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
user talk:captainmike/archive 2020
user talk:captainmike/archive 2021

Billy On Meals

Mind blocking him permanently please? And rv'ing his Picard/Kirk moves? -- sulfur 17:02, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oh... that would also include deleting his page creations. Fools.

Btw, there's been a spate of vandals lately that have hosed the RC by editing templates that create stuff at the top of the RC page. It might be a very good idea to protect those from editing by anons/new users. -- sulfur 17:17, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

Still a couple of move log results to clean up... Also... mind checking this out and giving your thoughts? It will protect against people changing a template that happens to be used in the current unwritten topics in the same way that Billy did this morning. -- sulfur 17:40, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

ST gaming

Sir, why was my page deleted? I Had spent ages on that. Please can it be put back up. My superiors won't be happy if it's gone! - unsigned

Sorry sir, this site is not here to provide publicity for other gaming sites. Our subject matter is limited to companies that are licensed by Paramount to release official Star Trek publications. -- Captain MKB 21:53, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

can you make an exeption? -- unsigned

Sorry, if you want to propose a new type of page to our community, it would involve a massive reorganization of our site and our policies. You'd have to get a majority of our users to discuss it, perhaps at our forum. -- Captain MKB 22:10, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

USS_Reliant_(24th_century)

Howdy! I notice that back in April, you modified USS Reliant (24th century) to state that it's a Miranda-class ship. Do you have a reference for where this info comes from? The Miranda-class Reliant was quite effectively destroyed by Khan in the second theatrical movie, my understanding is that the Reliant that Picard served on/etc was of an undefined different class, much the way the Enterprise has been Constitution/Excelsior/Ambassador/Galaxy/Sovereign etc class onscreen. If you've got a reference, I'm super interested. Thanks! - Chairboy 03:42, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

TNG video game: Birth of the Federation showed a 24th century Miranda class ship named Reliant. -- Captain MKB 04:11, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

HMS Bounty

Thanks for the Welcome, Captainmike, I already have an account as PFSLAKES1, as of 27 Jan 2010.– PFSLAKES1 03:12, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

2270s ranks

I thought the enlisted insignia was only on the cuffs and the shoulder tabs were just blank. --Kevin W.Talk to me 04:51, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

If the enlisted person in question wore the Star Trek V fatigues, their rank pin was on their colored cuff band. - Captain MKB 11:46, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll let you know if I need help. Have a nice day.

Thank you for your correction of the article about the Grigari warship. I really apprechiate that. --FekLeyrTarg 15:55, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

Stardate Image

Honestly, for the life of me I searched ALL OVER for that page to get approval, but I couldn't find it anywhere. Sorry for the mixup, but please believe me I looked for it, I swear!--JYHASH 02:19, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

No prob... if you put things up for approval, be ready for suggestions on revising them. -- Captain MKB 04:10, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Table stuff

Hi Mike, I've been experimenting converting the 2010 to a table, so it can contain a bit more information while still being easy to find everything, and most usefully can be sortable. However I've found to allow it to be sortable you can't use the colspan command to join up the title bars across it for each month. Which means the bars are currently fractured and look kind of awful. I've tinkered with it to get it to work as it is so far, but reached the limit of what i can figure out. Any idea how to make it look like there is a title bar across each month, while allowing it to still be sortable?? --8of5 13:21, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

You might want to start another 'month of release' column and have the month listed individually for each row -- this way you could sort back to the original order after sorting other variables. I'm not sure but you might even be able to make it sortable if you use the ! headline option. Having them colspanned doesn't seem entirely possible from looking at it-- Captain MKB 15:55, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Capital letters

Hi Mike, I know have some sort vendetta against capitals for some reason, but I really think rows in tables should start with a capital; it looks really really weird when they don’t. Think of them like a sentence, or a line in a poem, or a chapter title, you just wouldn't start without a capital. --8of5 18:25, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, although your sentence analogy could be used to make a case for putting periods at the end too.
I accept that putting an initial capitalization would help to signal the beginning of a new thought, and that makes sense... the thing i guess i'm reacting against is when that tendency turns into Starting With A Capital And Just Going With It No Matter How Wierd It Looks. Plus with my job i tend to type in lowercase and then go back and adjust style according to a specification and have gotten used to that. -- Captain MKB 18:31, March 7, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I'd definitely not look to put full stops at the ends of the lists too, but I used multiple analogies to work around the specifics of comparing to one thing to avoid that sort of thing being the result :P Your own comparison of signalling a new thought pretty much sums up what wasn't working with not capitalising for me, I'm certainly not looking for capitals For Every Word, as you say :) --8of5 18:40, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

masking

Hi Mike, I'd masked the links just to take it out of the most wanted articles list. The offending articles are specialized articles where little or no data exists outside of the Stardate magazine. As its unlikely that anyone outside of those who had the magazine in their possession, I thought it would be an idea to mask them and free up the list.

I should have checked with others first, I'm sorry if I've done wrong. :) --The Doctor 13:28, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Well, on the case of the starships, I'd wonder why four list-items would be considered disruptive or unnecessary -- those comprise less than 1% of the available list. I've been researching the Stardate mag and those being there is a good reminder to keep going -- there were a lot more unwritten Fed ship class articles a year ago, in case you didn't know -- i've been pushing them out of the way one at a time.
In broader terms, masking redlinks stunts possible growth by hiding wanted topics. The wanted pages lists caches 1,000 entries, and you hid 16 or so from its view, so i'm not sure what is accomplished.
I'd just rather we kept it as is. If you wanted to see more wanted articles, look at the whole cache: http://memory-beta.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special:WantedPages&limit=1000&offset=0 -- Captain MKB 13:35, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
My apologize. I shall refrain from making such changes in future, without checking with you first. Thank you. --The Doctor 13:37, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Raw rank sheet

Hi Mike, thanks for uploading that raw rank image sheet from "Domain of the Dragon God!", it'll certainly prove useful with this article, especially the information about the Class A uniform with blue used for senior officers, beige for junior officers and dark blue for flag officers. Thanks once again :D. --The Doctor 09:24, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

No problem! I figured it would give you some hints in figuring out the sheet you were working on.
Canon has some wierd details on the blue/beige system -- after all lowly Lt Ilia wore blue but Lt. Cmdrs. and department heads all Sulu, Chekov & Uhura wore beige.. which is odd, meaning the seniority referred to transcends simple rank in some manner.
Also, some reasoning is that the flag officer tunic might be a dress uniform, meaning lower ranked officers could wear a variant -- i think a post-TMP comic strip bears this out. -- Captain MKB 11:02, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed about the messed up blue/beige system, as Ensign Omal/Vaylin Zaand also wore a blue uniform. Perhaps the blue uniform was an alternative uniform for junior officers with the standard being beige, at least when it comes to bridge officers, as Omal and Ilia were the only junior officers to be seen wearing them.
Thanks for the tip on the flag officer/dress uniform thing, I'm searching for the TMP era comics at the moment, so hopefully I can track it down. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the US comic strips printed in the newspaper, but I know they used the TMP uniforms for a while. --The Doctor 12:47, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Husian_Gambit
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/File:Venture_crew_comic.jpg
Dress uniforms use the light-blue variant so the sleeves and epaulets are the same. -- Captain MKB 13:59, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
Another note, commodore probably is available for all divisions (recall Cdore. Stocker & Stone)
Also, epaulets for ranks above Rear Admiral seem to be from Kuro's imagination, and not a licensed source (unless Kuro was working from a licensed source i'm not immediately aware of) -- Captain MKB 14:05, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, the comic strips (US and UK) can be found online, here. :) --8of5 15:14, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

sleeve insignia.

Thank you both for the assistance on this. I think I'm done with the shoulder insignia now, but if Mike wouldn't mind looking over the image to the side for the possible layout for the uniform sleeve section. Thanks once again. :D. --The Doctor 00:58, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
Looks good to me -- to add: there's also a white class B in play in a few variations. i was never quite sure of the differences of the dark brown/lighter brown/olive brown variations, so i might think about consolidating some of those, but i'm not sure enough to make a solid statement about those right now.
i'm wondering if any of the brown or white ever got sleeve stripes, but that falls under the same "i wonder" category as the higher admiral's ranks. i guess we just keep our eyes open for these possibilities... -- Captain MKB 01:13, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at those for me Mike. Yeah, I forgot to add the white sleeve into the class B uniform for command officers before I did the screen grab. As for the olive green one, I used it to represent the green work uniform which would be used for planetary personnel as described in the "Dragon God" pages, which is where the light brown/dark brown class B's for technicians also came from. At first I never saw the distinction, but sifting through the screencaps you can see the various types, but as you say, maybe one brown is enough as there really isn't that much difference. Thanks again :D. --The Doctor 07:49, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Columbus

Hi Mike, I just wondered if I could ask your advice about a shuttlecraft. "Under Twin Moons" (set in 2277) features a shuttlecraft Columbus assigned to the Enterprise. I don't suppose if you know if an SW7-class Columbus was referred to any novels/tech manuals/what nots. Failing that, is it plausible that it could be the old class F shuttlecraft? --The Doctor 23:16, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

At least one licensed source says the F-shuttles were decommissioned completely as of the end of the five year mission, although canon contradicts this as it shows one operating in TMP-era San Fran.
The post-refit Enterprise shuttles included Hawking, Brahe, Kahoutek, Clarke (from Death Count), Galileo, Halley, Herschel and Copernicus (from Mr. Scott's Guide). The last four are SW7s for sure, the rest i would cautiously say arent F-shuttles, but possibly are any other type. I don't think there's anything saying it wasn't from the five-year mission, perhaps one of those other wierd shuttles from TAS. -- Captain MKB 23:34, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
Now that i look, i see that MB has the post-refit Columbus from Eugenics Wars lumped in with the class F version, which is a 'maybe' in my eyes. -- Captain MKB 23:37, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Mike. I think I'll err on the side of caution and just put an article up at Columbus (2270s) and just have a small note that it could be the Class F Columbus or another class. As for the Eugenics Wars Columbus, although I haven't read it, the MB chronology places the framing sequences in 2270 prior to the end of the 5YM so presumably its the class F. --The Doctor 23:43, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
Odd -- the Eugenics Wars novel page has it taking place after a Marvel comic that is post-refit. Oh, strike that -- it was a flashback in the comic -- Captain MKB 23:48, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Yo!

