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

Manually added subcats & other formatting?[edit source]

Hi, I just wanted to ask about a couple of the edits you've made after mine to check my understanding (as I'm not au fait with all the technical jiggery-pokery). The first is to the file:spacedock starship (2285).jpg image - Your edit summary states "please dont override by manually adding subcategories", but I don't really understand what this means as there doesn't appear to be any difference to the end result, so I'm hoping you can put me right? The second is that I don't know what you mean by "wtf formatting rly?" in the USS Ephrata edit summary. What are "wtf" and "rly"? I mean, I can see the changes that you've made, but just don't understand the summary. I'd never make it in Starfleet engineering ;) - Cyfa (talk) 22:48, December 29, 2013 (UTC)

There should be a clearer policy page to explain these issues but we've never really had time to create one i think.
Symbols in sidebar tables should be scaled to bout 40 pixels tall and all other images should be precisely 220px wide. i'm not sure why, but many users create articles with larger symbols and they choose other random sizes for photo images. we've discussed this before and previously decided that symbols should be small enough to line up several in a row (and be of approximate matched heights), and the images should be 220px.
Categories should use the DEFAULTSORT tag to set up category sorts as a default. that is why it is the default. other alphabetization schemes have been used or in absense of a sort tag, categories are individually sorted, which is not preferable.
the {{imagesource}} tag has "subcat=" fields to create custom categorizations in subcategories of Memory Alpha images. This is the only way people should create custom categories. people should NOT be manually adding "Memory Alpha images (Xxxxxxx)" categories - because the "imagesource" tag will create a duplicate categorization unless you fill in the field. so don't manually add those image categories. please.
furthermore, the correct way to add an image is with the prefix "file:" ... NOT the prefix "image:"... it almost seems like some users are using some sort of old template or are copy pasting from an old article made before the site started using formatting. -- Captain MKB 23:02, December 29, 2013 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I think I understand most of it now. I'd read somewhere that sidebar images should be 220px wide, but hadn't seen anything about the size of symbols, so I'll go with the 40px from now on (although, personally I think they look too small unless there're more than four in a row).
I get the DEFAULTSORT tag and have been using that where necessary, and will use the "subcat=" field for images now instead of the MA image cats (even though I still don't really understand the duplicate categorisation thingy).
Thanks for clearing this and that lowercase stuff up, although I'm still none the wiser about "wtf" and "rly". Unless "wtf" means what I think it does, in which case, I hope you have a less frustrating day today than yesterday. -- Cyfa (talk) 09:49, December 30, 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your willingness to decrease frustration. i have explained these things to others who still have yet to respond, over periods of years, but still contribute without caring about the issues that were communicated. it adds up and sorry if you took the brunt of it.
whenever you use the {{imagesource}} tag, it adds a category automatically. if you do not specify a subcategory, it will just add the base category for images. if you manually add a category, the base category still comes with the imagesource tag, and we have too many categories. the base category shouldnt be filled with images that are already in subcategories, manually added or not -- Captain MKB 05:27, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

Images[edit source]

I thought i had been leaving the appropriate information on the images i've uploaded. If i've been forgetting something tell me what it is.--CC-1990 (talk) 18:22, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

Immediate deletions[edit source]

You just deleted my page, with no warning? Not cool. -- unsigned

Very cool. -- Captain MKB 23:58, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

B.G. Robinson image[edit source]

Whats wrong with the B.G. Robinson.jpg image?. The other image shows her face sideways. I don't see the problem. Its the same image they use on Memory Alpha. Wait, you just don't like the image. I think my image is better than the other one. Maybe we should vote on it.--TyphussJediVader (talk) 12:34, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

She has silly expression on her face. I'd rather an image with a neutral expression.
And you certainly need to stop replacing good images for no reason -- i have warned you about this already - Captain MKB 23:57, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

Why didn't you say that in the summary when you took out the image, i didn't know you had a problem with the image.--TyphussJediVader (talk) 00:07, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

You've made a habit of ignoring everything i have tried to communicate to you ... for years! how was i supposed to know you were going to pick today to start listening? -- Captain MKB 00:08, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

U.S.S. Virginia page[edit source]

Sir I created a page after a ship I designed myself. I nabbed it after a cruiser my father served on to honor him and now they are trying to delete my page. I am a member of Redemption Fleet an IMVU roleplay group and we wish to share our stories and ideas. Please help me.

