user talk:captainmike/archive 2007
user talk:captainmike/archive 2008
user talk:captainmike/archive 2009
user talk:captainmike/archive 2010
user talk:captainmike/archive 2011
user talk:captainmike/archive 2012
user talk:captainmike/archive 2013
user talk:captainmike/archive 2014
user talk:captainmike/archive 2015
user talk:captainmike/archive 2016
user talk:captainmike/archive 2017
user talk:captainmike/archive 2018
user talk:captainmike/archive 2019


Welcome to Memory Beta! I've noticed that you've already made some contributions to our database -- thank you! We all hope that you'll enjoy our activities here and decide to join our community.

If you'd like to learn more about working with the nuts and bolts of Memory Beta, here are a few links that you might want to check out:

  • Manual of Style: Please be sure to read this before contributing, so you know how to accurately cite your sources, and search the site to make sure the article you want to make doesn't already exist.
  • Policies and Guidelines: For a list of the policies and guidelines that we adhere to on Memory Beta.
  • Wanted pages: For a list of pages we want most, although any contributions you make are greatly appreciated!

One other suggestion: If you're going to make comments on talk pages or make other sorts of comments, please be sure to sign them with four tildes (~~~~) to paste in your user name and the date/time of the comment.

If you have any questions, please feel free to post them in a member's talk page or the community portal. Thanks, and once again, welcome to Memory Beta!

-- The Doctor 14:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


Hi Captainmike, I couldn't help but notice that you've linked beard and cramps on a couple of articles. You probably don't know this but we had a discussion over these articles when they were added several months ago (see here and here) and we decided as a community to delete them. However, if you feel that these have a place here, then please feel free to suggest them on our undeletion page. Thanks :-). --The Doctor 14:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the links to our policies and guidelines are here. With regard to the personal attacks against you, I have only just had time to read the threads where they were made and will be mentioning it on Seventy's talk page momentarilly (sic). We don't wish to scare anybody off from this wiki whatsoever. The bulk of us are friendly people who are willing to help anybody out, yet in any situation you get the odd few who aren't. --The Doctor 15:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


Why are you changing all the Categories?? What is your plan??? Cmdr Ljungberg 15:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I explained my plan at user talk:the doctor. -- Captain M.K.B. 15:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, i found a category tree talk page to register that there wre details needing to be worked out with my plan. in specific, i listed the concerns on my userpage. -- Captain M.K.B. 17:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Nomination for Admin

Hey mike, I've nominated you to become an admin. I hope you accept, and if you do, I wish you luck. (-: --The Doctor 22:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor Edits

Mike, do you think that when doing small stuff like rearranging categorys that youy can check the "This is a minor edit" box? When I look at the "Recent Changes" page, I tend to use the "Ignore minor edits" function, which is useless if the box hasn't been checked. Thanx!

BTW, IIRC, there is a Vulcan pizzaria in either Spock's World or The Vulcan Academy Murders. --Turtletrekker 07:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Good advice, thanks. I think the latter had a pizzeria, they also mentioned Andorian pizza in that novel. -- Captain M.K.B. 13:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent revisions

I'm sorry but have you read any of the Crucible novels? It has been stated by the writers and editors that these novels are in a different continuity to the other novels.

Take the visit to Starbase 20 for example. The Enterprise goes there immediately after leaving to be refitted at the Antares Fleet Yards. However, My Brother's Keeper and Harbinger have the Enterprise leaving Delta Vega, proceeding to Starbase 33 where Kirk is debriefed, and then heading for Vanguard for repairs. Now there is a contradition in Harbinger that stated that Vanguard was the first starbase they encountered, but that can be retconned away. Once the Enterprise departs Vanguard they head for Earth where the funeral of Gary Mitchell is conducted. While you could retcon the fact that the Enterprise docked at Starbase 20 enroute to Earth, and then proceeded to the Antares Yards, fair enough, but it isn't our job to reconcile events.