Hey, would you like me to delete everything i posted and start straight from scratch? Cause if i were to do that, you just know im gonna be a smart ass about it and make it look foolish. All im trying to do is fill in the TV Episodes of the original series. Everything else yes i will write up my self. But the Episodes?

AdmYates 13:42, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

If you fill out episode summaries, or any other blank space on this site, you should be writing your own text, not copying other websites.
I've already asked some other administrators to intervene with their opinions of the matter.
If you choose to "be a smartass" or "make it look foolish", that's your own choice. -- Captain MKB 13:47, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Fan fic

User:Stella30. See also Daniel Steinberg‎‎ and the delete page I did. Feel free to delete that to clean up too. -- sulfur 13:34, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Re:Admin stuff

Hi Mike, apologies I've not had any time to play here the last week, so might have missed some of the drama, I've had a brief skim over the issues and made a response in the recent forum post already, but it looks like there are several on-going discussions happening, so I guess I'll get to grips more with what's going on as I review the recent edits list now... --8of5 16:55, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

My main focus is to keep the issues focused on the policy discussions. The forum post is extraneous because its so general - users can of course vote on any policy (except for those violating Wikia's terms of use), so the suggestion of a democratic movement is redundant.
I only got hot under the collar when the user in question denied copy/pasting even though the list of websites they were pilfering from was easily available via Google. Even if Wikipedia is free-use, he was definitely going straight to StarTrek.com (big legal no-no)... Hopefully this policy situation will give some focus to the users interested in doing good with clarifying policy, and put users in their place if they're only interested in stirring the sh*t, such as it were.
BTW, notice how last year we had a confrontational situation with another "Admiral Ya_" -- maybe a theme?
Also BTW, we have Typhuss back for the time being, he's been permabanned from Memory Gamma and his vandalism there is being deleted. His permaban from Memory Alpha remains in effect, but he's still editing here, even though every other edit is nonsense and requires reversion. I'm keeping my eyes open for possible damage he's doing to articles for the time being, but the other AdmYawhatever seems intent on trolling that situation too.. lowest common denominator and all that. -- Captain MKB 17:24, March 27, 2010 (UTC).

Well, both users have been made aware of any issues we might have by now I assume, so if they choose to make trouble they can't say they weren't warned of the consequences... --8of5 17:40, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Log in problems :O

Hi I know you are one of edit here at ST Beta. And for some reason I can't get in. :O GinnyStar, I been leaving information on the Talk Page of the article in question, I hope that OK for now, If not please let me known. --206.176.204.216 19:33, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you can't log in, but any comments you leave are fine. -- Captain MKB 19:41, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I don't like to make extra work for you, and I sometime don't quite know how to write the it up, sometime trying to explain something in writing--206.176.204.216 04:04, May 9, 2010 (UTC) is hard for me :O – 206.176.204.216 04:04, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

your insensitivity to marketing strategy is appauling

....no wonder I had never heard about this Wikia until now....no one wants to deal with someone whom is so easy to dismiss their initial offering into a group or source page without considering the fact that they are as much interested in the topic of Trek lore as the next person.

To which it would be considered horrible marketing to blow off someone,(as a troll? how rude!), whom was invited to a debate, to offer their input, and then not informed of any rules of said debate, there was nothing previously restricting said debate; and yet, my first encounter with your site, after offering valid perspective and experience and a solution to the problem presented, was to be dismissed out of hand, and then accused of being someones lap dog. You sir are offensive! I am pretty sure that others would find my case justified to call for your removal as editor. Consider this a formal complaint and I expect a review by all Editors in response.

Kenneth R M White, Jnr. 06:39, March 29, 2010 (UTC)Kenneth White, Jnr. frfozybearftwin@gmail.com

First off, I caution you about sharing your email and personal name here -- this site is publicly visible and does not hide your information for protection to sapm.
To continue, I apologize that you thought you could start contributing here solely to influence policy, and I regret that whoever suggested this site to you was unaware that wasn't the preferred course of action. We'd ask that you contribute some or initiate positive conversation on your first few edits here, rather than opening up by criticizing our policy and disrupting a policy discussion that is reserved for current users.
  • I have not dismissed your offering, it remains as a separate talk page that can be continued if other non-registered or newly registered users want to continue it. Feel free.
  • This isn't our marketing strategy. We are not marketing ourselves as a product or service. This is a section of the Wikia community and we invite users to join rather than marketing towards them. Calling our relations as marketing indicates we are trying to gain customers, but this is not such an endeavor. If you really find it offensive that you cannot use this site towards your own aims, then you can leave, but do not personally attack me because of this.
  • I never called you a lap dog. You said you joined because someone on facebook suggested this to you, and I want to reiterate - we aren't looking for new users to join just to discuss a situation with established users and established policy. Users should contribute to the site in good faith before they try to make policy for others to follow . This prevents problems. -- Captain MKB 06:50, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

In aggreement

I agree with you Kenneth, that this gentleman should be removed. It seems that he has let his position go to his head. I think if more people would make more formal complaints against him, maybe then we would see his removal from his position. This would be a posite change for this site.– Raidersnight 12:32, March 29, 2010 (UTC)Raidersnight– Raidersnight 12:32, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, was this a comment directed at me? Aside from your horrible spelling and grammar, I can't even understand your comment, I don't think you should be discussing the various insults against me here on my talk page. This is your first warning for harassment. -- Captain MKB 13:25, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

a change

My deepest apologies for one tiny little mistake in this sentence "This would be a posite change for this site" This should read "this would be a positive change for this site". As for Grammar, how many books have you written? By the way the definition for harrassment is: quote "Criminal Harassment Unsolicited annoying, alarming or abusive conduct or words which are threatening. " unquote

Raidersnight 13:32, March 29, 2010 (UTC)Raidersnight– Raidersnight 13:32, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

You also misspelled the word "agreement" and several others. Why don't you put down the keyboard for a while and go study grammar. What are you, like 14? (hey, you asked me first).. -- Captain MKB 13:35, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Policy breaking

FYI, I know that I did it too. The inuse thing. :) -- sulfur 23:24, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, i figured you waited to edit til you saw others in the community do so, even though those before you were in error to do so. Consider this your first warning? -- Captain MKB 01:56, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Sure. It was more the fact that I knew he'd create articles at those redlinks, and wanted to save administrative hassle down the road. ;) -- sulfur 11:37, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Teilani Bio

Hey Mike

True to my word, i would like your thoughts on the Teilani bio. Things you would like changed, Specific links needed, and other details you believe i have missed.
I am still working on the bio, still have to put in the information i have compiled from the Mirror universe trilogy into the bio. But would still like you to have a gander at it and offer up any thoughts you may have on it. Please put everything in the discussion page.

Teilani

Discussion

-- Admiral Yates 16:28, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Could you move something?

Hey, can you move "D'Tran (Subcommander)" to D'Tran? It appears that Subcommander D'Tran becomes a Senator so "D'Tran (Senator)" is his mirror universe counterpart and the disambig isn't needed. Thanks.--Long Live the United Earth 23:04, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Kolvoord Starbust...

please delete Kolvoord Starbust as i had a typo when i created the initial link on A Time to Sow... proper page created.

Kolvoord Starburst

Thanks Mike

-- Admiral Yates 22:24, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Okey doke I see now. -- Captain MKB 01:06, April 3, 2010 (UTC)


Thanks man! -- Admiral Yates 01:37, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

the first duty

just a question, why were the images of the kolvoord starburst removed from the episode page?

-- Admiral Yates 23:56, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated them for deletion and they've been removed from that page for the duration of the discussion. Basically, I only feel that one, or possibly two, starburst images are necessary... the entire progression seems a bit excessive for detail. Another image i found to be a duplicate of a similar image from elsewhere on another page, since they were so similar, i nominated that one for a deletion discussion also. -- Captain MKB 00:14, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

none

just to say goodbye no hard feelings you did exactly what was best for everyone yes, i can see that clearly (damn worthless IQ) so many people i met in this life were right i really did have nothing to offer after all if you would be so kind could you please delete my page i am not even good enough at anything to even figure out how to do this by my self 65.19.47.58 01:18, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

lol omg!

TyphussJediVader wow! i have never seen so many warnings before!

-- Admiral Yates 04:56, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the warnings. I suppose if i ever acted on them it would be a undemocratic, tyrannical decision?
Are you commenting for a reason requiring my response, or are you just wasting space on my talk page? -- Captain MKB 05:08, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
lol depends on how you would look at it. If their were other admin submitting the warnings then sure i see no problem with just booting the poor boy. and the answer to the other question is that yes, this is just wasting space on your talk page ;) lol have a good day bud ;) and dont let the wiki bug bite ya! (thats a joke) haha!

