I know anything about at all, so I wont be much good in that regard, Mike and Columbia seem to be our current uniform/rank experts, so hopefully between the three of you, you can work out the issue.

Mike, I don't think moving someone else's comments was necessarily a great way to get the discussion developing. I know very well you're capable of selective replying, so you could have opted to ignore it, or left a short comment asking the user to continue the discussion elsewhere if they felt the necessity. Removing other peoples comments from a discussion is quite an abrupt way to respond, and no matter who starts a page all users' inputs are equally valid, and a user would obviously not say something if they didn’t feel it was in some way important, whether you agree with it's relativity to the page topic or not.

Anyway, that is done now, so perhaps Icarus you could start a second page, as Mike has requested, for the information he removed from the first discussion. And on both of those pages can you both try to just focus on the issues at hand on not your personal politics.

Sorry I can't be a bit more useful, but I know nothing about the issues you're debating. --8of5 22:36, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Enemies & Allies[]

First pass is done. Still needs references and such filling in, but I was more interested in getting the story bits and basics completed.

Also, can you delete the Meyers redirect when you have a minute? Appreciated. -- sulfur 22:59, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Very solid start :) Will fill in the rest later if you don't fancy those bits? (Good combo if that's the case, I hate writing summaries!) And done :) --8of5 23:09, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Go right ahead and work on the references. I'm happy putting a start in on those, but you guys seem to be better at figuring out all of the references out. I'm happy to do some summaries here and there (since I use them for both MA and MB :) ) -- sulfur 03:10, August 4, 2010 (UTC)


Are you on that Facebook thingy? I figure as much as you, Capt, and I get into it on here we might befriend each other over there as well. Just a thought. – AT2Howell 18:18, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I like to keep my different interests seperated, and there's no "8of5" on facebook. --8of5 01:41, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Vandal[] is a vandal, please ban him. – AT2Howell 20:49, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing someone who was here 11 days ago got that done :P --8of5 01:41, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, noticed you were out for a while. Mike and I took care of it. – AT2Howell 14:20, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

RE; Thanks for your edit to the Seven of Nine page. (20:08, 9 June 2010)[]

Hi. I have a question about loging into Memory Beta. I have an account on many Wikia sites because I created an account on one of them and the account carried over to the other sites. However, that does not seem to be the case on Memory Beta.

It is possible I am mistaken about this and doing something wrong. If you can help me with this or can point me in the direction of someone who can, I would be very greatful. My email is

Thank you!

~ Pixie Child (Pixiechild on Wikia)


Thank you for explaining things so concisely about the continuity notations in the talk page of Gateway planet. I have no idea why previous attempts to make the same point were met with rhetoric and gloating about somebody having "won" or "lost" something in regards to STO being an alternate universes, but then your explanation went ahead and settled things down. :) -- Captain MKB 16:55, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

No worries :) I think AT2 still has a bee in his bonnet from the months debating the issue before we had any solid evidence to settle it... --8of5 17:10, September 13, 2010 (UTC)


Hey 8of5, got your message and think you did a good job on the Temple page with the addition of all the Temples that have articles on Memory beta. Not sure about the books since I need to dig them out and see what I can find but there are some that have no article here on Memory Beta but are on Memory Alpha. These include:

I found some more on the disambiguation page for Temple though not sure on the sources:

  • Temple of Kir (I think this is on Vulcan since Kir is a province but can't recall where this is from.)
  • Temple of Uzaveh (Uzaveh is an Andorian goddess so I think its an Andorian temple but again can't recall where the source is)

So there are quite a few that are redlinks on the wiki since no article is made on them yet. I got no problem with adding them in myself into the article but just wanted to run it by you first. Also, since I noticed the Temple article, I was browsing and found the Bajoran temple article but wasn't sure if that should be merged with the general Temple article or remain as its own. There is a possible reasoning for merger in that if the Bajorans get it, why not the Vulcans and others who make use of temples. But mind you, I think the Bajorans make a lot more heavy use of them in the Star Trek universe so it could be argued to keep it. But anyway, I will scavenge what I can from the books and incorporate them directly into the article. Hope that helps :) – Darth Batrus 10:30, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Temple of Kir is from Fusion (String Theory, Book 2).
Temple of Uzaveh is from the intro of Andor: Paradigm (a liturgy), and actually dealt with in The Good That Men Do. -- sulfur 10:53, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
Ah excellent, thanks for that sulfur :) – Darth Batrus 11:27, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I've added in the bits you've suggested :)