Two more big contradictions are the destruction of the Guardian of Forever in 2270 and the death of Dr. McCoy in 2366. These events can't be reconciled, and if the intentions of the author is to base it in a separate continuity which draws on information from the episodes and movies, then that's they way it is. --The Doctor 14:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the articles need to point this out then -- and use proper POV (like a separate subsection or a background note pointing this out). The "all-italics" didn't explain any of that to me. -- Captain M.K.B. 17:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
You're right, I apologise for my overreaction. I originally wrote the article at 3:44 in the morning, and this dreaded cold is making me crazy. --The Doctor 00:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It was needed info, doc -- after all, i was completely unaware of the My Brother's Keeper reference to Starbase 33 and the "Harbinger" reference to Starbase 47. All three are contradictory, and should be noted as such. -- Captain M.K.B. 00:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. Won't do it again )-: --The Doctor 00:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I still appreciate the info, doc. I think I'd like to suggest that parts of Crucible that are not contradictory be presented without the "this is contradictory continuity" message. It was my mistake in thinking that the "Starbase 20 after Delta Vega" was not contradicted -- it is part of three contradictory versions of the same reference, and the third one is from a source that has intentionally been said to 'not follow other continuities'. The parts that don't follow other continuities can definitely keep this note, it was my error in removing it. does the current format clarify that Crucible has disregarded the previous two refs and might have a separate continuity? -- Captain M.K.B. 00:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Not currently no. Misunderstood question. Yes the note works better now. And I definitely agree with leaving the non-contradictory information without the note. In the first two novels we have been given a vast amount of information about the minor background characters of TOS, including names, and in Tonia Barrows case, a life story. --The Doctor 00:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi, for future reference when I and other are creating articles, from your recent moves are you suggesting we do away with system pages and just put that information on the star page? -- 8of5 03:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

... if there's nothing else that shares the name of the system, the "system" at the end seems extra.
Alpha Tauri is the name of a system, not a star.. the individual stars are named Alpha Tauri A, Alpha Tauri B, etc., and haven't been individually mentioned in my memory. -- Captain M.K.B. 03:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, okie kokie, so a single stared system would still be whatever system and another page for the star, but a binary/trinary/etc system would be whatever as the system page and a page for each star? Unless disambiguation was required in which case system would be added back on the end? -- 8of5 03:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly -- and this situation had an added wrinkle -- there were separate articles for Alpha Tauri system and Aldebaran system -- even though they are essentially the same thing. -- Captain M.K.B. 03:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Righto, I'll try to remember, for the problem you just highlighted, looking at the pages I'd go for Alpha Tauri for system page name as lots of things named Aldebran redirect to the planet. Which ever takes precedent one should be a redirect. -- 8of5 03:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Copying from Memory Alpha

Captainmike: Are you sure copying pages from MA is illegal? I thought one of the MA creators said in one of our forums that copying was within the fair use provisions. I know we discourage it, but I wasn't under the impression that it's actually illegal.--Emperorkalan 22:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Its what I was told when I did it. -- Captain M.K.B. 23:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
talk:Pretzel: both Seventy and 8of5 seemed quite intent on characterizing me in the role of a plagiarist -- adding "immoral" to the characterization of my actions. To avoid further slander on my good name, i'll bow to these fine upstanding members of your community and consider it illegal. -- Captain M.K.B.

Thanks for the link, it should help me track down the statement I'm remembering from the MA admin. (I think his clarification was prompted by that exchange).--Emperorkalan 23:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not beyond admitting I could be wrong you know, if someone from MA says it's ok to copy, someone with a far better understanding of the legality of the issue than I, then they are more likely right than I. Incidentally it was Chops who told me it was illegal way back near when I started here (see here). Legal or not glad to see you're upholding the policy as there are plenty of other reasons for it (including personal morality if you ask me). -- 8of5 08:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


You are now an Admin here at Memory Beta, Congratulations!!!. --The Doctor 23:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Doc (and everyone)! -- Captain M.K.B. 23:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Congrats! --Data Noh 20:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


Hey. Turtletrekker has suggested that we permanently ban VortaExpert due to his repeared ignorance (or supposed ignorance) of the ways of the wiki. This was compounded today when he began posting information from his "fan fiction" onto various articles. However, I wanted to gather all of the admins views with either banning him permanently, or for just a short duration, to see if he finally takes heed of what hes being told. --Mr. Saxon 08:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Consolidated discussion at Forum:I...have had...enough...of YOU!.--Emperorkalan 10:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm just waiting for him to give a good reason. If he posted fan fiction after i logged out last night, i'd say: fry him. -- Captain M.K.B. 13:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


Tristan/Angela is at it again. Is this the fastest way to contact admins? --Jdvelasc 03:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