-- Admiral Yates 13:22, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

The other admins have now been informed about the current number of policy violations and users that work against preferred wiki conduct, so don't worry about things escaping their notice too. When the admins work to clean up this wiki and get rid of the troublesome elements, don't worry, it will be by a consensus of more than just me, even though I'm the one you've chosen as your target. -- Captain MKB 13:30, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
Dude, im not choosing you as a target, i was just commenting on the guys talk page and the number of warnings, i found it hilarious. But i will let you get back to your admin stuff. -- Admiral Yates 21:59, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Greatest Day Ever

You get a copy of The Needs of the Many yet? You should. You really should. Don't mean to gloat, it's just that awesome. Not the story, just the all important details. We should begin work at once separating the onlineverse from the novelverse. Care to help? – AT2Howell 04:40, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Please see this: Forum:The prime reality split issue --8of5 11:18, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

My apologies for having using an uppercase title for an article. That was how it was given in the novel and I was all confused and everything. Thank you for clearing up my confusion. :) Also you may want to check out the Sensor Maintenance article at Memory Alpha. Thanks once again. :) --The Doctor 12:24, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize ... i think of it more as me getting a chance to make a small addition to your excellence... actually, i feel like i should apologize for jumping in while you were working. -- Captain MKB 15:56, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
No problem whatsoever, its all a learning curve for me, and I will ensure I don't make the same mistake in future. Thanks, Mike :) --The Doctor 22:24, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

citing references

Well, you said I could ask you a question, so, I was trying to cite ST reference: Klingon for the Galactic Traveler, and the help page wasn't too helpful. Could you give me some tips? Thanks, 71.214.225.10 22:29, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I'm glad you asked.. at the end of the information from that source, type {{r|ST|Klingon for the Galactic Traveler}}
The "r" stands for "reference book" (as opposed to comic, novel, episode, etc) and the "ST" is for "Star Trek" (if it were a series specific book, it might be "TNG" or "DS9", etc..) the double curved brackets enable the template to create the links automatically, as long as the code follows correctly. -- Captain MKB 22:37, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

DS9 Comics

Thanks :D I managed to acquire a couple and decided I would to go mad and add their entries to the wiki since I haven't been that active recently. There's a whole treasure trove of information for Memory Beta! Also, will take as many scans as I can for the various articles. – Darth Batrus 20:22, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

I have some digital copies, let me know if there's anything that would be easier just to post up from my .cbz files! -- Captain MKB 21:58, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
Awesome, ty :) I mean since you offered, any chance you got a good shot for the Varahat from Genesis Denied? I'm debating on what image to scan as I want a good shot of them for the article. I already took a pic of their starship but haven't got one for the Varahat themselves. – Darth Batrus 13:20, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Varahat.

I'll take a look. I altered the file you uploaded to have the copyright tag 'imagesource' (just click edit and copy the code to continue using it in other images)... basically, it automatically adds a notice and the category for malibu images, so you don't have to put as much text in. -- Captain MKB 13:36, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
Alright, many thanks :) – Darth Batrus 13:43, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

STO Notice

Okey Dokey, thanks for the mention. :) If its alright with you, I will do that with the STO only articles like Amar Singh and Karatek since they are only in STO. Also, I added the Museum of Military Triumph and Conquest article and thought I should let you know since its on Qo'noS and perhaps goes into the template for locations on the planets surface. – Darth Batrus 16:16, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Vkruk

you remind me of Vkruk, what is that a joke?. I do not remind you of him.--TyphussJediVader 17:20, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't addressing you. If I was speaking to you I would have used your talk page. How dare you put words in my mouth!? Stop accusing me of things, this is harassment! -- Captain MKB 17:26, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Planets

Hiya Captainmike, I noted you mentioned about the "Planets" category. Just wanted to clarify, Wouldnt it be redudant though in the case of Keltara since its already in the Gamma Quadrant Planets category? Or does it make no difference about that and that any planet even if its given a Quadrant category needs to be placed in the Planets list? Similar question, I made an article called T'alar, should that be in the Romulan military personnel as well? I put him in the Romulan commanders category already but does the precedent regarding planets apply to this as well? – Darth Batrus 11:47, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

I've been tracking the planet categories at my User:Captainmike/DPLs/categorizable planet articles page -- it -is- redundant, but it is being done so that category:planets remains a complete list. The same goes for personnel lists. -- Captain MKB 12:27, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
Just to explain further, if you go to the overall planets category, you'll see it sorts and gives lists of those recently/not recently edited, and those needing attention, etc. I we start omitting some, but not all, planets from the master list, those queries would become incomplete, and the data would be less robust in terms of tracking. -- Captain MKB 12:57, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

Ah right, ok thanks for the clarification :) Will endeavour to put the Planet cat on new articles in the future. – Darth Batrus 13:17, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

Riker (disambiguation)

It wasn't me that did the last edit. It was user Darth Batrus who put star of Star Trek: The Next Generation, don't always think it is me.--TyphussJediVader 21:04, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Nobody said it was you. I just took out what didn't belong there. Get over yourself. -- Captain MKB 21:16, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Aex Rotherot

I noticed you changed "By 2288, Rotherot was the commandant at Starfleet Academy" to "By the turn of the 2290s". However since Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country was 2293 and Sulu spent three years cataloging gaseous anomalies in the Beta Quadrant (2290) and Sulu said he was at the Academy for 2 years until he took command of the USS Excelsior, placing the date of the game in 2288. Would changing it to "By the late 2280s" be better maybe? Dr. Stantz

I was unaware that there were such specific references. But if Sulu was at the Academy for two years, wouldn't that place the game in 2290? IN cases where the exact year isn't known, it's best to be vague. -- Captain MKB 22:24, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
Sulus log at the start of VI says they spent 3 years cataloging blah blah blah which means they started in 2290. At the start of the game Sulu he says "I'll be with you the next two years before I take command of the USS Excelsior", placing the start of the game in 2288, and since the characters were fourth year cadets the whole time it likely means it ended in late 2288 or early 2289. Dr. Stantz 22:39, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
OK, that makes more sense than what I was thinking. The specific date 2288 sounds absolutely correct to use in related articles about the game's events. Sorry to have doubted. -- Captain MKB 22:44, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of changes to Federation article

Please state the reasons for the reversion of changes to the Federation article. Some of the information on the original article I changed are clearly incorrect: the Federation only has a volume of 8000 cubic light-years? That is the volume of a single sector! (20 x 20 x 20 light-years)

First, offsite links: we do not habitually place link to youtube on Memory Beta, so we need to discuss the ramifications of doing so.
Second, to my knowledge, no volume has ever been given in canon Star Trek. the statement is that the Federation spans 8000 light-years (in the 2370s) -- your edit provided a concrete figure. Did you have a source for that figure? If not, it definitely shouldn't have been added, and I was right to remove it. Unless you have more information...
Third, what are your sources for the terms "constitutional republic", a "post-capitalist liberal democracy", "utopian socialist". If these aren't derived from a Star Trek source, why on Earth would you add them here? Do you have a source?
Finally, what are your sources for your specifications on the President's authority? Those informations did not have citations. Please add a citation to the specific Star Trek episode, book or game you got each piece of information from... or don't add it. -- Captain MKB 23:55, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Akira and Sovereign Deck Numbers

The Akira class does to have only 15 decks check the blueprints I put in the external links and the sovereign class has only 23 decks it's on the sight i put in the external links plus I found this on Memory Alpha from John Eaves the creater of the sovereign class "Based on Eaves' sketches, Rick Sternbach drew up detailed blueprints of the model (establishing that the Enterprise-E had 23 decks), which were sent over to Industrial Light & Magic. (Star Trek: The Next Generation Sketchbook: The Movies, pages 104-105)" The Deck Plan site might be wrong but the information from John Eaves couldn't be. Here's more of that Information from John Eaves Below>>>

Please Reconcider


"Based on Eaves' sketches, Rick Sternbach drew up detailed blueprints of the model (establishing that the Enterprise-E had 23 decks), which were sent over to Industrial Light & Magic. (Star Trek: The Next Generation Sketchbook: The Movies, pages 104-105)

Building the model fell to model supervisor John Goodson and his team, amongst others Kim Smith and Jon Foreman with Ed Miarecki doing pattern work on the model. Eaves kept some of the closest details vague in order to allow the "ILM"-staffers to use their own imagination. Detailed questioning however, especially concerning the mounting of the warp nacelles kept Eaves busy making detailed drawings well into spring 1996. In the end Zimmerman requested that Eaves had a small 30 inch study model made for reference sake. Another noticeable vagueness Eaves included was the the exact function of the lighted bulge on the underside of the the saucer. Carried over to the Sternbach's blueprints were it was vaguely mentioned as "Turret location area" and to Drexler's MSD, there identified as forward torpedo launchers (Star Trek: The Next Generation Sketchbook: The Movies, pages 106 and 97). It was during the to-and-fro sessions with ILM that the turret would end up as the docking port of the captain's yacht and as such it was constructed on the studio model.

Told that the model had to last the rigors of shooting for at least a couple of movies, Goodson built the model to last. As he commented, "So we built it to last. In fact it was seriously overbuilt, with four five-inch-long bolts attaching the saucer to the main body." (Cinefex, No.69, page 105) With an armature rigged for eight mounting points, electrical plugs were installed for swift changes. "When Kim saw how close the camera would be getting to the model, she realized that even the tiniest bit of overspray would register like a field of boulders on screen. So we had six people working on the paint job, covering sections with masking tape, trying to get it done as quickly as possible," Goodson further remembers.

