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
bjr, quelle est la raison de la suppression de la page "uss delestrez" ? Cdlt.
- Well, just since you are the only user who has been in touch with me regarding responsible page merges, i might consider giving you that capability (i know there is a slew of edit permissions that come with full admin status, but would you consider taking on a sub-admin position with one or two added permissions?) -- Captain MKB 12:08, April 12, 2015 (UTC)
Trek Initiative Alpha & Beta Quadrants Map ProjectEdit
I'm not sure if this project is something folks here on MB would be interested in, but I wanted to bring it to your attention just the same. It is by no means intended to be a definitive map, it's just a fun project that users have enjoying so far - kind of interesting having a visual of the locations of 'Trek universe events in relation to each other. I'm not sure if you would be open to a blog and/or forum post about it, but it would be nice to get the word out so that people have an opportunity to join in and add to it if they so choose.
Thank you for your time!
My own wikiEdit
Will it be okay if I could create my own wiki, and will it cost anything?
Which is my Star Trek wiki?
Growing the farm team talentEdit
It is wise to tell a contributor as to why a reversion of their material was made. If a mistake was made, then they learn from the explanation. If not, they tend to get disgusted with the 'regional' PTB and transfer their interests/talents elsewhere.Revanche (talk) 21:12, June 25, 2015 (UTC)
Hi Captain Mike,
My name is Terry and I am an artistic craft designer. I saw the emblem which you designed for the USS Constitution. I would like permission to create needlepoint Christmas ornaments based on it. You can see the quality of work at https://www.ebluejay.com/store/startrekstore.
On Karg, Sarek (novel)Edit
I'm thinking I goofed "blushing"
[Code] Karg could refer to:
Races and cultures: Karg [/Code]
Subcategories for images of Humans Edit
See here: Category talk:Memory Beta images (Humans)#Subcategories - Bell'Orso (talk) 18:42, September 17, 2015 (UTC)
Does simply scrapping a vessel really always count as a loss? Edit
I've seen you add some vessels to the "spacecraft losses" category and for some of those it merely reads that they were scrapped. Nothing about them having been wrecked in a collision or something like that, just scrapped. Now, to me "scrapped" simply means "taken apart and sold for parts", a planned procedure, whereas a "loss" would be something unplanned, such as going MIA or being outright destroyed. Therefor, those ships where the info only reads that they've been scrapped, without any prior damage that could be seen as catastrophic, should imho be removed from the "spacecraft losses" category. Thoughts? - Bell'Orso (talk) 00:00, September 24, 2015 (UTC)
- It's a net loss, the vessel no longer exists anymore, so i'd say the term was accurate.
- i'd say the most borderline case we can identify is the Peleliu/Challenger -- the Peleliu was a "loss" and the partial saucer and partial stardrive was attached to a new rear section and nacelles and made into a new ship -- an everyone involvd was pretty adamant the original vessel was a loss.
- I'd say the same for any ship that is taken apart and can no longer be put back into service as such without being reconfigured (i wouldnt say re-namings are a loss, incidentally, since we still have the whole ship to consider, without having "lost" ownership of any of the Sao Paulo or Ti-Ho, for example) -- Captain MKB 06:32, September 24, 2015 (UTC)
There's some confusion over what the correct spelling for the planet (and the descendants of Iconian refugees who fled there) is. Please take a moment to weigh in here, thanks. - Bell'Orso (talk) 06:14, October 3, 2015 (UTC)
- To Captainmike, I have already apologized if I had problems on expressing what I meant in my comments because of my English, but anyway, just to point out, I never said or wrote anything about all versions besides STO are alternate timelines, just because I'm a fan from the game, as you said I did... I created the page about the Dinasia planet and, as TDH and STO had different stories for the planet, I made a different heading to each version, and in the "Apocrypha", quoted that one version names the planet "Dinasia" and the other uses "Dynasia", because both versions contradict each other, but there is absolutely nothing regarding alternate timelines. Maybe the use of the word "aprocrypha" made you think I did? Syk99 (Syk99) 16:01, October 7, 2015 (UTC)
- None of the versions are 'apocrypha', they are all valid
- one of the articles said 'The Devils Heart timeline' which seems to marginalize that source as being 'less important' -- i was just counseling that notations like that should not continue. -- Captain MKB 01:44, October 8, 2015 (UTC)
Baymax6 has been putting up a bunch of stub pages for his/her ST video game: Trexels player characters. I haven't played the game to be certain but I believe these are outside the bounds of wiki content. --StarSword (talk) 23:20, October 7, 2015 (UTC)
- The list on the Trexels page is accurate to the Android version of the game -- this user started blank articles for those some time ago and they were deleted because they were blank.