CptCassidyJohnson (talk) 14:48, April 1, 2014 (UTC)

Hi CapitanMike, thanks for the message** I've been a fan of the sight of a long time and just wonted to give something back. At the moment I'm just getting to know how to use the sight. I'm shore that I will have a few questions and will need some help from time to time. Many thank** Jethro :)

Aestes27 is still at it[edit source]

Heads-up in case you hadn't seen it yet. No sooner did the lock of the Vesta-class page expire than Aestes27 went right back in and futzed with it again. --StarSword (talk) 20:17, April 20, 2014 (UTC)

He's come back and is up to his old tricks. See Intrepid-class. I've already reverted him. --StarSword (talk) 20:13, July 15, 2014 (UTC)

URL for ya[edit source]

Try out :) talk2ty 03:15, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

Didn't Martok die only in the Online timeline? If so, shouldn't we specify that on his page's template?--DarthKenny (talk) 04:04, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

STO 2393 is the only timeline we know aboutt in 2393. since it is the only 2393 timeline, what are we specifying? we specify 'sources' here, not 'timelines' - Captain MKB 11:55, July 7, 2014 (UTC)

Head's up: unreg'd IP impersonating a moderator[edit source]

Special:Contributions/ needs an IP ban. On some sort of anti-STO crusade on the forum and threatening people with bans. --StarSword (talk) 03:00, July 15, 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Special:Contributions/ needs the boot as well. --Kevin W.Talk to me 04:20, August 4, 2014 (UTC)
Please notice the times on those. Well over a year ago. -- sulfur (talk) 12:38, August 4, 2014 (UTC)
Jesus... that's what I get for looking at two separate users' contributions at the same time. I got the dates mixed up. Whoops. --Kevin W.Talk to me 06:21, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Categories[edit source]

Thanks for the heads-up regarding categories. My apologies about forgetting about them. Can I ask if there are any rules about what categories to apply? Merci! --Igorlex (talk) 16:08, August 3, 2014 (UTC)

Igorlex, please use your powers of observation to see the categories added to the articles you created, as myself and other editors did the work of adding those for you. in general, a person should be categorized by their species, date of birth/death if known, their allegiance to any organization, their occupation, rank or title. in particular, starfleet persons should have categories for their rank, specialty AND the time period they served, as well as the main Starfleet category.
Since you are obviously an intelligent person, im sure that going back and taking note of what was done will be easy for you - Captain MKB 00:29, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I just saw this - I haven't done any new pages since then, but this is a good guide! --Igorlex (talk) 18:43, November 17, 2014 (UTC)

New comic articles[edit source]

I just read your message on my talk page. I did not think i was forgetting anything except the New release stub. Plus i thought i should put down the limited information that was on Star trek website news. I'll try to find out what i've been doing wrong and correct it.--CC-1990 (talk) 20:47, August 7, 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and created basic articles for each part of the Q Gambit using the CORRECT formatting. please use these as models. -- Captain MKB 07:37, August 9, 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry for putting the "useless gibberish" on the page Richard Castillo. I was only trying to be thorough. I fully understand your reason for removing the temporal displacement section on the page, and I will not re-add it or anything. - Goweegie2 (talk) 01:38, August 27, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Thoroughness is admirable, but it doesnt justify putting information in the wrong place. That part of the sidebar is solely there to explain people who have permanently traveled through time, not temporarily -- Captain MKB 01:53, August 27, 2014 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT and apology[edit source]

Hey Captain Mike, thank you for letting me know of this. I'm really sorry that we keep meeting up like this, really I am. Even though I've been using this site for a long time now, some things I eventually learn later on how to do (like communicating with you right now for example). I just thought those articles fit into those categories, and I want to help contribute so much. Incidentally, does the sorting just deal with characters that have a first and last name? If so, I will definitely try to do that in the future. If you were upset with anything that I did in the past, I sincerely apologize for my ignorance.--Humanoid21 (talk) 14:27, September 7, 2014 (UTC)

Credit[edit source]

Special:Contributions/ These are all mine. Can I get credit for them now?