Lighting the model was a separate story; Not since Douglas Trumbull had the original Enterprise rigged to emulate self-illumination, had this been done on her successors, nor would it on this one. Again smart exterior lighting from outside would mimic the illusion of self-illumination. Enhancing the effects were the application of small back-lit miniatures still shots of interior sets pasted behind the windows of the model. Not being able to use this technique in he previous movie, Goodson decided to go for it this time around, "We cut sixteen-inch frames for each window, bending them to fit the curve of the hull before gluing and sanding them flush. A laser-cut plex window lens went in, backed with peel-off paper facing outward. Then, behind the plex we mounted quarter-inch-thick acrylic blocks with photographic slides and diffusion glued unto them. The internal illumination fit right behind this, giving us a little neon lightbox. After the model was painted, the paper covering the windows was peeled away, revealing backlit images of actual sets, provided by Paramount." (Cinefex, No.69, page 105) For the larger windows on the saucer this gadget was not deemed sufficient enough. Extreme miniature sets as backdrop were constructed for these. "We filled that area of the model with tiny, micro-scale furniture, including tables and chairs," Goodson further elaborates. An arboretum, intended to be reminiscent of the refit-Enterprise was also included in the back of the saucer.

Goodson's assurances notwithstanding, the physical model, measuring 119 x 49 x 13 inches, was to be used for filming purposes only once, only to appear in Star Trek: First Contact. For Star Trek: Insurrection and Star Trek Nemesis, the model was sent over to the respective SFX-houses for mapping and digitizing but nothing more. In the end the model, known as Lot #107, being part of the 40 Years of Star Trek: The Collection auction, estimated at $8,000-$12,000, was eventually sold on 5 October 2006 with a winning bid of US$100,000 (US$120,000 including buyer's premium). The buyer put the model up on sale immediately afterwards.[2]


The saucer section plows into the Scimitar Enterprise E saucer as Borg debris in "Regeneration"An enlarged saucer section was built for the ramming sequence in Star Trek: Nemesis. The visual effects supervisors at Digital Domain felt that the close-up scene could only be believably conveyed on screen by physical miniatures so a 1/45 scale saucer section of the Enterprise-E was built as well as a section of the bow of the Scimitar. The 18 feet long saucer was essentially an empty shelled framework covered with sprayed-on polyester bondo with a laminate aluminum foil skin patchwork underneath. The whole was covered with a thin skin of lead, chosen because the soft metal would ripple and bend back on impact. The leading section of the saucer was equipped with an underlying matrix of cardboard compartments, both intended to increase resistance of the lead on impact as well as to show, after retouching, the exposed decks of the ship as she pulls back from the impact with the Scimitar. The model, built by amongst others Michael Morgan, Ted van Dorn and supervisor George Stevens, took six weeks to build and weighed 500 pounds. The model was filled with loose materials that would spill out upon impact to represent debris. The sequence was shot with a highspeed camera and in post-production digitally enhanced by adding and removing elements as well as adding the backend of the Enterprise.(Cinefex, No.93, pages 107-109) 3D Integration Artist Chris Dawson remembered,"The front end of both ships were constructed in large scale and we had the Ent E race along a track to impact with the Scimitar. The Scimitar is banking. It was all veery fast and we had to get the Ent as fast as we could. All shot at highspeed to help with the look of the damage when both hit. Then the back end of the ship was added with a CG model and alot of debris was added with CG, however, alot that was captured on film was pretty good. We were able to do the sequence three times with replacement/repaired models."[3] One of the saucer sections wound up as borg debris in the debris field in ENT: "Regeneration"" "

Vandal

Unregistered contributor 81.102.38.163 is a vandal. I am correcting his work. – AT2Howell 17:36, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Spell check

Good catch on the spelling! – AT2Howell 13:21, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Mike, please for a moment will you get off your high horse, cut out the attitude and grow up. I have raised an issue with some of your recent edits, and provided perfectly legitimate arguments for why it is an issue and what alternatives I believe are appropriate. Your two-fold approach of continuing to edit in the problem in question and refusal to argue in its defence I can only take as vandalism and very poor behaviour. I am asking some of the other admins to step into discussions and to keep and eye on your behaviour. I don't want this to become a battle between us, I know we've clashed many times before, but generally we can do so in a cordial and constructive way. I do not understand why you are being so immature and unconstructive this time about. --8of5 11:38, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

I guess I just didn't like your attitude. Mine's bad too. My arguments are completey ridiculous, why would I bother discussing it, you know?
Anyway, I've only been able to approach the wiki for a few minutes at a time when I edit for the past week or so, so I really don't have time to completely deconstruct the implications of what I consider to be a perfectly sensible part of an story page.
What is really damning my ability to work on this discussion is the fact that you write about a kilobyte everytime you approach this. It really makes the wiki less fun, and guarantees that you will win every argument, because I really don't have the time to get into it with you right now. I relented on my concerns when it was suggested that the 'connections' and 'background' sections be rearranged, and it works fine, so i thought we could move forward but now you seem to want to interpret every other part of my edits as something that should be strictly your way.
Anyway, I meant what I said, I guess I'll shut up and work on my planet articles when I don't have time to bow to you - kind of like what I did last time you put through 5 kilobytes of rules that i didn't have time to read into the style guide. Truth is, probably no one else is really going to discuss it with you, we really are in a minority of people who actually are concerned about structure here, and I believe in a somewhat looser style than you've proposed but don't have it in me to go one-on-one with you of late. -- Captain MKB 13:31, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in trying to get everything my way, I'm looking for the greater good. I want systems in place that make it easy for editors to edit pages; easy for new users to find and follow rules and standard arrangements (meaning you can just refer them to said pre-determined arrangement rather than shout down every new user that doesn't meet your expectations, Mike); but most importantly easy for non-editors, people who come here just to find information on the site. And that requires some order across the site so the information they want is easy to find.

And this is all evidenced by my modus operandi. Unlike you, thinking you have a good idea just start rolling it out across the site, I will trial an idea I have one a page, and then, before I start doing it everywhere, will seek community feedback to determine whether it is in fact a good idea, and if so what changes need to be made to make it more useful still.

If you don’t feel you have the time, or just don’t care enough, to participate in those discussions, fine. But don’t be a hypocrite; you're not afraid to berate other users when you feel they aren't conforming to the site's standards or do something a little differently to what one expects, so what makes you think you can get away with the same thing? --8of5 14:44, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm starting to feel like if I suggest a change to your structure, I won't be given any fair time without a massive argument, because very few people chime in as tie-breakers, and I think that you were possibly flush with victory over previous discussions where I relented to your views when you dismissed my comments as ridiculous.
They weren't ridiculous, and if you want to suggest things and put them into play, you need to not insult the only other person in the discussion.
I've been known to get a little over the top also, but usually if a person is non-communicative or disruptive -- not if a person is genuinely trying to work with me, and especially not if the person is a peer as an admin. I'm at fault for reacting to your rudeness, but your rudeness was a factor here. -- Captain MKB 15:02, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
I think we're both at fault here, as from my point of view my rudeness was only in reaction to your own apparent unwillingness to listen when I was just trying to raise a concern in a constructive fashion. Apologies if I got a bit too emotional.
Like I said, I don’t care about doing things my way or having personal victories, I just want the most useful and usable outcome for the site's users. I always try and get feedback on my ideas, and adjust them then accordingly so they benefit everyone, not just my own desires. --8of5 15:18, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

You guys cool again or what? God, I feel like the red headed step child no one wants in the divorce. Kiss and make up or something. – AT2Howell 14:15, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

I held back on throwing this at you before, but as you're so determined to persist: Remember our friend User:AT2Howell? Who was so adamant we label everything from STO an "alternate continuity". Remember how we had to keep referring him to the existing inclusion policy, how we kept directing him to the STO discussion page and asked him to await the outcome of those talks before implementing his ideas. And remember how we had to keep reverting his persistent edits (one might almost say vandalism) to do what he thought was a good idea?
Well I remember all that. So perhaps you'll forgive me for reacting when a user starts to implement a new formatting idea, is asked by another user to first talk about the details and necessity of that proposal, and is referred to existing formatting rules in the process. And then that user replies: "Until then, I'll continue formatting what I have been, the way I have been, and we can add my improvements to the official style guide later after everyone involved gets some better perspective about what I'm trying to do." Sounded like you were threatening to act just as AT2 had to me... --8of5 20:42, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

He's right. The whole business would have been a lot less messy if we'd just talked it out beforehand. Not taking sides, just sayin'. – AT2Howell 20:45, June 23, 2010 (UTC)


8of5, if the lesson is to be more tolerant of new users' experiments with formatting and such before trying to get them in line with the rest of the wiki, then lesson learned. I admit, I've been quick to ask people to hold up their new ideas before, on concerns they wouldn't fit the wiki. I can give new users and other new ideas more leeway.
But trying to prove it to me by harassing me every time i make an edit is not in the best interests of the wiki, and arguing against every edit i make is not going to be productive in the long run. it's very obvious now you are not arguing points, you are arguing just to argue. -- Captain MKB 20:50, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Woah there cowboy, I'm not trying to harass you, nor argue just for the sake of arguing at all. There has been an unfortunate coincidental happenstance that I have raised or become involved with several discussion to which you have some sort of connection. But that is entirely a random happening. I can see how in light of our recent disagreement you could conclude I am trying to pick on you, but I can you tell I am 100% not.