EF Weapons

The names are appropriately capitalized, please stop changing them. --DarkKnight 23:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The redirects I've created are completely appropriate. I only change the article titles that are incorrect. You are restoring incorrect edits as well as incorrect punctuation, please stop. --DarkKnight 23:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
They are not proper nouns unless there is a species or company name in the title. Only those words that are proper names should be capitalized. "Etherian" and "Glock" would be capitalized in a weapon name here, however "rifle" or "compressed tachyon" would not as the latter are not proper nouns. -- Captain M.K.B. 23:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I created the articles in question practically right out of Elite Force's manual, which has the correct capitalizations. They are part of the names of each weapon. Leave it. --DarkKnight 23:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Your actions are not appropriate. Please stop altering the pages in question until there has been more discussion
Our policy specifies that it is wrong to change an article with an existing history into a redirect, this is why we have the move feature, to avoid article histories being disrupted by changed in the article title.
Failure to comply with policy will result in you being banned, please wait for further discussion before your behavior becomes a problem, you can continue worknig on articles here while your suggestions are discussed, but I am blocking the moves right now. -- Captain M.K.B. 23:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe that is out of order for an admin of MB, especially with such a blatantly incorrect move. In practically all online and hard copy sources for the game's weapons, the correct capitalization is what I have adhered to. It is hardly a "behavior" problem. If this persists I will assume that you are taking this personally (for some reason) and will go through the proper channels. In the meantime, I suggest you dig out your game manual. --DarkKnight 23:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The way the game manual is formatted does not necessarily dictate how MB has to format articles.
And you refusing to halt and wait for other users to join the discussion is in fact a problem that other users have been banned for, I'm going very easy on you so far.
Please adhere to the policies I've laid out and please, go through the proper channels if you want to suggest to the community that you want something done differently than I suggest. As it is, resotring the edits your redirects have blanked out is creating a lot of work for me. -- Captain M.K.B. 01:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of the alleged policy and my redirects, you're altering articles that did not have them before and that I have created, so you could say that you're creating "all that work" for yourself. To be honest, I find this slightly entertaining. --DarkKnight 01:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


Sounds good, I welcome any and all assistance that you could provide on the uniform pages (-: --Vote Saxon 10:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources citation

Mike, I am confused by some of the recent edits you made such as to Wovogh, Vit 'Iw tay and K'Ehleyr. In each case you removed the italics surrounding a novel's name and replaced it with quotes. But isn't italics correct? It certainly appears that way here: Memory Beta:Cite your sources and italics is standard for academic work as well. --Jdvelasc 15:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm trying to perpetuate a standard from other wikis I've worked on, where anything that is a "story in a group of stories" -- like a comic, episode, or novel -- is quotated, and anything that is an "overall series" or a "reference without story component" is italicized. I feel it would be a good standard for MB to adopt, but I'll wait to see how some other discussions go first, as there seems to be a majority supporting erroneous re-naming of video-game articles too, the whole deal is making it difficult for me to figure out how to cite articles here. -- Captain MKB 17:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, in general you are correct that stories within larger works get quotes, but a novel getting quotes? I can almost see the claim that AtfW AtfP is part of the "A Time to..." series, but clearly novels such as Diplomatic Implausibility are stand alone stories. But even in the first case, parts of explicit larger stories such as The Fellowship of the Ring are always cited using italics and not quotes (at least that I have seen.) Not sure what other wikis you mean, but both Memory Alpha and Wikipedia cite star trek novels with italics and not quotes. In fact the novels are the easy case, it is episodes that seem more tricky. But there the standard seems to be that they are part of the larger series and so get quotes. If you think I am wrong about this, is there a better place like a forum to be having this discussion? --Jdvelasc 04:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Memory Alpha does in fact use quotes when citing novels, and Diplomatic Implausibility is part of a series, Star Trek: The Next Generation. -- Captain MKB 14:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean to fight over this since it doesn't matter, but if you are supposed to use quotes for novels on Memory Alpha this is not clear at all. The only thing I can find on their Memory Alpha:Policies and guidelines page is that "Books" should be italicized (which without further information seems like novels too). For the 11 pages that link to Dip Imp, 5 have it in italics and 3 in quotes where italics include every page where it is actually being cited as a source (as opposed to part of some list). For AtfWAtfP, there are 14 links to it, 7 have it in italics 4 quotes again with every source citation using italics. --Jdvelasc 21:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Memory Alpha

I'm curious as to how MA handled the online RPG discussion; you mentioned there was one. I, for one, am very interested in how they handle things, since their site makes ours look kind of shabby... I just prefer it here because of the increased wealth of available information. -- Data Noh 17:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