--LauraCC (talk) 16:38, September 17, 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. IP edits cannot be associated with a user. -- sulfur (talk) 17:38, September 17, 2014 (UTC)

Mirror Universe races and cultures[edit source]

Sorry about that. I just thought that races from both the primary universe and the mirror universe were exactly the same (except for their circumstances) and that having two almost similar article descriptions of a race (who are biologically the same) in one category to be redundant. I assumed someone would someday make a primary universe Iyaaran article which would eliminate the need for the mirror universe Iyaaran article in the races and cultures category. My mistake.--Humanoid21 (talk) 13:56, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

Well, i don't think we need "(mirror)" cultures articles in the first place. the whole things a wasted effort, as all species have been shown to be identical in the mirror universe, with no differences that would justify the second article. sure they have a different history, but how does that make them a different race? its just nonsense that you and other users are creating worthless throwaway articles. mirror Iyaarans are in fact Iyaarans, and its really idiotic to think we need two articles for that -- Captain MKB 02:44, October 4, 2014 (UTC)

I honestly agree, when you put it that way did does sound ridiculous to make two articles for the same thing when that info could be put in one article. That would save a lot of space. But I've never created a mirror universe article, and I did not create this specific article either. I was only following my gut on where it should go. Once again my apologies.--Humanoid21 (talk) 14:03, October 4, 2014 (UTC)

i apologize also, i didn't mean to take the accusatory tone. this one can probably just be moved as a quick fix, i think i did a similar fix to the Husnock or their planet the other day - Captain MKB 14:05, October 4, 2014 (UTC)

That's okay, I understand. It's such a pain when someone doesn't fix something in a proper way, and I've seen a lot of that happen on here. I just don't want to be considered one of "those" people. And I'm truly sorry if you were ever put off by anything I've done, just still going through a learning process. If you want, I could alert you or another person like Sulfur of any extreme change that an article needs in the future if it needs it. Good luck with your fixes and have a nice day.--Humanoid21 (talk) 14:33, October 4, 2014 (UTC)

oh no, just be mindful of situations that cause the removal of a category - its always better to err on the side of overcategorization because those can be sorted en masse as a fix. when you decategorize, its makes things drop out of sight from lists of articles that could be further fixed. this of coure is exceptional to catching a definite miscategorization, if you get my meaning - Captain MKB 14:49, October 4, 2014 (UTC)

How do you add a category? I had an idea for "presumed deaths"....specifically Abaran made me think of it....But I see that my original thought that he is a 2259 death has been restored by someone else--LauraCC (talk) 15:41, October 21, 2014 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the meaning. if someone's death is not a confirmed fact, we shouldnt be categorizing them as either dead or alive, we dont use presumptions as article or categorization material. -- Captain MKB 13:43, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

Technical question re: STO[edit source]

I'm adding data to the New Romulus page and I was wondering if you had any ideas for how to cite the "History of New Romulus" accolades (that's where the data for the pre-game planetary history comes from). AFAIK it was never published as a web document like The Path to 2409 but there's enough data in there to be worth a page of its own. --StarSword (talk) 23:06, October 26, 2014 (UTC)

Not a player, but if these 'accolades' are presented ("published") directly to the player as part of gameplay or the player's interaction with the STO website(s), then they can and should be cited as sourced from the game or the websites (s long as they are officially part of the game Cryptic is presenting to the player ) -- Captain MKB 13:48, November 2, 2014 (UTC)
"Accolades" is the term STO uses for achievements. They're viewable in-game, it's just that they're not part of any particular mission. They're buried in the user interface a couple menus deep and you unlock them by completing a duty officer assignment (basically detaching one or more redshirts to do a task off-ship, whereas a "mission" is done by the player directly) on New Romulus. The in-game version of The Path to 2409 is done approximately the same way -- you earn a datachip by doing a mission at Starfleet Academy or at Klingon Academy and activate it to unlock an accolade with part of the Path as its flavor text.
I was just wondering if you had any idea how to cite them. What I've been doing is (STO video game: Legacy of Romulus ["History of New Romulus" accolades]). --StarSword (talk) 19:08, November 9, 2014 (UTC)
In the past we've never really broken down video games into missions or levels on a cite to cite basis. if theyre part of the game, i would just cite them to the game - i dont see the need to go any further. -- Captain MKB 19:19, November 9, 2014 (UTC)

Anon[edit source]

To Captainmike

I apologize for my actions by using the color template without authorization. I thought I was trying to help, since I have autism and disability. I hope you can forgive me what I did okay?