Hell, your responses in all these discussions going on right now are seeming quite intentionally stubborn and argument too from my side. I guess that could be me misreading your intent as well. I promise, hand on heart, I'm not trying to pick on you, I'm just raising concerns when I see them, your involvement is entirely random. --8of5 20:59, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

I guess I would be more willing to try to see your point of view if you hadn't started hitting below the belt on Sunday by warning me about my vandalism. Fact is, I want to expand the whole way we deal with years and dates, I've laid down some groundwork in story articles for months with chronology additions, and I tried to state my case, which you denied the viability of - rudely.
I have been the butt of a lot of rudeness back to my first day, including being the sole admin protecting against a period of nasty vandals while everyone else was off doing their own thing, and I decided to rise above your little snit fit last week by removing myself from the discussion -- i actually suggested you let me develop the section further before we added it to the style guide -- which caused you to ring every admin and rant about my vandalism making edits against your style guidelines -- but my suggestion to add something to the guidelines that wasn't your idea was nonsense? and trying to develop it was vandalism?
Now that I have involved myself in that discussion you've picked every other edit I've tried to make as requiring your attention. Now, I'm suggesting logical things here, but you're arguing tooth and nail against them like a murder trial lawyer. What am I supposed to think?
And yes, I'm less inclined to create a compromise based on how nasty you got last weekend. You were trying to shout me down by being rude, dismissive, and making false accusations. How is it possible to compromise with that? -- Captain MKB 21:15, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

You really just refuse to listen don’t you? It's that laying down the groundwork I have a problem with, you're being sneaky! Your groundwork just results in multiple articles with funny editing. Where as look what happened when the idea was opening to discussion, it evolved, it incorporated new information your groundwork had failed to incorporate (after months of “development” in isolation), and it was embraced by other users! Innovation is great, I'm all for it, this site is constantly evolving, both of us have played a significant role in it, but you don't have to do it by stealth, and you don’t have to be so bloody defensive. You persist in referring to me somehow having some ownership over the style guide, but I'm not the one who was trying to secretly install new formatting all over the site, and I'm not that one that is completely inflexible about ideas. I maintain that the chronology section doesn't make sense, but the community at large supports it, so I've not only accepted that, but sought to push it's installation forward, take in ideas from you and other users about how it should be formatted, and get on with implementing your idea!

You can complain at being called a vandal all you want, but it's you who insists on being aggressive and stubborn at every turn. I don’t care that we had an argument, it's not the first time, it surely wont be the last, get over it, I'm not arguing against you for the hell of it, I'm raising concerns I want addressed, I don’t give a damn about who caused them, I just want them fixed and raise them with anyone! --8of5 21:28, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely do not subscribe to that interpretation. Our story articles have absolute shit for information when it comes to dating. You can't forbid users to try to find ways to add more robust information. If you see a user adding something anomalous, what you can do is make a suggestion to arrange it differently, or discuss with them ways to add it to the style policy. You don't accuse them of being sneaky and adding something you don't personally agree with. If no one ever tried to develop articles without asking you first, we wouldn't have a wiki, we'd have 8of5's personal star trek page.
By admitting this is your viewpoint, you are basically admitting to harassing me on the basis of my trying to add something you personally can't cope with. This isn't my problem, it's yours. You need to correct your attitude. -- Captain MKB 21:34, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

How exactly is actively pursuing community engagement and consent, as opposed to just instituting my own ideas on the sly, like yourself, evidence that I'm trying to get everything my way? Like I said, I still think we shouldn't have this chronology section, but everyone else does, so not only have I accepted it, I have worked to finalise it's implementation!

You’ve bullied other people off this site before, but you’re not going to drive me away with false accusations thank you very much. You complain about having issues with keeping an eye on other users; maybe if you were just less aggressive you’d have fewer problems. --8of5 21:43, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

How is an admin-bureaucrat of a wiki adding a section to an article 'sneaky' and 'on the sly'? I don't understand this 'accusation' -- everyone can see every article edit I've ever made, and is welcome to comment, including suggestions about moving or altering format. If I add a new subsection you don't like, give me a chance to explain it, don't crucify me for not running it by you first. You maintain I am in the wrong for adding valid information without your approval, which is a violation of the basis of wiki principle. -- Captain MKB 21:51, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

It's sneaky because you were adding a significant formatting change to the type of page on this site that probably has the best defined formatting of any. Yes everyone can see everyone's edits, but do you seriously expect everyone to be checking up on everyone's edits? We have to be able to trust each other.

Like I said, innovate, that's great, but the way you were doing it just assumes your big change is the best way forward. My first post on this issue was a very detailed analysis of my issues with it with plenty of examples, I did not target it at you, I was very careful to try and make it as open a possible to draw in lots of opinions to have a nice open discussion, so I did indeed "give you a chance to explain it".

I called your argument in reply non-sense, because it did not make sense to me; I then provided a detailed reply as to why it did not. And your reply was to declare you couldn't be bother to even read my concerns so you would just go ahead and do it all your way, despite another user having raised several concerns.

Why on earth would I complain about you adding valid information? My complaint was two fold, was the existing format of that information actually that useful, and was it in the appropriate place. That doesn't stop you or anyone adding the information, just questions how and where. --8of5 22:33, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

I tried to explain what I was adding in the appropriate discussion and got the response that it was complete nonsense - it wasn't, a evidenced by other editors supporting the chronology section.
I removed myself from the conversation, not out of laziness, but because nobody wants to respond to such a rude, snarky, snide attitude. You accuse me of bullying but if you're adding these behaviors to your repertoire, you are just as guilty as I. And I'm still waiting for you to contact our peers and withdraw the accusation of vandalism you placed against me on all of their talk pages. If someone is honestly trying to add valid information to an article it is not vandalism, even if its placement does not follow a style guide. It is the collaborative effort of other editors to correct the placement not to accuse and insult.
"You can complain at being called a vandal all you want" I take an accusation of vandalism against an admin-bureaucrat very seriously, but you seem to think you can bandy it about without retracting it at all. Your temper tantrum might've ended over the weekend but your words remain on every admin's talk page.. you want to continue, try facing what you yourself did to exacerbate this. -- Captain MKB 22:53, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Please, you guys both have to put all of this behind you and work together with each other, or you may alienate the few regular contributors you have here. Frankly, I got pissed off with all this months ago, and set up shop elsewhere, but for the sake of the wiki that I helped keep afloat in the early days, please forgive and forget and move on. But, if the two of you must fight it out, then the "loser" is more than welcome to join me on my Star Trek wiki. I've enjoyed working with you both in the past, and either would be most welcome. :) --The Doctor 22:48, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

When most people argue, it's entertaining. When you two go at it, it's just boring. Capt wants to have the little date section in each article, right? How is that bad? If he could just hammer out the details before he impliments it, is there a problem? I like the "Chronology" section. For a while now, I've been adding the dates for some articles under various headings such as "Timeline", so I would be rather happy if we could come to an agreement on the best way to include dates on more articles. Am I missing something here? What's the shit? – AT2Howell 13:51, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
Some mixture between what Capt has and my Timeline section on ST novel: Excelsior: Forged in Fire would be good. Capt's looks better than mine, but we need room to include other culture's timeframes (like Year of Kahless and months). This is something that can be calmly discussed if the two of you would just leave the trenches for a minute. – AT2Howell 14:00, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
It lists links to years and is informative - I like the looks of that section, AT2 -- good work. Increasing links to year periods in informative ways is a prime opportunity for expanding MB's coverage of such things. I have to wonder though: How did you manage to "sneak" that into the article without anyone noticing? -- Captain MKB 17:33, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Entry: Trawley

You have that Trawley served under Pike in the 2350s as an Ensign. I'm pretty sure you meant 2250s :-) - unsigned

I don't have that, whoever wrote the article in 2007 has that. Probably needs correction either way tho. -- Captain MKB 14:08, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Federation starships (alternate reality)

If the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) (alternate reality) is from an alternate reality created by Nero then all Federation starships should have (alternate reality) in the name.--TyphussJediVader 16:30, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken, and I'm surprised you still think that because we've stopped you from making this type of move before.
An article title only needs a disambiguation if there are two things that have the same name. Otherwise, we use the simplest version. Sorry. -- Captain MKB 16:32, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

I see now, because there are two USS Enterprises , one from the prime reality and one from an alternate reality. I'm sorry for the mixup.--TyphussJediVader 16:36, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Minor edits

Hi Mike, just wondering if you wouldn't mind ticking that little minor edit box when you're doing little adjustments like citation corrections. I don't tend to use the options for hiding minor edits myself, but I imagine other users might. --8of5 10:07, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Quick Question

At least, I hope it's a quick question.

First of all, Captainmike, thanks for double-checking my edits. I'm new to this, and I can use the second set of eyes.

Second, to my question. I noticed that within an entry for a particular book, there are various subsections, such as Characters, Planets and Planetoids, etc. My question is: should the entries listed within those subsections be alphabetized, or should they be listed by the order in which they appear in the book? Actually, I have another question: if the entries should be alphabetized, then is there an automated way to see that done, some encoding within the section that makes that happen automatically?

Thanks for any help you can provide.

--Dragon Three 11:41, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

No problem!
Alphabetization is preferred, but there isn't a lot of automation built into the site to do that. In the past, I've tried using my own software that has sort features, but this can be time consuming also.
Sometimes when I don't have time I just drop a list in and then hope to go back and alphabetize it some other time. -- Captain MKB 15:15, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Captain MKB. I like your answer, since when looking for a piece of information on the site myself, I find alphabetic sorts the most useful (which I suppose must be obvious). I just didn't want to start alphabetizing things without checking first. Anyway, thanks for the response. --Dragon Three 16:48, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Odd capitalization Q

I've noticed recently that when you edit a page, you are lowercasing links to files, categories, templates, etc. For example, on the Robert Chapman page, when adding a template, you turned all of the categories into lowercase. The template was also added as {{uSS Surak personnel}} rather than the "nicer looking" {{USS Surak personnel}}.