I think the Bajoran temple article should stay as it is as the article deals with a specific type of temple, with unique architecture and where unique ceremonies are held. If we have enough information on Vulcan temples or any others they could also have their own articles. --8of5 14:20, October 7, 2010 (UTC)


I'm having a little trouble with all the personal attacks today. Do you have a view on the matter? -- Captain MKB 19:05, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

I just re-read both discussions and I wouldn't say, on the whole, that there's that much of an issue to be honest (see below). One thing did stand out to me, AT2 accused you of being a homophobe, which is rather out of line, and I will talk to him about.
On the general issue: AT2's attitude and writing style is always gleefully irreverent. I try and ignore provocative comments, with AT2 and other users, and keep on topic when I can; if you don’t rise to the bait the situation doesn't escalate. You were both bouncing off of each other in today’s discussions; AT2 is cryptic and irreverent, so you are sarcastic and insulted in response, and you both then feed off of each other. AT2 seems a little paranoid that you're giving him undue attention, you've had the same perception of me before, so I can understand the frustration you must be feeling in trying to just do what needs to be done with that sort of accusation being thrown at you. My advice, as I found on a charming little book the other day, is to "Keep Calm, and Carry On" :) --8of5 23:27, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
Exactly why I stopped responding when you intervened.
When he starts an disruption by consecutively reverting e\edits of mine, I certainly notice and feel like I should be able to resolve it by conversation, but he will not fairly discuss things, he turns it around as accusations against me even though the simple truth of it is that he reverted two edits i made today even though those edits were made for valid reasons, and then he taunts me with accusations like the one you noticed. I take those very seriously.
I'd even go so far to say that he chooses controversial topics because it will gain administrator attention.
When does crypticism and irreverence turn into something we don't want to have here on the wiki? Certainly if I've ever been irreverent, someone would immediately turn around and accuse me of being a vandal, right? -- Captain MKB 00:49, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

I've had my fair share of upsets with both of you, and while I think you can both be complete pains in the arse sometimes I'm sure both of you only act the way you do in what you consider to be the greater interest of the community. You were both reverting each other's edits yesterday, and you were both winding each other up on the talk pages. One gets the impression that AT2 possibly gets more of a kick out of that and you do, but I still think his intension was in the right place:

  • He wanted to find a way to make a note about a significant and controversial topic he had discovered. (Yes controversial, but maybe that's just because controversial subjects are generally quite interesting?)
  • He wanted to neaten up articles to reflect the nature of the subject in the Star Trek universe.

His way of articulating that might be poor at times, but at least he does try to engage. If he steps over a line he, like any user, will be told so. But he does try, and I don’t think it can be denied that over time his behaviour and contributions have improved manifestly. If I can put up with one of you being a pain at times I can put up with the other! --8of5 15:39, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Chronology versus timeline[]

Hi, I noticed in recent edits to a novel article and some comic pages that you're rearranging the 'connections' timeline sections and unifying them with the 'chronology' sections. I just wanted to let you know that this wasn't what I had in mind when I suggested the 'chronology' section and I think the 'connections'/'timelines' should stay in the appendices. I had thought that was the result of the previous discussions, but if there was a miscommunication, I'd like to correct it now and state that the new arrangement does not fit with how I had envisioned and suggested these articles being formatted, and that I'd like to see another format used.