So are we cool?

P.S. I am a good Trekki (A Wikia contributor) The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]]) .

There's no need to apologize, and as long as your activities on the wiki are not disruptive, then we are 'cool'
however, there is no cause for anonymous users to design or redesign mass-use templates. these are frequently locked down to prevent unregistered/anonymous users from vandalizing or marginalizing the good work of our logged in contributors, who often participate in discussion as to why such changes are/are not beneficial. the fact that questions regarding the new use of the color template could not be addressed or discussed properly did clearly identify that a massive vandalism could be possible if the template wasn't locked - Captain MKB 13:48, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

What about the United States of America, are you gonna fix that or leave it how it is? -- The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]]) .

if there is discussion as to why or why not the template needs to be expanded, i certainly will explain why i don't think there's any need to 'fix' that or expand into further usages of the template for planetary nations -- Captain MKB 23:30, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

Re: William (T.) Riker (alternates)[edit source]

Something weird must have happened during the merge you performed. In the page history it now says that I first deleted a large amount of data and then restored an even larger amount, but I never did that. All I did was copy one small paragraph from the page that is now the redirect and inserted it into the other one. It doesn't look like any important information was lost on the page, all the alternates from all the different sources (including the section I copied over) are still there. It just looks weird. - Bell'Orso (talk) 21:14, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

The two page histories are now intermingled. looking at the articles history now, it will show the less effective (but still good-faith edits) of the alternate article as replacements, and then will show the article reverting to the better work you did pasting theirs' in. each authors edits are still connected to their content. but it shows that a back and forth took place --- Captain MKB 23:18, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

Anon 2[edit source]

Dude, have ever got the Star Trek Starcharts book and look at the colors on different interstellar states both Alpha and Beta Quadrants as well as the Delta Quadrant lately and I was asking if you are planning on doing so since I can't do it without permission.

Thats all I'm asking -- The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]]) .

You're asking if you have Star Charts? i don't understand. -- Captain MKB 22:41, November 11, 2014 (UTC)

Yes and I was hoping if you got as well?

I just wanna to say, you did an excellent job on working the colors on other interstellar states, and I was wondering when are you gonna do the rest of the states since I did it by accident and without permission?

And did you also saved the numbers from the color template a while back?

But if you don't have too, I understand okay? -- The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]]) .

It doesnt make any sense to assign color codes and overcomplicate the template. none of those interstellar states are large enough to actually use such coding. we're not going to color code a race that has only one or two appearances. the code will not be used enough to justify such an action. if someone wants to suggest a new coding, they need to suggest it, and understand that there will be a discussion and approval on a code-by-code basis. there are a finite number of colors available and the registered users of this site will control how additions are added to the template. i did give you a link to the discussion page that explains this and there is no reason not to use a talk page. and all edits remain saved in the article history. -- Captain MKB 10:40, November 15, 2014 (UTC)

Re: My recent edits to pages for shuttlecraft classes[edit source]

For the "Type-4 shuttlecraft" I simply copied what was already there in a subsection of the article into the infobox and then deleted the subsection (it itself was really only a list, not flow-text). I assume some tech manual can back that info up. For the Type-11 shuttlecraft I simply used visual observation from ST: INS (four seats in the cockpit etc.). The info for the "Type-6 shuttlecraft", "Type-7 shuttlecraft" and "Type-9A shuttlecraft" comes, as cited, from the TNG Tech Manual. - Bell'Orso (talk) 14:35, November 9, 2014 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure where the speed and armament info for the "Type-8 shuttlecraft", "Type-9 shuttlecraft" and "Type-10 shuttlecraft" comes from. I have the DS9 Tech Manual and the dimensions for the Type-10 are acurate, as are those for the "Type-18 shuttlepod" shuttlepod, but the DS9 Tech Manual is very vague about armaments and gives no info at all on speed that I could find. Perhaps that comes from Starship Spotter? - Bell'Orso (talk) 14:47, November 9, 2014 (UTC)

in the cases where we have highly specific numerical data in the sidebar, i'd love if we could pick up the style of using inline references for each data point. i know you're rearranging info that is in the articles already, so the citations might not be forthcoming, but i figured i'd tag the ones i didn't know off the top of my head hoping for clarification in that style. -- Captain MKB 14:53, November 9, 2014 (UTC)