I was wondering what the reason for that was, and if it was intentional, since it seems a bit odd. -- sulfur 13:11, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

I like lowercase. It doesn't affect how any of the links are displayed. Sorry if it bothered you. -- Captain MKB 13:20, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre rank issues for the C-in-C and source validity

Howdy, Mike. I was just wondering if I could get you to settle what is turning into a dreadfully long and increasingly asinine (on both parts) back-and-forth between myself and Columbia clipper over the Edward Jellico page - and, by extension, anything else relating to the position of Starfleet Commander-in-Chief.

To summarize, it seems Columbia made a couple of assumptions; first, that since a single senior officer in a 1984 DC Comic was called a "Grand Admiral", he must have been the Commander-in-Chief (even if he wasn't referred to as such); second, he assumed that it followed that all Commanders-in-Chief in Starfleet history must also be "Grand Admirals", and he went through and changed them thus - and got more than a little irked when I disagreed with both assumptions. Also, I'd like to draw your attention to a specific question in the rather long conversation that has greater implications; what is MB policy in regards to things like production and design notes that haven't been contradicted by onscreen evidence? From a strictly academic point-of-view, it seems a little silly to ignore the specific plans of the designers, particularly when these plans were mostly adhered to onscreen.
--IcarusPhoenix 08:40, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

To state our standard operating procedure, we recognize canon as a deciding factor in most all cases, including some but not all designer notes and such based on logical use.
I think a policy like this only relates tangentially to this case, since the discussion is not as much a matter of source material, as it is a discussion of using presumptions as fact. That is the flaw in Columbia Clipper's reasoning.
I've been following the Grand Admiral debate but only topically, i haven't read all commentary on the matter. I am somewhat unsure of Columbia Clipper's exact reasoning for some things, but he has been fairly prolific of late, so i've been giving him some space so that his changes can be judged as a whole and possibly reverted later, once the possibility of an argument goes away (i haven't had time to debate lately).
My two cents: Turner's position is unknown, Smillie's rank has an uncertaintly, but there seems to be a correlation. I don't think we should transpose that rank and position into other personnel of other eras without confirmation.
On the surface, it looks like a logical deduction, but there are other factors that crop up. I'll be prepared to discuss those as the issue continues. -- Captain MKB 12:53, August 1, 2010 (UTC)


Continue this discussion at Forum:Presuming titles, ranks and insignia in licensed character articles -- Captain MKB 13:28, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
I figure that since you already removed my commentary on the forum, it would be unwise to mention this as part of my response there. I didn't miss your introduction, and seeing as the sourcing question was the one I specifically asked to get your opinion on in this matter, I was rather under the impression that it was more than a little relevant. The conversation started as a question of Edward Jellico, and I think that's been settled. All that is left in question are Turner and Willie, and I was specifically addressing that issue, with source materiel to back it up. I wasn't completely disregarding the FASA and DC ranks, but I was suggesting that they shouldn't take precedence over canon information that contradicts them, which is what had happened.
Also, I never even implied that you were unaware of the Fletcher/Rodis work; that was a perfectly valid issue I was bringing up for when Columbia joined the conversation, as I hope he does, since it was his edits that started this discussion in the first place. It was not directed at you as some form of personal affront.
I came to you to mediate this question because I have been using this resource for many years now, and I find myself almost universally agreeing with your actions over any other admin. As an academic and as a wiki admin myself, I tend to see the actions you take as exactly those I would have. That being said, it's your knee-jerk defensive reactions (like assuming that I was implying that you were ignorant) that tend to give certain people (most of whom have thankfully long since gone away) easy ammunition when they complain that you're argumentative.

--IcarusPhoenix 21:51, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

No defensive or knee-jerk reaction here, but if someone asks me to moderate a discussion they will do it on my terms without trying to sneak in separate issues. Please don't characterize my reaction towards me personally for something you asked me to do in the first place.
I'm trying to keep discussions on topic, and that one I am hoping to finish easily.
If you want to discuss things that contradict canon, that's a separate discussion. The current forum discussion was about whether a user should be stopped from applying many presumptions to articles and I would like to see it resolved before you dig up a much larger issue, in order to save time and stress. One issue at a time.
So here it is: What canon concept exists that concretely states that there were no Ensign Junior Grade, Ensign First Class and Grand Admiral ranks in existence? You've said those ranks contradict canon, but how? -- Captain MKB 22:01, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
Um, I never said that those ranks contradict canon (hell, I hadn't even addressed Ensign, (JG), which is a problem that doesn't show up until TNG anyway). I did however, state that it was my feeling that the Fletcher system should take precedence, and that when the two were incompatible (which in the case of Turner alone they are not) then we shouldn't be choosing the lesser.
As for the nature of the discussion, I specifically asked you to moderate an issue that revolved almost entirely around the sourcing problem, and was rather surprised when you decided that was irrelevant. With regard to the secondary problem of universal presumptions of rank application to other officers, I was rather under the impression we had settled that (your wonderful edits to the Grand admiral page being indicative of the solution) and was hoping to get an answer to the primary issue of sourcing.
--IcarusPhoenix 22:13, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
The problem with presumptions applied as fact is what I was aware of. I'm not aware of any sourcing problem, so I'd like you to fully explain it on a separate forum topic.
There's even a capability for users to create their own forum topics without bothering me. Look into it! -- Captain MKB 22:15, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, patronizing users who dared to ask for assistance. That's a useful skill. I am going to step clear of this conversation until someone with a cooler head than ours intervenes.
--IcarusPhoenix 22:22, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
I stepped away for a minute, it's fine now.
I haven't really been able to follow how any of this contradicts Fletcher, or is being given precedence on any such basis. What is the problem? -- Captain MKB 22:48, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
I have done the same; I think what's happened is that I considered the sourcing issue paramount over the assumption, but brought it up second, so there was what I would best describe as a lack of clarity coming from my end, and the conversation became about something other than what I was expecting. I think in getting mired in the sourcing problem during the Jellico/Smillie discussion, it somehow came across that I was referring to Turner. To attempt to clarify my position: Jellico and others are a settle problem, so that no longer needs addressing. Turner is referred to as a Grand Admiral, so there's no issue with naming him such. Smillie is, I think, the crux of the assumption debate, as well as where the two debates coincide (i.e. Smillie is how the sourcing debate began). My feeling is that calling Smillie a "Grand Admiral" does contradict Fletcher, because he is wearing insignia that Fletcher very clearly labeled as a "Fleet Admiral", albeit one with a specific duty. I think my hammering on the sourcing issue over-shadowed why I was doing so.
--IcarusPhoenix

Attitude towards me

Mike I am getting pretty tired of you painting me as some sort of raving mad-man with a vendetta against you. So please, stop assuming when I make replies to you that I am trying provoke you, I am not, I have never, and I never will. When I contribute to discussions here I do so to try and clear up issues I have found, I have zero interest in arguing with anyone, I just want to sort things out. And I have quite enough disputes with you without purposefully trying to antagonise you further! So get over yourself, and drop the attitude please. --8of5 17:57, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Fine, but accept that my answers won't always be instantaneous or in agreement with yours. Certainly I still regret being involved with the style guide discussion, with the associated accusations from both sides, so be aware I am wary when I answer your queries. -- Captain MKB 18:04, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
It's difficult when you intersperse personal accusations like "you're misinformed" and "you misinterpret" in with your arguments -- I'm saying that I still have questions that prevent me from giving you an answer, i'm not misinformed at all, I'm uninformed.
If I rubber-stamped this today with agreement, and said "no, never separate articles", I might see you react negatively if I ever changed my mind and wanted to see what the other result would have been. Because it would be violating a concrete style rule that I approved, you might even accuse me of being "sneaky" and "underhanded" in violating such a rule with a new idea that wasn't part of this discussion. So I won't approve now in the hopes of avoiding your wrath later. This was the result of the style guide discussion.
If we were to expand variations of these articles, I don't think it would be impossible to combine them if the results were found to be lacking. I'm refusing to give a definite answer now because I'd hope to have more leeway when the actual work is being done, and avoiding having to have two discussions, to both revoke a discussion and approve a new style at the same time -- instead, if we leave this one hanging, we can structure the articles, and, with a proper approval vote finalize the format. I did say we should not take this on without working on a solid style presentation however, so when the time comes where I or someone else takes on these articles, we will have the community involved in deciding the outcome. -- Captain MKB 18:07, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns now you've explained them. I brought this away form the discussion page to deal not with the specifics of that page but how you respond to me, it is quite clear from your sighing and warning me not to provoke you that you entered that discussion assume I was indeed trying to provoke you, when I was not, at all. As it's not the first time you've made such comments I felt it necessary to make that clear to you in the hope you will accept it and cut the attitude towards me.

As far as I could tell from your initial response you had misinterpreted what I had written as you started talking about a bunch of completely different pages, so that was not an attack on you, but an attempt to explain what was going on as your comments lead me to believe you had not understood me. And you were misinformed as you asserted we have no system for dealing with multi-story publications, when we in fact do, I'm sorry if it was just that you were unaware of that, but the way you phrased it made it sound like you were very clear in your mind that we don’t have that system in place, when in fact we do. --8of5 18:48, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, missed your first smaller reply which seems to address what I started and replied about here. I appreciate our history of dispute could muddy our relations, but I also know we can and frequently do work together very well too. Be paranoidly wary about me if you must, but please don't manifest that as warnings against behaviour I wasn't even exhibiting. --8of5 18:51, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

USS Ranger Scout article

You stated (in your latest change):

no, we won't be making a link to a ship article we aren't creating. don't delete a whole sentence because you feel one link is unnecessary

I was simply following the format there that had a link to a ship that, worded the way it was, suggested that the "USS Ranger" was the ship of that class, when the USS Ranger ships that already existed were not of that class. The new wording is much better, and makes it much clearer that the intention is to state "if there was a ship, it would be this name, and these are other ships." I might suggest going through the various class/type articles and rewording those BG sentences to be similar to that one.