We decided to list the books, they originally had articles but we scaled that back because of the large number of books involved. We did in fact determine that the books that bore the "Last Unicorn" imprint should be considered as "licensed", but that the artists' individual unpublished releases (like Sky Princes) had not even been edited or imprinted by LUG, therefore were more in the realm of "fan fiction". -- Captain MKB 17:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
What is meant by the "Last Unicorn imprint"? -- Data Noh 18:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Even though they were released for free, online, there weare a publication of a company, Last Unicorn Games. It was determined that even though they were not allowed to sell their materials that used Star Trek's trademarks, they were allowed to give them away for free. But the materials were still a product of the Last Unicorn Games company. Unpublished Gold Key comics were never released as a product of that publisher, unreleased video games were never released as a product of the company that made them, but the Last Unicorn Games role-playing materials were officially released by the company that commissioned their creation. -- Captain MKB 18:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay... would the ownership of Last Unicorn not have been reflected somewhere in the product? The PDF file linked to by the page currently in question makes no reference of LUG; maybe it is not one of those considered "licensed". -- Data Noh 18:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The PDF was available directly from LUG's site, with the explanation of their loss of the license and the cancellation of the commercial release, but is no longer there. Memory Alpha linked directly to it, which is how I know about that being the original source. All of the LUG ST gaming materials that were released for free were available from that site. Perhaps there is a cache or archive that could attest to this, but I did see it with my own eyes some time ago when MA was creating that article. -- Captain MKB 18:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Other MA thing... I've really been itching to figure out how to incorporate "appearances" dialogs similar to those used on MA (like this), but I don't like the idea of bugging them just to borrow their ideas for our wiki. Do you have any connections over there, or any coding knowledge yourself, that might help with this? Thanks much! -- Data Noh 02:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Style Sheet

Hey Captainmike, I hereby request a change to the style sheet to add a table class rather than adding 200KB extra code to large pages. Thank You (-: --Vote Saxon 22:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Any move on this Mike, I've had a go myself, but I can't fathom it out. If you could look into this, as the set-up on Federation starships now looks horrible, and the changes could benefit the Stars and star systems pages as well. Thanks. --Nul Points 02:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think it looks so bad. What is entailed is nameing and describing a table class in the style sheet. Then we just drop that class into each table we want to look like that. I haven't written the code myself but I know a site that uses it. -- Captain MKB 02:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well all that's beyond me, maybe somebody, somewhere can fix it. Thanks. --Nul Points 03:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I don't really understand what it is you are doing but a thought on what I can see the effects are. Your new chart thing is taking all the lines out of the tables you are adding it to, that works well on the starships list where everything is on one line but on the stars lists some of the information is over a couple of lines and there is so much on the pages without the lines it's looking a bit jumbled. --8of5 04:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

which lines? they should all be back now, hit CTRL-f5. -- Captain MKB 04:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, good trick! Gosh, quite bright there, any objection to changing that to the more pastely blue used all over the site? And whilst I’m pestering you, what exactly is it you have done? Does this somehow make making tables a bit more streamlined? --8of5 04:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The style sheet can contain code for different types of tables. previously, each line of the table had the code for the color, text arrangment, and it was repeated several thousand times per article, once for each line and cell. now, when you start a new table, all you do is type class="chart" ( or class="XX" whatever new table we design).. you only type it once and the whole table performs how you want. -- Captain MKB 04:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Handy :) --8of5 04:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I changed to a more faded blue, but i'm trying to avoid the lavender color that was originally there -- does the current gray blue do it justice? -- Captain MKB 04:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
blue (or purple)
light grey
dark grey

I'm not sure what lavender color you refer to but the blueish tone used widely on the site is that one >. The revised colors are definitely an improvement but I think it would be better to be consistent with the site at large, I'd suggest the blue as the outline and one of those greys as the background colour for the top row. --8of5 04:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate to split hairs, but the color you have labeled as blue definitely isn't blue, its a tint of purple. -- Captain MKB 04:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well... looks blueish to me. I assume you mean it's technically purple based on the magic letter combinations that create it? Anywho that's the one that's used all over the site. --8of5 04:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen it around -- never liked it, myself. And yes, it looks very purple to me (besides being coded purple). -- Captain MKB 04:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I like it, it's pretty neutral, the greener looking (to my eyes at least) blue you've chosen is a bit harder, more forceful. --8of5 04:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I could try and lighten it up. You're right about the blueness, it just looks really pastel to my aeshtetic. -- Captain MKB 13:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Species cat.