I apologize for having to bring this up and hope that I haven't upset you. -- Captain MKB 00:07, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Not upset me. But has confused me, considering the massive discussion that you were a part of that brought about the current formatting that does specify the new chronology section and production history sections should be placed together in a single timeline section which encompasses the chronology of events for both in-universe and real world. To summarise for you; I objected to the idea of the chronology section, but other members of the community supported it so I proposed we at least properly integrate it into the existing chronological information we have by making it either a subsection of the old timeline section under appendices or a subsection of the timeline section pulled out and above of appendices; finally settling to place it separately above in part to help appease your preference for where the chronology information should appear on the page (as a direct continuation of the in-universe parts of the page). This avoids the confusing arrangement of having chronological information appear on two parts of the page, and keeps the chronology boxes with the chronology information. This idea was supported by Sulfur, UESPArules, and Darth Batrus! Which is why this is the formatting specified in the most recent version of the style guide... --8of5
So there has been a miscommunication .. i apologize again... I did express concerns in that discussion about the "timeline"/"connections" containing "out-of-universe/POV" info and that I considered that kind of info appropriate to the "appendices" section, and not the suggested "chronology". You are right about the scope of this -- since the discussion was so massive, this individual facet of the discussion seems to have gotten lost, I can't find a specific part where Sulfur, UESPArules and Darth Batrus approved this particular facet of the arrangement.
I can see that you feel strongly about this by your use of exclamations, and again I apologize for dredging up this upsetting topic. I'd like to poll involved users and admins to see if this is indeed the preferred arrangement of the entire wiki. We'll probably get some very clear results since we'll only be discussing one individual facet rather than the myriad issues brought up in the last discussion. -- Captain MKB 00:39, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Here, if you skim past our first seven postings, my first post after Darth Bartus stepped in, proposes two potential systems, the second of which was approved by the users I already listed, with some feedback which I then incorporated into an updated version of the second system. Which is what we've ended up. Even you agreed that updated version was the preferred arrangement, after your own original proposal.

That was then worked into a general update proposal for the style guide, which went without a single objection for a month before it was finally put in place.

There is very clear support for the system, which does fully incorporates the chronology section exactly as you proposed it, just as a part of a wider timeline section. You can start a vote if you really want to, but it seems to me you're just dragging up a not even very old topic which has already been settled with clear agreement from several users. --8of5 00:58, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that it isn't appropriate for me to suggest a change to the existing system? I'd like to think our style policy would be a little more flexible than that. Certainly, since then attitudes have changed, as have our admin and user groups. I realize you've taken a personal interest, but I'd rather like to think that I wasn't forbidden from suggesting a change based on my preference. -- Captain MKB 01:06, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

"You can start a vote if you really want to"...

I don't think you should, but there's nothing stopping you. The reason I don't think you should is because this discussion was only months ago; it's not like this is some old relic that needs sorting out, nor was it an issue that had some sort of close vote. It was agreement all round, even from yourself, reluctantly.

I'm also looking it like this: The community supported the introduction of the chronology section, so I respect that and have put the time in to integrate it into articles I have worked on since it was introduced. I could have left those sections blank, but I didn't, I made sure the article was more complete by including it, because I respect the community decision, whether I support it or not. I think you should do the same.

But "You can start a vote if you really want to"... --8of5 01:46, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

That's a refreshing change of attitude, thank you for the go-ahead and permission. I think that the change initiated since our previous discussion has certainly made a different atmosphere on the wiki, i'm looking forward to a much more positive and less hotile reception since the last time i suggested a change to the style guide. -- Captain MKB

Vandal[] is an old vandal that has returned. – AT2Howell 19:08, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Dealt with. -- sulfur 02:23, October 30, 2010 (UTC)


I have a question, and I'm sure you have an answer. I've noticed a big increase in the use of parenthesis in recent articles for books. So much so, that it is getting a bit distracting. It used to be that if an article had enough locations that they needed to be separated, we would do just that. Now, I find "Earth (France (Paris (Palais de la Concorde (Roth Dining room, office of the president))))". It just looks weird. Is this necessary? I didn't get the memo, but if this is now required, I will submit. Parenthesis work great in math, they look like crap in an article. You're more in touch with the latest trends on here, so let me know. – AT2Howell 14:49, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply, I've not been around. I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about too, example please? --8of5 18:07, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back![]