I didn't delete the sentence because I felt one link was unnecessary. I deleted it because it was inaccurate the way it was worded, and could not find a better wording without putting in a link to the "proper" ship name ["USS Ranger (Ranger class scout)"]. -- sulfur 10:19, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

OKey doke.. i think we both missed what the other were trying to do. The note's main purpose is to let contributors and readers know that there is not going to be a ship article about that ship because it is a presumption, you had deleted the whole thing (i'm assuming your attention was because the link was to a disambig and you were pruning the dab lks) first and then added a link to the ship after the revert, just trying to put that point home. We get a lot of people who will go ahead and make a new article for the imaginary class ship based on the extreme likelihood of it being real, even though it's a presumption.
Let's go with the new wording as standard then, to avoid all the presumptive links and to make sure the disambig link is not misled? -- Captain MKB

That works well enough for me. The new wording is much more precise as to the aims of that blurb anyhow, whereas (like I mentioned) the old misleads, and suggests that ship of name "X" is the one, especially since that link exists! :) -- sulfur 15:46, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

And you?

Any chance you network socialy outside of this wiki (facebook or something of that nature)? – AT2Howell 14:00, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Mods

I can certainly appreciate the reason that fan fiction does not belong here, however the inclusion of the existance of the modding community is not the inclusion of content, just background relevant to the licensed product. As I understand the Wiki's policies, this would fall under real world relevance. Is there a way to reconcile this? It seemed liek the blatant deletion of this material did not fit the subject.

How this relates to the lisenced product is that mad doc released mod tools, patches, and even within the files themselves, format explanations designed for modders. Though it was before my time around here, I am reasonably certain that some of the creators of the Legacy game in particular were pivotal charter mod community members.

Thanks for getting back to me about those additions.
While there may be some talented creators on these mods, this doesn't make it a licensed product, as the creators of the game are no longer working on a licensed product. Just because they are the creators of the game, it doesn't mean that everything they ever will create can be considered a licensed product.
While modding is an important aspect of game-related fan fiction, and that can be noted on the page, it is outside of our site's charter to describe the entire modding scene. I think the entirety of Memory Beta's information on a game's mod possibilitites could be in a single statement and perhaps a few links. There no need for the kind of descriptions I saw added to the article. -- Captain MKB 13:19, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me, and thank you for your consideration. I know there is a fine line to be walked here, while preserving the intent of the wiki. Would you be willing to work with me on trying to add the appropriate notation then? Perhaps in the related articles section?
Update, I put in a brief summary of the modding community as it sprang forth from Bethesda. Only one link, no pictures, and a brief notation of what they got started. I hope this is acceptable, and I am trying to find a reference. Not to get too technical, but the game was released 'unfinished' so many of the features they had enabled in the executable code had no way to access them, thus the first mods simply gave users a way to access what was already in place. Plus the official patches I believe would be considered as falling under the license. If this needs to be amended I'd be glad to adust it. I hope this falls within the guidelines.

Image licensing stuff

I did a first pass (~800 images it seems) on the {{imageparamount}} stuff, and fixed all of the obvious comic images and cover art that I recognized easily. After looking at about 3000 images, my head kinda hurts, so I'm going to take some time off from doing any more of those. Heh. Good luck with the next batch. After that comes the list of images that have no licenses whatsoever. Heehee. -- sulfur 13:45, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help -- i never thought some of these would ever get looked at! -- Captain MKB 13:47, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that the way sometimes? We had a similar bashing through a lot of the MA images a year or so ago when we moved to the new licensing style used there. That move allowed us to spend some time cleaning up a lot of garbage. Sometimes things work out nicely. :) -- sulfur 14:01, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully going forward will be better -- the way i set up the drop down, new uploaders will often get a citation/attribution notice automatically if one of our familiar copyrights isn't used... unless they re-edit or backspace out of it, which is probably and hopefully involved enough that they'll simply give up and attribute the image! - Captain MKB 15:58, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Vandal

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

ummm and no, so glad you aren't an admin - there's a clause about 'contributing in good faith' in our ban policy. Person seems confused about where to leave comments and the damage was repaired. thanks for that! -- Captain MKB 21:18, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I see a no-name contributer replace an entire article with a phrase repeated over and over again, and I get a little trigger happy. Can you really blame me? And, yes, I fixed it. – AT2Howell 21:28, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

It's a spambot. They put in test messages like that on wikis to see how open they are and how fast the reversions/deletions happen. -- sulfur 22:37, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Yup. I will accept your apology in written form at your convenience, Capt. – AT2Howell 13:33, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to apologize to you. You are getting close to getting me annoyed enough to think about banning -you-. Go find someone else to harass. If sulfur was right, the change was reverted quick enough to show the bot we are a patrolled wiki, and no ban is warranted or necessary for the anon. Drop it. -- Captain MKB 16:31, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Images

Thank you! Im hoping to eventualy replace most of the .jpg logos and flags with svg versions if thats alright with the admins? ~ Gav236 (voicemail) • (nation) 20:21, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Well, for images that aren't regularly available i'd say its a great move, but for images that are readily available in our source matter (the Star Trek books) we usually lean towards using the "official" version.
Check our our Memory Beta:Votes for approval of supplemental images page to see how we decide when and when not to use those. -- Captain MKB 20:25, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, I'll be sure to check that page out and give my opinion on the IKS Emblem as well as asking permission before I replace 'official' material with vector images.
Thanks ~ Gav236 (voicemail) • (nation) 17:50, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah don't let it discourage you, there are a lot of good uses for a repository of .svg images and we could discuss the applications too! -- Captain MKB 17:58, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Fix Needed

The short story The Hero of My Own Life is list on the 2301 page, but it should be on the 2310 page. However the events of that story are mentioned on the 2310 page as they should be. I'd fix it myself, but I'm not sure how. Mbruno 02:57, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured it out. It's fixed now. Mbruno 04:54, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome/Quick question

Just replying to the comment left on my talk page. I'm assuming by copy/edit you mean the whole Mohammed issue article :) Also, quick question since I know you have access to the FASA material and have helped me with the stardate placement, in one of the manuals it mentions "Romulan Military Division Intelligence". Now I notice the article is redirected to Tal Shiar but should it have its own article or stay as a redirect? The reason I ask is because the Military Division Intelligence seems to implay that this is an intelligence service linked to the Romulan military and the Tal Diann are said to be military intelligence as opposed to the Tal Shiar which is strictly an intelligence agency. So just wanted your opinion on the subject. Anyway, take care. – Darth Batrus 13:15, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Rom mil intel.jpg

I would tend to think this could be the alternate/translated name of the military intel described in other sources -- the redirect should be adjusted away from the Tal S. in that case. here's a copy of the text. -- Captain MKB 13:31, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the "from" phrasing on Pavel Chekov. "Beginning" didn't work very well, but I couldn't think of a good alternative. "From"'s much better than question marks. --Archimedean 18:31, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I've been trying for a while to find ways to avoid all the extra punctuation -- it doesn't look great as a style, and on top of that it's unencyclopedic to take such special efforts to highlight missing information -- Captain MKB 18:36, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Sort Keys

Ah right, sorry about that. Always done the "M" or single letter for other wikis. Just out of curiousity, whats the difference with putting the full name in? Also, would this be the same with the Starfleet Intelligence category? In that I should put "Intelligence" and not "I"? Anyway, will fix it now. – Darth Batrus 15:29, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

If there were more than one division starting with M, both tagged with "M" as the sort key, it wouldn't be able to sort them alphabetically, because the information would be incomplete, which means that "Starfleet Medical" might have a 50/50% chance to come before "Starfleet Materials.." or so on unless you gave it more than the first letter. It's much more important in peoples names as you would want "M'Benga" to come before "Meriwether" but after "Mathers" so you'd have to put the whole word in and make sure the second and subsequent letters were lowercase and sorted without the punctuation (Mbenga). -- Captain MKB 15:36, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I get it. Thanks for the answer. :) Also, on the FASA front, I pretty much go on and off with it by do aim to make more contributions from them. I noticed the work you did on the SFIM and I just love the addition of the pictures which was something I wasn't able to do but its nice to see some of the articles have them like Project Tapestry. The SFIM books actually inspired me somewhat to give Starfleet Intelligence its own category in the Starfleet agencies section due to the number of operations, front companies and stuff that SI seems to do in the FASAverse. – Darth Batrus 15:45, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Approved images

As you can see, I ended up using {{imageapproved}} for photoshopped (etc) images, and kept {{approved}} for those that are supplemental without changes made to them. At least the wording can be twiddled with/etc to suit. -- sulfur 18:20, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely feel it's more important to get a template going and then we can tweak whatevers later. -- Captain MKB 18:26, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Unattributed images

I did a pass of all of them and figured out everything that I could. The rest I have no obvious idea on. All yours now. :P -- sulfur 00:35, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

You get the gold star today.. or the brass-shaded light copper pale gold star or whatever the fuck we have to call it today! -- Captain MKB 01:06, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

DPL assistance

I'm trying to come up with some DPL (or some other method) of listing all pages in a namespace that do not have a category in the article proper that is not added by a template. For example, a number of articles have template added categories (like the {{imagesource}} things for example), but do not have any [[Category:Memory Beta X]] categories actually listed in the article itself (ignoring the whole "subcat=" variable for the moment here). Do you know of any simple way to figure this listing out? -- sulfur 17:07, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