Mike I suggest using the Races and cultures as a category to list races and cultures but maintain the species category as a sub-category of that to make more defined lists of what is a species and what is not. Tellarites are a species. --8of5 03:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ludlo/Category People

Oh Captain, my Captain! You reverted my removing of Ludlo from the Category People. My reason for doing so in the first place was that when looking at Category:People, I got the clear impression that it was meant for real life people, while Ludlo is clearly a fictitious character. If I misunderstood that category, I apologize and accept your revert, but could you please have a second look at this? Happy trekkin', Earl Black 04:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of a recategorization because i don't like the category name "characters" -- because, if we are truly 'pretending to be in the ST universe while writing about it' -- then we wouldn't call a list of people a list of 'characters' (a term which indicates a real world perspective). i'll give it some thought, sorry i got in the way of what you were doing. -- Captain MKB 13:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Voyager disambig

Mike, would it be possible to have "USS Voyager" go directly to the USS Voyager (NCC-74656) page? A simple note at the top of that page could send you to "USS Voyager (disambig)]] in the extremely unlikely event you are actually looking for one of the other two ships that don't even have a page yet. I know it isn't difficult to get to the Voyager page, but I must have linked to it 50 times by now and I still have to look up the registry number every time. If you think we shouldn't do this, just let me know. That is fine. But I can't be the only person who thinks it is an unnecessary pain. --Jdvelasc 05:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. that page was apparently disambiguated in error -- the two other Voyagers listed were not from licensed sources. there's no need to alter all of our Voyager links because of fan fiction, is there ?! -- Captain MKB 13:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Bitchy comments

Stop leaving bitchy comments everywhere you make a change. So I mispelled the article on a ship, I actually looked at the source as well, but missed out a letter. Boo-f*cking-hoo. Now get over yourself, and allow others to make mistakes. --Dr. John Smith 14:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be bitchy, I was just pointing out that I found a source for the spelling i was using, in case somebody actually had an alternate spelling that was from a source I don't know about (something that has happened before). You are completely allowed to keep making mistakes. -- Captain MKB 14:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm very sorry, I just overreacted. It's just all of my contributions to the wiki (wrong or not) is being slowly unravelled. Star system pages are being moved to just star pages, I f*cked up the rank insignia pages. It just seems that I have nothing to contribute anymore, because everything gets pulled apart. I must agree with Turtletrekker when he says, this place is no fun anymore. Again, I'm sorry I overreacted, you are doing a good job, and I'm being oversensitive. --Dr. John Smith 14:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I can't think of any way to say these things except that "this is how it was spelled in the source listed", "this name refers to a system of 3 stars, not a single star as listed" and "this uniform was first seen in 2369". I'm sorry that it makes it less fun when I point out that I know these things, I'd really rather everyone kept working on what they'd like to and accept input when I occasionally give it about how to rename, renumber and re-sort these articles.
Keeping in mind that I thought I was helping when I created a list of foods mentioned in Star Trek, and was told to "stop whining into my poor pissed on snotrag" when I started contributing here. That was no fun, I agree, and it put a damper on something I was actually working on for my job (where we were trying to think of crazy foods to sell). Everyone wanted to delete my foods, so I stopped working, and we never tried to make any of those foods at my job. I had to apologize to all of MB for wanting to contribute something nobody thought was important. No fun at all.. -- Captain MKB 14:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
No, no. You are absolutely correct, especially with regards to the uniforms. I had failed to take into account that the VOY uniforms had been seen earlier in DS9, and even earlier in 2366/67 in Star Trek: Borg. The criticism wasn't levelled at you individually, but at the community at large. Plus at the time, I wasn't one of the ones that wanted to toss you out the nearest airlock. Maybe more communication on the matter about how and why articles are being mass moved and formatting of citations being changed, maybe more helpful to the community, and ease tensions. --Dr. John Smith 15:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
This is probably none of my business whatsoever, but I hate to see folks getting discouraged, especially people like you two who have played a huge part in making this site what it is right now. I probably don't really know what this project used to be like, but it seems like a lot of fun to me as is. I have dealt with only very small amounts of rudeness/hostility (which I usually ignore), and I tend to find the over-analyzing of minor details will end up being constructive to the goal of this project (or I just ignore that too). I hope everyone who contributes here is having fun, and if it's a really big problem for lots of folks, maybe there's something we as admins can do to help (i.e. help keep voting constructive and not argumentative, update inclusion policies, etc.) -- Data Noh 15:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Contributors' picnic. Seriously. I'll bring brownies.
Absolutely, I believe everybody should have an input (and bring sandwiches). Maybe a good idea would be for the admins to get together on the forum and talk about all the nuts and bolts of the wiki. Discuss our ideas and problems, and work together, instead of independantly doing things, and getting no where. --Dr. John Smith 15:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Wicked. That would keep us from congesting this page for one, although I always enjoy coming here, just for the "WHAT ARE YOU DOING??" header. Maybe one of y'all can set that up? I want to help with making things more contributor-friendly around here, but I don't think I'm quite as aware of all the issues as others might be. -- Data Noh 15:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Ships from Begin Tactical Starship Simulator