I just wanted to say Welcome Back!, its good to see you around. Its a bit weird being back, especially with everything that Wikia has done to the editing interface. :) --The Doctor 23:47, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :) I seem to have managed to retain the old skin when I log in, so it's all normal for me. But that's something I want to raise at some point; I cannot stand the new skin; when I clicked on before login in today I found the site barely useable, and so damned thin! If we can reinstate the old style as default I would be very happy! --8of5 23:51, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the skin issue. I used to use the old default which was Monaco, that was fine I was quite happy with that. The only options for the skins now is this new-fangled thing or the very old Monobook style. So much for choice! Monobook probably has less adverts on it though. :) --The Doctor 23:54, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

I think I must be on monobook then, blissful simple white, lovely wiiide pages, easy to find navigation. So nice! --8of5 23:55, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

I also solely use monobook. I know Sulfur has had a go at customizing wiki skin, and I've puttered with the style sheets -- we could spruce it up some if there was a direction decided -- but plain is great! -- Captain MKB 00:14, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

If we could spruce it wider, and with all the links in the right places, I guess that would work :P But I get the feeling the silly super thinness is built in, grr. Thank god for monobook! --8of5 00:17, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Terms of use dictate the width. It sucks. I tried some minimal stuff, including the cool background image. That's about where I gave up on the customizing. :) -- sulfur 01:22, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Do the terms of use dictate we have to use the new skin as default? I had a quick browse through and think I came over something about not removing the adverts, which do seem to have almost all gone form monobook now... --8of5 15:52, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Help me out here[]

Hey, if you've got a minute, could you help define just how many "extremely numerous" is? Would you think it would suggest a number greater than five? - AT2Howell 20:17, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

DS9 Cast Photo[]

Hi there i was just going over the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine article and seen you've uploaded the cast picture of 2374, and it had no cation or source, so i fixed the caption but i can't locate the source, since you uploaded it, i thought i would ask you first.--Captain riggs 14:27, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

Wikia Guided Tours: "Space Opera"[]

My name’s Matt and I’m a community development associate for Wikia. I’m in charge of a monthly feature called “Guided Tours” where I interview experts on a given topic, asking questions about how they got into their area of expertise and how they recommend others do the same. Our next feature is going to be Space Opera -- and Star Trek (quite obviously, I'd say) fits the bill!

If you could provide answers, as short or long as you see fit, to the questions below, your responses will be featured in the article. Check out the last Guided Tours article for an example.


1. Tell me a bit about yourself and your involvement with Memory Beta.

2. How did you get into Space Opera? Into Memory Beta?

3. How would you recommend a beginner get into Space Opera? Any particular books/movies/comics/TV shows/games/etc. that would serve as a good starting point?

4. Anything you wouldn’t recommend?

5. Any additional advice you’d give to someone new to Space Opera?

6. What resources on your wiki might be useful to an aspiring Space Opera fan?

Mhadick (talk) 21:03, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

Cardassians became warp capable in 1925?[]

Hi, in this edit I see you added the statement that the Cardassians became warp capable in 1925, but there is no source for this given in the article, or in the 1925 article, and the Cardassian history article says in the "Cardassian Union" section that they developed warp in 1670. Do you remember what your basis for the year 1925 was? Thanks. Hypnosifl (talk) 05:31, October 30, 2015 (UTC)


How were you able to add a picture of a tribble on here? I'm being threatened on wikipedia commons with being blocked if I try to do it there again. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 05:43, May 1, 2018 (UTC)

GR1 and GR2[]

Hi, I've noticed that in 2008, you added gr1 and gr2 to the Template:Color page. I'm just curious as to what they stand for. Thank you.Scout1534 (talk) 05:21, May 11, 2020 (UTC)

GR1 and GR2[]

Hi, I've noticed that in 2008, you added gr1 and gr2 to the Template:Color page. I'm just curious as to what they stand for. Thank you.Scout1534 (talk) 06:42, May 11, 2020 (UTC)