"Inline references"? How exactly would that work? Any way, the info on the Type-4 (referred to there as "class G", apparently) might also come from Decipher's Starships RPG book. So might the conflicting / uncertain info for the Type-6 and Type-10. I only own the TNG and DS9 Tech Manuals, not the Decipher RPG book or Starship Spotter, so I can't help in that regard. - Bell'Orso (talk) 15:36, November 9, 2014 (UTC)

I created some as an example at the article "Type-16 shuttlecraft" to show the structure -- basically, each data point in the sidebar should be vetted by a source, and the ref tags fit in the small space thereof -- Captain MKB 16:34, November 9, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, thanks. Will try to keep that in mind and implement it when I edit infoboxes in the future. Btw, according to the TNG Tech Manual the Type-16 is a shuttlepod, just like the Type-15 it was based on. - Bell'Orso (talk) 17:10, November 9, 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I went through the Fed shuttles from the TNG Tech Manual, types 6, 7, 9A, 15 and 16 and cited what I could find. I even looked through the DS9 Tech Manual, but that one is rather vague for the shuttles. I did, however, go through all the Fed starship classes from the DS9TM and cited what I could, or where it didn't seem to conflict with other material I don't have, such as Starship Spotter.
I also took the liberty of creating new pages for the different types of shipboard phaser emitters, types IV, V and VII through XI, like MA has (well, it only has IV and VIII), but I still don't know where that type-VI designation comes from for armament of the type-4 / class G shuttle, so I held off on creating that page for the moment. Same with the type-XII that I found a redlink to. The TNGTM states that the Galaxy-class's type-X are the most powerfull phaser installed on ships, but since it seems to have been written from a late-2350s / early-2360s point-of-view that could easily have been superceded by the time of the Dominion War. I didn't find any refs to type-XII in the DS9TM either, so it must comes from Starship Spotter or somewhere else. - Bell'Orso (talk) 00:01, November 10, 2014 (UTC)
i remember the 'type 12' was quite an issue of debate on a message board in my youth because it appeared on a book or poster somewhere and a lot of people were concerned whether it would be adhered to by 'canon' or the franchise's own publications. it might be a peculiaritty of the Sovereign class era though so wont affect the majority of articles
one detail i truly love about the phaser 'type' system is that it seems to carry from hand held types one hand phasers, type two pistols, type three rifles into the larger mounted units - Captain MKB 10:47, November 15, 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I always thought the same, especially since those type-15 shuttlepods are so small that a type-IV phaser installed in one couldn't be much bigger than a type-III rifle. And I do believe it was stated somewhere that the Sovereign class has type-XII phasers installed, but I can't remember for the life of me where that was. - Bell'Orso (talk) 16:40, November 15, 2014 (UTC)
I just saw the type-XII phaser for the Sovereign class cited to Starship Spotter. There's also a mention of it on the "Vigilant class (tactical escort)" that's not actually in the game, but only appeared on the now-defunct Ships of the Line website. I went ahead and created the page for the type-XII phaser but didn't put the unsourced info (can't look up that defunct website), just like I did for the type-VI phaser, where I found a mention cited to an RPG. - Bell'Orso (talk) 19:33, November 15, 2014 (UTC)

more duplicates[edit source]