I found those vessels on your old Galactopedia site, and I was wondering if they can be used? I have the information I got from you website about the vessels. --Farragut 15:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I've looked into the matter and have found that the BTTS was probably published as an example of "fan gaming" -- I've found no evidence that it was licensed by Paramount (and therefore, wouldn't be allowed here). I was attempting to sort some of the data on the Galactopedia to reflect fan fiction with a colorcode or symbol, but that was before the site was closed. Hopefully Galactopedia 2.0 will be clearer. -- Captain MKB 04:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

SF Intelligence

I have a nice clean scan of FASA's map from the Intelligence manual, showing the zones of operation for the various Intel Sectors. The thing is, it's currently just under 300K, and that's about the smallest version I've been able to get it while still being legible. Is that too big for this wiki? and if so, any ideas on how to cut the filesize further?--Emperorkalan 19:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

When I tried scanning i took the map as full size and divided it by the four sectors. the only problemo was my versions resolution and contrast, so i haven't added it yet. I bet if you split yours up each piece would be under the suggested 100k filesize. -- Captain MKB 03:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
That brings up a secondary point: Is it better to put up four (or more, to focus on the specific border Intel Sector too) images that will probably total more than 400k, or just the one large file?--Emperorkalan 11:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Separate files are better than one large file in my opinion.. if a user just checks one of them out, they will have only incurred 1/4 the bandwidth use than if all were combined, so it is a lesser bandwidth use for about the same amount of storage (where 4 files = the one large file). This is why we try to structure files to be less than 100k. -- Captain MKB 14:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Klingon dreadnoughts

Hey mike, I've checked and realized that I confused this ship with the one from How Much for Just the Planet?. Apologies for any problems caused (-: --Dr. John Smith 22:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


Out of curiosity, why the move (removing "system" from the page name)? The article was about the system, not specificallly the main planet, and a number of other system articles have the term in their name. Is there a consistent convention about this?--Emperorkalan 17:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been removing it whenever it is not needed -- for example, if there is nothing else named "Aalad", then we don't need to specify that it is a system in the article title -- adding extra words makes it less logical to link to. If there was another "Aalad", then we'd need to add the "system" part back on. -- Captain MKB 18:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Disambig pages

Mike, I noticed you just made a change to the USS Hood page. I rather like having some description of the items so that I can tell which one I want. If I want the Hood that Riker served on, I have no idea what the registry number is - I would have to click on the links that we have to try them out whereas before I could simply just look at a description and I can probably tell which one it was. Of course I am not defending the particular wording used on this page, but I wouldn't want it to be a general rule that disambig pages have only a list of the pages linked to. Is there a particular reason that you deleted this info? --Jdvelasc 04:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Mainly that I didn't like the formatting and excess links. Its fine to add a few words to give you a sense of which one you would be picking -- but its excessive to link to the class and every story the ship appeared in, to the point where you can't even tell which you are supposed to click on. If we are going to list ship name, registry, class, source, dates of service and notable officers all on the disambig page, why bother people with articles?
For an example of how I think a disambig could look, see USS Valiant. -- Captain MKB 06:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Personnel box placement

Mike the Connections heading is a catch all area for internal and external links, intended to include boxes containing related articles such as your personnel boxes, so could you place them in the connections section rather than under whichever random heading is above that. --8of5 08:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Since "information" and "connections" are heading used for external links and 'behind-the-scenes' info, and the personnel boxes are from the 'in-universe' POV, I prefer to place them at the point where the 'in-universe' article body ends. I think this makes more sense, but if you feel they need a subsection name, I'd gladly devise one of their own to avoid them being associated with the other subsections, which I don't feel involve them. -- Captain MKB 14:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
That's a good argument. But, the connections section was conceived for anything that is nothing but connections, in-universe or real world, that's it's purpose. The boxes contain in-universe information, but their purpose is purely for in-site real world navigation. --8of5 14:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
In that case, we'll need two different types of connections sections then -- one for offsite links, and one for boxes that contain purely 'in-universe' info. -- Captain MKB 23:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I sometimes put sub-sections in for internal and external links if there's a lot, see Asteroid for example. Would that sort of arrangement suffice? --8of5 12:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Might be better to flip the internal and external links on that... after all, one of the big recommendations on most wikis is "build the web", and it's better to point people at other internal pages first, and then send them off toward the external stuff. -- Sulfur 12:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
8 -- it would suffice, I appreciate the suggestion to separate them.
Sulf -- this is exactly why I've been pushing the point. I very much feel 'external links' should be pushed down to the bottom of the article in all cases, to guarantee that a reader will find them after all the internal links. -- Captain MKB 13:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


