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
Memory Beta, non-canon Star Trek Wiki

Archived talk page[]

User talk:Markonian/archive2021

Current talk page[]

People in Timelines aren't "of an alternate timeline", they're usually people from the regular timeline who have been moved into an alternate timelime. There's no need to make extended notation of this in their photos, which are the regular and normal versions of themselves. -- captainmike •••• 13:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Don't they become alternate versions of themselves the moment they pop into that timeline? In-game, storylines also reference duplicates encountering/dealing with one another (e.g. one whence Quark tries to find out who's damaging his business and it turns out to be another Quark) or learning their fates, meaning at least some of them have to be alternates. The game also doesn't resolve the storyline, that is these characters don't return to their native timelines to "resume" their histories. Kind regards, -- Markonian 18:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
No, they'd be alternate versions if someone went back in time to before that moment and changed their history so that the Timelines timeline would "overwrite" their own. that doesn't happen.
In "Tomorrow is Yesterday", John Christopher and the air police sergeant were removed from their timeline and then returned, without their memory, without being alternate versions of themselves. they were extracted but then replaced. None of the characters in Timelines are removed permanently without being replaced.
They participate in an alternate timeline. They do not become alternates.
The timeline changes around them. it doesnt change them. they remain who they are -- captainmike •••• 18:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense! I had not thought of it that way. Kind regards, -- Markonian 19:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Interplay ship image[]

Nice find on that Relentless Qa'HoS image! i've been trying to up-rez all those 2006 images and you found a real sweet one :) -- captainmike •••• 14:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Starships are one of my favorite topics around here. Kind regards, -- Markonian 19:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Deleting redirects[]

Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but when you delete an image redirect you have to use "what links here" to find if the image is being used anywhere, and update the link. otherwsie, just don't delete the redirect and leave it functioning without breaking the link. this happened with the Bonaventure image today. -- captainmike •••• 19:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Source of sector 1607 in Star Charts[]

I noticed you cited sector 1607 to Star Charts, but i can't see the sector mentioned in the book.

Did you just add the citation due to the fact that the Pegasus crash site was listed there? I dont think you can realistically claim other neighboring objects are contained in the sector. Since the sector's boundaries are not shown, those outposts could be beyond one edge of the sector, or be above it or below it.

Do you have more information or were you not using common sense and adding supposition to the article -- captainmike •••• 16:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

That's why I added "Depicted" in the Appearances section. It's not labelled but we can see locations that are in the sector. As per "The Pegasus", Sector 1607 contains the Devolin system and the resting place of the USS Pegasus. I realise now that the "USS Pegasus Lost" location may be separate from the Pegasus's resting place. Kind regards, -- Markonian 16:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
But you're wrong, in the episode, sector 1607 was the last known appearance of the Pegasus, and the rendezvous with the Crazy Horse. The episode made no such mention of Devolin being in sector 1607, although it is likely, it is not citable
Putting (depicted) was incorrect because that list is for concrete, actual references to the sector - that was not - therefore Star Charts should have been linked with the {{rlk}} template to avoid forming the citation code - and not placed in that list. its not a reference, its a depiction in an ancillary source
Furthermore, as i mentioned, you can't just draw a box around a number of items in Star Charts and say they are all in the same sector. because space is 3-dimensional, anything above or below the plane of the sector is not in the same sector
Now i was able to verify this by reviewing the episode transcript and Star Charts, but the larger question that remains is why you are developing a habit of adding things like this that can't be verified to sources. i think you're getting a little too enthusiastic to fill up articles at a prolific rate and you aren't looking at what you are doing for accuracy. i expect better from someone who is an admin. the focus should be on quality of work and not quantity -- 16:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank your for the clarification, and for the quality control. I agreed that accuracy is key, otherwise there's a risk of straying into fanfic and "headcanon". Kind regards, -- Markonian 17:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

image category overcategorization[]

Hey, just wondering if maybe you'd be willing to step back from the image category game you've been playing and look at whether or not some of the things you're doing make sense.

Image categories should really be based on visual attributes, that is things that are seen in the image, so that we can sort the images. I figured this should be self evident, but i'd like to suggest you give it some more thought and see if the way you've been working fits that description.

is the image category "civilians" or "scientists" going to be useful? will it be manageable to maintain? Categorizing people based on their appearances is tricky, and i've even started to consider we need to weed out a lot of the pre-existing image categories for images that don't show the people doing the thing they are categorized as. Isn't everyone a civilian when they are off duty, on leave, etc?

For example, are off-duty starship personnel on leave really applicable to the various personnel categories? Especially when they are out of uniform or not performing some sort of task? I think a lot of our personnel image categories are about to get trimmed down a lot, and i'm letting you know ahead of time a lot of what you're adding won't make the cut and maybe you're wasting your time.

Also, categories shouldn't be created or tagged if there's not going to be anything in them. For example, if we have one picture of a member of a species, why would we create a separate category for that image? shouldn't we wait for a second picture? otherwise they can just go in "humanoids" until such time as they become statistically relevant enough to have a category. I mean this to apply to starship classes as well.

I'd like you to stop creating new categories, or at least start using more consideration, based on these talking points. -- captainmike •••• 18:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense. My practise hitherto was to add the category to an image, and once a minimum of three images appear, we can then create the category. For argument's sake, people are civilians based on their employment status, e.g. when Sisko is on extended leave cooking, he's still are Starfleet officer. However, with the upcoming reorganization of image categories, I'll consider more carefully which categories to add. Kind regards, -- Markonian 17:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

you performed an improper page merge[]

Hi, i need to let you know that you handled the page move/merge USS Ticonderoga Proxima class in an improper manner. At no point should an administrator delete an article with honest, good faith edits and leave those edits deleted - a proper page merge moves ALL valid good-faith edits to the new location and restores them ALL to the live, active page history at the new location

under no circumstances should you simply delete one page and then replace it with a redirect. it erases all the work that had been done from the article history. i expect admins on MB to understand that this is wrong and improper, but i'm seeing that you don't have a clear idea of what you are doing. please seek out help from someone who can show the article work more consideration in the future before you take such an action -- captainmike •••• 23:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I see. My apologies. So there is a function that merges the history. When I checked previous merges in the past, it looked like a page was deleted, then another moved to the new name, and finally the first page undeleted. Thanks for alerting me. I've got to stay away from mergers until I fully grasp how it works. Kind regards, -- Markonian 15:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
You move the article without deleting it first. that way everything goes along with the move
Then you restore the article that was deleted to make way for the move. that way the previous contents get merged into the history. -- captainmike •••• 16:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Cropping images[]

Hi Admiral.

Please review project:image use policy regarding the proper way to format images - images you are uploading should follow the recommendation they be wider than they are tall. All of the Violacean images you uploaded fail to take that into account. I'm not sure why you've missed out on the proper way to do things here, but you seem to have a poor grasp lately. Try to improve. -- captainmike •••• 13:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)