"Borg Cube 19721" and "Cube 19721" are the same ship, except that the second page is a little more detailed. The first page should be deleted or merged into the second. - Bell'Orso (talk) 20:32, November 29, 2014 (UTC) Also, the "USS Roanoke (runabout)" was never actually mentioned as destroyed in flight or crashed. Therefore, the "USS Roanoke (runabout) (II)" should be merged into this article. - Bell'Orso (talk) 19:38, November 30, 2014 (UTC) Also, the "USS Hudson (Danube class)" and "USS Hudson (runabout)" should probably be merged as well. - Bell'Orso (talk) 21:51, November 30, 2014 (UTC)

i've been working all week but ill do the backwork on these soon, remind me if i let them go into the weekend --- Captain MKB 01:35, December 3, 2014 (UTC)
Consider yourself reminded. ;) (Are text smileys OK around here? Not sure where to look up such conversation conventions for this wiki. Don't wanna step on any toes.) - Bell'Orso (talk) 14:00, December 7, 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's been a couple weeks, so I figured I'd ask if there's any particular reason why you still haven't merged "USS Hudson (Danube class)" and "USS Hudson (runabout)"? I'll understand you were simply busy or just overlooked it, but if you think there's a reason not to merge them at all I'd like to know, because to me at least it seems pretty plausible that these two are in fact the same craft. - Bell'Orso (talk) 15:29, December 21, 2014 (UTC)
my attention span has been at a premium lately -- and i still had the tabs open even. -- Captain MKB 16:48, December 21, 2014 (UTC)
No worries mate, we've all been there. Thanks for the merge. - Bell'Orso (talk) 17:07, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Here's two more yet again: "USS North Star" and "USS Northstar". - Bell'Orso (talk) 18:10, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

I'm going back to the source next time i open my reader to see which spelling is definitive. -- Captain MKB 12:48, December 27, 2014 (UTC)
Just as an update to this last set of duplicates, I have since checked the "Badlands" books and the ship ony appears in Book IV, with the spelling "Northstar. I am in the process of dealing with the other duplicates as well, in terms of eliminating unneccessary redirects. - Bell'Orso (talk) 16:26, November 4, 2017 (UTC)

Tales From Salonbay question[edit source]

Does this have a page? If not, where ought it go? On this site or another? --LauraCC (talk) 15:43, December 2, 2014 (UTC)

i didnt see any sort of licensing copyright so i'd say this is material for one of the fan fiction sites out there, and not for Memory Beta -- Captain MKB 01:34, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

Federation starship classes[edit source]

As part of my ongoing, on-and-off project to source info from the TNG and DS9 Tech Manuals I added the already existing article Federation light cruiser (Constitution variant) to the Template:Federation starship classes, since the Federation light cruiser (Intrepid variant) was already listed there, but then I saw two other DS9TM kitbashes listed on the unnamed Federation starship classes page and I added the only missing DS9TM kitbash there instead of creating a new article for it. Perhaps the other two should be merged in as well. Also, I'm planning on subdividing the [[Category:Memory Beta images (Starship schematics)]] further. I know I've been yelled at for creating categories before, but the pre-existing [[Category:Memory Beta images (Federation starship schematics)]] didn't have much page content besides its parent categories, so I simply adapted that for [[Category:Memory Beta images (Cardassian starship schematics)]] as a test case and added the three of four DS9TM schematics I found on this wiki to it through "subcat"-ing the imagesource template as I've seen done elsewhere (I think someone was dividing Fed starship images by class through this means).

So, have I done good? Have I done bad? Should I continue? Should I stop? - Bell'Orso (talk) 13:57, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

All seems on the up and up. As long as categories created have a suitable description and are categorized themselves, there's no major problems that i have seen. -- Captain MKB 14:22, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

Memory Delta wiki Template:Characterbox[edit source]

I made a Template:Characterbox on my wiki,, the Template:Characterbox won't go to the right. Like Template:Conflict infobox, Template:FederationMemberStateInfobox, Template:SmallcraftInfobox, Template:Armed force, Template:Starship, Template:Starship class, Template:Species, Template:State. Can you fix this.--Typhuss999 (talk) 20:42, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

Can you fix these templates on my wiki.--Typhuss999 (talk) 21:32, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

Can you fix this, please.--Typhuss999 (talk) 14:21, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Hi, i'm not sure of my ability to design a templating system for an entire wiki project, since i work witth an editor's skin and have to struggle to maintain the presentation quality of the wikis i already work on. i just don't know if i would be able to figure what's giving you trouble about the templates you refer to. -- Captain MKB 14:36, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Can you have another user or admin help me with my problem on my wiki.--Typhuss999 (talk) 14:43, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Is there another admin on the wiki that can help me with my template problem on my wiki, Memory Delta wiki.--Typhuss999 (talk) 15:42, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Can you try to fix it or can another admin help me.--Typhuss999 (talk) 20:36, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