I don't want to get into debates or anything with anyone anymore, but with regards to the IRV prefix, it was a prefix which I added based on the assumption that it would have a similar usage to IRW, but standing for Imperial Romulan Vessel. However, the prefix has never been used which is why I moved the Talon in the first place. --Dr. John Smith 23:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


Just another thought on RPG book citations, do they not relate to the series like any other products? So could not the citations follow the typical (SERIES media: Title) format, and like other media use the generic ST for none series specific books, so (ST sourcebook: Starships) for example. --8of5 21:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the use of "ST" for generic media, it's pointless. It's obviously derived from Star Trek if it is on a Star Trek site, why link to it? I don't use this link for any media, including PRGs. -- Captain MKB 22:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree "ST" is superfluous, and also would only apply to the Last Unicorn game anyway: with one or two exceptions everything by FASA was TOS by default, and Decipher's game was made to be an all-series deal. I do think it's important to note the producer of the sourcebook, since inevitably some sourcebooks wind up having similar names.-- 17:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC) This was me--Emperorkalan 17:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it only important to only differentiate if the two names are similar? I agree that if FASA and Decipher put out two books with the same name, then the names should follow with (FASA) and (Decipher) -- but otherwise, its extra work. It is like the difference between the "Hazard Team" and "Starfleet Hazard Team" -- no difference, why extend the citation when the user can click and find out the info? -- Captain MKB 17:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about ST being superfluous, it tells you the cited title is specifically non-specific or multi-series rather than tied to any one series, which is as useful to know as if it is tied to any one specific series. --8of5 18:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

But since this is a completely Star Trek site, you can tell that if one series is not specified for a source, it relates to Star Trek as a whole. Otherwise it wouldn't be on this site. -- Captain MKB 21:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that principle in general, why I hate superfluous Star Trek's in titles, but in this case it then becomes missing information. The citation seem incomplete, with a little ST at the front it tells you, as fact, it is a non-series specific Star Trek story. Rather than the reader having to assume the editor actually cited without ST to imply that it’s more general Star trek story, rather than made an error and forgot to mention a series at all.
That issue being one thing, would you at least agree it would be appropriate to cite series-specific RPG's such as the FASA ones, to their series like any other citation. --8of5 16:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


Mike, I was thinking of just replacing the USS Titan disambig page with a redirect to Riker's ship since it seems to me that anyone typing in "USS Titan" would be looking for that. I had planned on just leaving a note at the top of the page as we do with Worf. But I see that you set it up as a disambig. Are you against changing it back to a redirect? --Jdvelasc 05:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Image Uploads

Fyi... image uploads aren't working right now, wikia-wide. Apparently they're investigating. -- Sulfur 18:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, i got the impression. It always happens on the days i have time to edit ;)
Thanks for the update. -- Captain MKB 22:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Starfleet Marines

If you would have read my article on the Starfleet Marines more clearly you would know that it says that the Starfleet Marines are featured mostly in Star Trek RPGs, you would also know that under References and External Links it states a reference to go to for more information on the Starfleet Marines, please read the article more clearly. -- unsigned by General Mannino 01:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't find a proper citation to whichever RPG says that Starfleet Marines wear green uniforms or that they use "assault carbines".
Please improve these references or remove them. Keep in mind that websites are not proper sources for this wiki, perhaps you have us confused with, where they would allow you to write an article based on a fan created rpg website.
Everything here on Memory Beta must originate from a licensed, published Star Trek novel, comic or game, and as such the only RPGs we recognize are those published on paper by LUG, FASA or Decipher. -- Captain MKB 01:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Search for Star Trek RPGs on the Internet, almost all of them have the Starfleet Marines. General Mannino 01:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If you do not know anything about the Starfleet Marines than I do not believe that you should continuously post false things about the Starfleet Marines. General Mannino 01:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that THIS WIKI is not allowed to use information from RANDOM WEBSITES to fill in data about Starfleet Marines. The purpose of Memory Beta is to use LICENSED PUBLICATIONS as sources, NOT WEBSITES. -- Captain MKB 01:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This Wiki is for non-canon Star Trek, it does not have to be licensed because most non-canon Star Trek things aren't licensed, and there actually are licensed non-canon Star Trek sources that have the Starfleet Marines in it, if you need that source then I'll give it to you. General Mannino 01:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a link to a Starfleet Marines RPG, the link is MI. General Mannino 01:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not misunderstand our former name -- Memory Beta ONLY allows LICENSED sources. Your own website is NOT a valid resource.
I am an administrator of Memory Beta and I am now informing you that any non-canon Star Trek that is NOT licensed will be removed from Memory Beta.
I apologize that you were confused by our former name. -- Captain MKB 02:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