I've been on the road a lot lately and haven't been writing a lot of hard code, but i think a DPL that reported "links to" (not sure of exact syntax) the template, and then a full list of "notcategory" requirements. I'm not 100% on this, I use DPL most often to report on size and category non-membership. -- Captain MKB 13:44, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

FYI, "uses" appears to be the one. Not sure on the notcategory stuff. I can't seem to get that to work. :( -- sulfur 14:11, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

any luck with this? looking back i'm not sure what you were trying to do -- if you wanted to see all the templatized articles that didn't use the subcat parameter, you'd have to list every possible subcat i think but it maxes out when the list gets too long. -- Captain MKB 19:11, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

It appears that "notcategory" can only be used up to about 30 times. But I did end up getting it to work. It's a bit ugly, but I got it working. :) -- sulfur 20:03, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Chronology

Are we not using your 'chronology' section anymore? I noticed you removed it from a couple of articles. – AT2Howell 19:03, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Modified images

Hi Mike, the images I've just uploaded of the Sydney-class from the Star Trek Fact Files are modified slightly to isolate them on a white background. Does one of your new templates have a feature to note this sort of modification? --8of5 01:10, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

I have been noting this as a new line - italic/indent background-style note (i think see the FASA uniform images for the wording I used?)
Speaking of templates, I just realized why Sci couldn't find one for the andorian emblem image. Sulfur just wrote it a few weeks or less ago and hasn't added it to the list of available image templates yet. I believe the Andorian image should have the same template that, for example, the shuttle al-rashid image has. if you could add that to the andorian emblem then the deletion discussion could be archived. -- Captain MKB 01:33, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Pages with potential

Hey Mike, the Temple article got me thinking, we probably have quite a few article like that, where we have something very minimal, but with a lot of potential for expansion. I know we have stub articles, but there are lots of those, and I know there's the option to leave a talk page message or deletion nomination to get articles attention, but those can be extreme measures. Do you think we could devise some sort of system to pick out the worst articles with most potential, to get them attention and get them developed? I've not really got a system in mind, but there must be a way to get these articles some needed attention. --8of5 22:50, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Memory Alpha has the "pna" (pages needing attention) system (or it did the last time I was there on a daily basis) so I've seen it work before.
We could also use portals or some other means of dividing up articles to identify "user projects" or "hubs" where one central topic spawns many subordinate articles - for example, I like ships and uniformed personnel, so I have the SF personnel and Fed starships categories keyed to show me the shortest and oldest articles of the group -- so i can immediately key up the ones that could use the most TLC, as an interested contributor who is looking for a problem area to get right to.
One thing about short pages that are similar to "temple" is that they tend to form these "hubs" -- they aren't necessarily huge topics by themselves, but they link to like topics (basically, any "temple" that's ever been)... a similar but less earth-shaking version is "pudding" -- not a huge importance, but there are a dozen different puddings linked on MB, so it becomes the center of a group of articles, just as temple does. -- Captain MKB 23:21, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguations

FYI, we had a few hundred orphaned pages here on MB, 90% of which were disambiguations. This makes it difficult to actually see what is really orphaned. As such, I created a page that links to every single disambiguation page. This means that we can actually deal with orphaned pages on a regular basis.

I've also got some DPL on a subpage of mine that will list all disambiguation pages not linked from the main page, and ones linked from the page that do not have the template.

So, what's this mean to you? When you create disambig pages, can you add 'em to the big-ass page? Thanks. -- sulfur 03:16, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up.
Just wondering, would it be easier to DPL the disambig category on such a page to auto-write the links? I have no problem cooperating when faced with such a simple request, but I don't know if the rest of Memory Beta can remain respectful or appropriate when requirements like this are made. -- Captain MKB 13:48, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

We have ~1300 disambig pages. DPL has a hardcoded limit of 500 pages. That's why I wrote the DPL that I did, since that will allow us to just simply cut and paste a bunch of links over when we need them, and should stop them from being orphans (in theory) in the meantime. -- sulfur 15:10, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

If the issue is avoiding orphaning pages wouldn't it be better to make sure we do a better job linking the relevant pages to the disambiguation pages using the otheruses templates? That gives a useful function on those pages, and doesn't require what is basically a duplicate of an already existent category. --8of5 20:02, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
We could get around the hard-coded limit by creating a series of pages -- is it possible to limit an alpha sorted report to only show one letter? We could DPL only the "A" disambigs from the category to Memory Beta:Links to disambiguating pages (A) and so on and so forth and fall far short of the limit -- aside from not having to list them manually. -- Captain MKB 20:10, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Classically, disambiguations are not supposed to be linked from anywhere – they're (in theory) supposed to be orphaned, and used only as redirections when people get lost. Either way, I have no problem occasionally checking things and adding them when they're missed. That's why I wrote the DPL (at least partly the reason, heh). Now that the ~1300 are on there, it should make things easier. -- sulfur 00:00, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you've got them well-ordered there. Some attention to them is good, they do tend to pile up when you delve into a subject. I've never looked into how the Special disambig page is generated but the data doesn't seem very robust -- looks more like it lists pages that link to rather than away. -- Captain MKB 00:20, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

That's precisely what that report is. Pages that link to the disambig pages so that you can fix the links and point them to the proper locations instead :) -- sulfur 13:09, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

I see... kind of defeatable considering that there are valid reasons to link to a dab, though -- it doesn't help discern fixable links because the report eventually fills to capacity with valid links. -- Captain MKB 13:16, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

This is true. The logic behind it is decent, the execution, perhaps not so much. Of course, the design of it is that (as noted above) the only time a disambig page would ever be linked to is in the case of "Page"->"Page (disambiguation)". So, when the "otheruses" method is used on ten pages to point to a single disambig page... You see where this is going, Eh? :)

Also, note that we never said that the design of it was perfect... just a good idea. Sortof. -- sulfur 13:26, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

If there was a way to exclude the links made by means of transclusion with otheruses, youmay and surname - then the data would probably clear up greatly. -- Captain MKB 13:31, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me if some DPL could handle that. It would get a bit complicated mind you, but still... Regardless, just looking at the first 10-15, there are a bunch of those that are actually just bad disambig lks. I've fixed several, but there are ones like Fredericks and Clark that just don't fit in too well... -- sulfur 13:41, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

New Wikia look

You've likely long since noticed, but I did some basic customizing on the new look for Memory Beta, including the background image (based on one of the teaser posters from the new movie) and the new logo ("wordmark") that was a quickly knocked off version of the old logo.

Any thoughts on it at all?

You can play around with the new look with the Special:ThemeDesigner thing which is accessible from the "My Tools" in the bottom right corner of each article. -- sulfur 17:30, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

I haven't noticed, I'm trying to stick with monobook. I might have some time this weekend to delve into the new world of Wikia reskins. -- Captain MKB 17:39, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Vandal

96.48.64.3 is an old vandal who has chosen to try again. Please block him. – AT2Howell 19:08, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Dealt with. -- sulfur 02:24, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Wiki

I created a wiki for star trek game mods here. Should we add it to related wikis, or not yet. --Not Spock 21:20, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Stardate magazine

FYI, I filled out the Memory Alpha version of that article this morning, including covers for 18 issues, and the Trek-related contents for each one. I'm happy to help expand the article here, once I get a good grasp as to your goals with it. -- sulfur 19:23, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

My current objective is to start adding reference lists, anything else would be a big help. I have no edits in progress, but have acknowledged the possibility of splitting off individual issues as their level of detail may increase. -- Captain MKB 22:16, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

Article moves, disambiguations, etc

I notice that you moved a lot of articles to disambiguate them or to create disambiguation pages. I've been trying to clean up the links to these things post-move, but it's quite a pain. When you do moves such as these, can you try to clean up some of the links along the way too? Just so that things that were going to the correct articles before are no longer going to disambiguation pages or red links? Thanks, it just saves everybody else a bit of time and bother. -- sulfur 14:12, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

I was going to create pages and correct links for all, based on the record of my actions in the move log. Sorry I haven't had time to finish this yet, I didn't mean to upset you by taking so long -- I was working up the list but had to go to work, I'll be going through a few more each day to correct the situation. Again, sorry to upset you by not meeting your time requirements for getting these cleaned up. -- Captain MKB 20:25, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all -- it was more to ensure that you'd not forgotten them, etc if you know what I mean. As long as they're getting taken care of and not falling by the wayside, it's all good. :) -- sulfur 12:51, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Article Structure

Okay, will do. Thanks! Agent0042 13:11, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Mirror universe

In browsing through this website I've noticed you've created a new symbol, and I've had some thoughts for its use. See File talk:Mir.jpg--Robert Treat 07:10, January 9, 2011 (UTC).

Edits to 2371

Hi captainmike, don't your edits on 2371 re "The Return" belong to the "Shatnerverse", and don't we have some kind of guidance (which I can't remember at the moment) on how to deal with the different timelines / universes? Just a thought :) Tkhobbes 20:17, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

Since there are no sources that explicitly state that Kirk did not Return/go on to have further adventures, I'd have to say that you are mistaken in thinking this is an "alternate" timeline or universe in any way. -- Captain MKB 20:40, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

Bounty 2/Bounty II

Someone had created a Bounty II article; I created the Bounty 2 article without knowing about the first. The source novel always uses the arabic numeral, not the roman numeral. I don't know if a merge is necessary, maybe a redirect from one to the other; all of the content of the II article is on the 2 article already. Thanks. --Savar 16:00, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

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