I found this:


Optional. If you want the box to appear just exactly where you put the template just leave this empty. If you want to force the box to appear on the left or right side of the screen so that you can write information next to it (like other infoboxes) use left or right here. If you want to force the box to be centered in the middle of the screen use center. What does this mean.--Typhuss999 (talk) 21:14, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

I found this:


Optional. If you want the box to appear just exactly where you put the template just leave this empty. If you want to force the box to appear on the left or right side of the screen so that you can write information next to it (like other infoboxes) use left or right here. If you want to force the box to be centered in the middle of the screen use center. What does this mean?. Can another admin help me one you know. Like Template:Conflict infobox, Template:FederationMemberStateInfobox, Template:SmallcraftInfobox, Template:Armed force, Template:Starship, Template:Starship class, Template:Species, Template:State.--Typhuss999 (talk) 19:59, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

shutlecraft types[edit source]

The unnamed Federation shuttlecraft classes currently has two types by named craft listed on it and two more split off in their own pages, one of which has just as little info on it as the two on the above page, the other a little more. Now, for the sake of consistency, should the two separate pages be merged into the "unnamed" page, or should the two already on there be split off like the other two? It just really bugs me that the (somewhat higher profile) Argo from "Nemesis" doesn't have its own page and some other (relatively unknown) craft based on it does. - Bell'Orso (talk) 12:37, December 27, 2014 (UTC)

If you feel an unnamed topic article can be comprehensively fleshed out, go ahead and make an 'unnamed page' for it and link it back from unnamed Federation shuttlecraft classes. The only proviso for doing this is that we have to make sure we have enough information to fill out the article, and enough information to make a descriptive name for an unnamed topic.
For the argo, i don't really know how to describe it so Argo type shuttlecraft might do unless we come up with a better descriptor.
I dont like the "X-type" pages because they create a mistaken impression that the class name is "Argo" (or whatever the example is).. when it is probably not. But this is a necessary evil in the interest of, like you say, giving a vessel with a major appearance its own class page. -- 12:47, December 27, 2014 (UTC)

User[edit source]

User has been messing up pages today, you should block I have fixed the pages.--Typhuss999 (talk) 01:04, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

Galaxy X image[edit source]

I found my (German language) copy of the Fact File on the Galaxy X. In that one, the side view is red, not light blue like your latest version. I'll see about getting all the views scanned and uploaded somewhere so you can take a look before I upload anything to here. And by the way, what's the Fact Files file/card number on your source? - Bell'Orso (talk) 18:02, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

I pulled it from a site where it was only credited to the series fact files. that's what's happened, whoever posted it on EAS must have reversed the colors? -- Captain MKB 18:50, December 28, 2014 (UTC)
Not reversed exactly, but altered, yes. Or traced in b&w over the original colored version. Originally (well, in the German language version), the side view should be bright red lines on black, the bottom view orange on black, etc. - Bell'Orso (talk) 19:08, December 28, 2014 (UTC)
Alright, how's this:
Note that I flipped the dorsal and ventral views to face right, as they were facing up and down respectively on the original card. - Bell'Orso (talk) 15:07, December 30, 2014 (UTC)
So what do you think? Can these go up here? - Bell'Orso (talk) 03:13, January 4, 2015 (UTC)
I had found a version similar to the side view but if this one is better quality, i say yes, let's replace it. good scouting, do you have a final citation? -- Captain MKB 03:21, January 4, 2015 (UTC)
I didn't scout any of those from the web, I scanned and uploaded those myself. The final citation is a bit problematic, as I'm not quite sure how to translated the German "Anhang Karte 3" into English. Something like "appendix card 3" perhaps? I have no clue what card number this is in the original English version, but I assume it's the same as in my German copy, so it should be "file 31, appendix card 3". - Bell'Orso (talk) 17:04, January 4, 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and replaced it. - Bell'Orso (talk) 23:48, January 10, 2015 (UTC)

Cousteau[edit source]