For your information the site is licensed. -- unsigned by General Mannino

I must reiterate, the link you provided is NOT to a licensed Star Trek site. There are no licensed Star Trek RPG sites except those that are part of the Decipher company's RPG. -- Captain MKB 02:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If you do not believe that the page Starfleet Marines should be on this Wiki than delete it instead of vandalizing it with false information! General Mannino 21:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

STOP vandalizing the Starfleet Marines page, I have reported you for vandalizing, either delete it or I will continue to report you, you do NOT have the right to vandalize a page with false information and block me from changing it to real information. General Mannino 22:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

He didn't block you I did. Mike wasn't vandalizing the page with false information, he was supplying information from licensed Star Trek sources, which is the point of this wiki. You however, aren't. --Dr. John Smith 22:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I'll look more into those books, also thanks for finding proof of the Starfleet Marines so that I have proof that they exist, I hope that since I have proof Wikipedia will accept the Starfleet Marines page, myself and other people before me have created a page for the Starfleet Marines but it keeps on getting deleted, again thanks for the proof and info. General Mannino 01:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit late for this dispute (and I agree with the actions taken by the admins), but I'll just note for the record that FASA's STIV Sourcebook Update contains a color illustration entitled "Terran in Marine Uniform", showing a man in a green uniform and armor that appears to be related to the security armor seen in ST:TMP (presumably a heavier duty version), and carrying a carbine-like weapon. But that's as far as they went in publication. From a conversation with Tom Dowd (at the time the Shadowrun line manager), FASA's Star Fleet Marine book was was sitting on a shelf in FASA's offices, doomed by bad timing (it was prepared just as Paramount was tightening their control over licensees in the run-up to the premier of TNG, and in particular by Roddenberry's decree that Starfleet was NOT "the military").--Emperorkalan 00:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Armada II ships

I've copied the Klingon and Romulan ship names from the Armada II .odf files to here. Presumably, this is the information you wanted. Let me know if it's alright (-: --Bok 21:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you found a good use for those ship names (: With regards to the spelling etc., all of the names were as they appeared on the .odf file, but with the Klingon ships I separated them out unto different lines with bullet points, but the names remained as they were. Hope that helps (: --Bok 17:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

FA nomination

I wonder if you could help my out. I was looking at the featured article page and noticed that Q was up for nomination, yet the text on the recent changes page says there is no featured article nominations. I would like to change it but I don't know how you edit the recent changes page. Any help would be appreciated :) --Bok 12:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mike :) --Bok 12:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


'lo Mike, I noticed on some Lanora class ships, (and maybe more? as you've done loads of Romulans ships lately) you've been using both RIS and ChR prefixes. As I recall the ChR thing came from the Rihansu books and it looks like RIS comes from Starfleet Command III. So if you're only extrapolating the usage of the prefix for some of these ships surely they should all use RIS as you've actually found a source for that class using it in that era? --8of5 20:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "surely" just yet, no.. I'm continuing to track which are the most likely prefices used ... you'll notice that I've created a template called "romship" for ChR ships -- so that, if and when a change can be decided upon, we can change it all with one edit and a bunch of page moves. I don't think that "RIS" is the best choice yet, but I'm continuing to look into it. Your point about all ships of an era using the same prefix seems valid, but I'm not clear on how we would decide when one "era" ends and another begins -- so I'm using the system already in place until then, with readiness to change should we need to. -- Captain MKB 20:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well generally Trek stories happen in a few narrow bits of the time the franchise covers, the mid-22nd century, latish 23rd and latish 24th. The class in question is only known to be in service in the later main Trek era. Good thinking with the template, but under the era definitions I just outlined you'd probably want to keep chr for 23rd century vessels rather than having to pick only one or the other for all Romulan ships. And even if era is fuzzy, we could look for consistency of use within a class. --8of5 20:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Armada I ship names

Hi, saw you were after Armada ship lists. You can find them in the odf files for each ship class, which you can download here: --8of5 20:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem Mike. I've taken a look at this myself and will be adding the missing Federation starships to the wiki. --Bok 08:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
user talk:captainmike/archive 2008
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.