I split off the info about the second yacht of that name to Cousteau (II), then I moved the rest to Cousteau (I) because I think both craft are equally notable and that should be reflected in the pagenames for both being disambiguated and then tried to move the content of Cousteau (disambiguation) to Cousteau, but couldn't, because I'm not allowed to overwrite an existing page. Have I done bad? I did clean up all the links that previously went to "Cousteau" and pointed them to "Cousteau (I)" and then pointed all links that previously went to "Cousteau (disambiguation)" over to "Cousteau". - Bell'Orso (talk) 00:18, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, had it taken care of. - Bell'Orso (talk) 12:27, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

Chief Special Agent Provocateur (talk) 14:16, January 17, 2015 (UTC) Good Morning, Captain Mike. Thank you for your msg & for your thanks. It's my pleasure & you're welcome for the contribution. I viewed a page that needed editing. So, I helped out.

Achilles class[edit source]

It wasn't me, it was Chief Special Agent Provocateur. Ask me next time. Don't assume its me who makes the edit.--Typhuss999 (talk) 02:30, January 19, 2015 (UTC)

I didn't address my comment to you, it was a response to that user. I'm sorry you are confused. -- Captain MKB 02:37, January 19, 2015 (UTC)

Federation shuttlecraft / smallcraft classes[edit source]

I added the Aerowing, Danube and Venture (scout) classes as well as a couple others to the Fed shuttlecraft template and then realized that although they're smallcarft, the first three are too big to be shuttles. I do intend to create a new template specifically for non-shuttlecraft smallcraft within the week and go through all the relevant pages to do cleanup. Just letting you know in advance, in case anyone complains. - Bell'Orso (talk) 13:54, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

Might make sense to rename the template, if we can find a terminology that encompasses all these variables -- an 'auxiliary' craft would be any craft that is of a size that can be assigned to another larger craft or station, so maybe we can move the whole thing under that banner? -- Captain MKB 01:53, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
I'd actually favor keeping shuttlecraft and shuttlepods separate for now, so we'd end up with three categories of vehicles by size: one for full-fledged starships, one for shuttlecraft and shuttlepods and one for various smallcraft, such as escape pods, workbees, etc. The only thing I can't figure out is where to put the Aerowing, Danube and Venture classes, as well as captain's skiff and yacht, because all those are actually larger than standard shuttlecraft, yet nowhere near as big as even the smallest true starships like the Defiant or the Aerie class (SS Raven, Seven of Nine's parents' ship / colony ship from ST Armada I & II), so by that token they are in a category of their own, which would bring the total up to four categories.
That, however, is a bit much. And thinking on it a bit more as I write this, I guess keeping all those in the shuttlecraft category makes the most sense, as they are closest to those than to anything else, both in terms of size as well as function. And that would leave escape pods, workpods, workbees and that large EVA work suit from the TNG Tech Manual as various other small craft. Sound good? Three catories: starships (Aerie class and larger), shuttlecraft / auxiliary craft for personnel movement (from shuttlepods to the Venture class) and auxiliary craft for escape / EVA work. - Bell'Orso (talk) 08:09, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
'Morning! (or afternoon/evening wherever you are). I just wanted to say that I like this idea of renaming the shuttlecraft template to "Auxiliary" craft to include the yachts etc, and also having another template for the utility/emergency vehicles etc. -- Cyfa (talk) 09:00, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
"Morning" is right for me, thanks! (Well, almost noon by now.) But anyway, as for renaming stuff: "utility / emergency craft" is actually a wonderful idea. I had been struggling with what to name this third category of manned spacecraft. As for what is currently called "shuttlecraft", I propose renaming that category to "personnel craft". That is, of course, only for the names of the navigation templates. The individual craft types retain their established designations. - Bell'Orso (talk) 10:45, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

Please delete Christina Velasquez‎ page[edit source]

I was unaware at the time that this page already existed with a misspelled first name, so if it was to be deleted it would be possible for me to rename the original page with the correct spelling. Doug86 (talk) 17:12, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

User[edit source]

User has engaged in vandalism today, I have fixed the pages he edited. Can you block him?.--Typhuss999 (talk) 15:46, February 15, 2015 (UTC)‎‎

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