- The new list are not game characters (unless they exist in the iOS version of the game) so you are right. Sulfur gave notice of this but i dont know what action has been taken. -- Captain MKB 01:41, October 8, 2015 (UTC)
- I PM'd him at the start of this but Baymax6 has not gotten the message: he just recreated the pages for Strongarm Davis, etc. EDIT: Ok, so one of you blocked him when I wasn't paying attention, my bad. --StarSword (talk) 21:05, October 9, 2015 (UTC)
Appearances and ReferencesEdit
Hey Captain Mike, I just have a question concerning the appearances and references I've noticed you putting in some of the articles that I have edited. I don't mean to question what you are doing, I am just confused of why you're doing it because in my eyes it looks kind of redundant, at least to me, due to the references already being beside the sentences. Is it a new format thing that I am unaware of? --Humanoid21 (talk) 12:23, October 12, 2015 (UTC)
- Its one we use for larger articles, but I feel it will help to build reference lists for smaller articles as well. It looks redundant in articles with one source, but in articles with two or three sources it clarifies things. Also, having the section present as a placeholder helps if there will be inline references (which can even occur in short articles with one source) -- Captain MKB 12:59, October 12, 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I can understand that. Thank you for explaining it to me. --Humanoid21 (talk) 13:05, October 12, 2015 (UTC)
- I should write some documentation at some point, as one of the aims is also to differentiate appearances from references -- after all, Selar appeared in only one episode, but was mentioned in a dozen others, but a casual reader might mistake all those references as actual appearances, seeing them in a simpler less-formatted list -- Captain MKB 00:51, October 13, 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I didn't even notice the discrepancy note. I was just looking at the stats in the infobox and thinking "Huh? That's not what I remember from the DS9TM." (I had recently given that one another read-through.) So I went to work. Also, I _did_ add the service period. Why did you remove that first, only to put it back in later? Anyway, I'm still gonna go over all the other starship classes covered in the DS9TM and the SFOM. But this time I'll look for existing discrepancy notes first, I promise. Might even seen if I can find info on that "Perimeter Defense Directive" that's mentioned for some SF classes and draw up a small article for that. - Bell'Orso (talk) 06:19, October 13, 2015 (UTC)
- That was my mistake, i was looking back in the history and read it backwards. -- Captain MKB 12:18, October 13, 2015 (UTC)
Why not keep the info that was added to these pages by User:Cbryanjones in a "background" or "trivia" section? No, this information isn't (even expanded) canon, but then again, neither is the depiction of the character of Torvig Bu-Kar-Nguv, for example. Neither are those of several other characters from the Star Trek: Stargazer series. And yet these illustrations have made it onto here. And other information gleaned from author's annotations are spread throughout other pages as well, as background info. And as of this writing, the above user has already added his info back into the character page, so before this becomes an edit war, just let it pass. It's not like it's completely irrelevant; it is an interesting tidbit of information.
And anyway, on this wiki there are loads of pages of "USS Person" or "USS Place" where it says in an indented note at the bottom that the ship was named for this person or that place WITHOUT citing a source. And nobody has ever touched those. Can you give me one reason why, for example, a "USS Washington" has definitely been named for George Washington? Or for Washington, D.C.? - Bell'Orso (talk) 10:34, October 17, 2015 (UTC)
- there would be no problem with keeping such information, we don't really need this counter-argument.
- the problem is what the only source cited was the person's own website hosting an interview with the author. if i wanted to get a Star Trek author to say something i wanted on the wiki, and published their interview on my own website, is it realy valid material for the wiki?
- i would have left the info up if it had been cited to a news site that had interviewed the author or verifiably the author's own annotations, but it wasn't. this isnt the wiki to use to create a website and then cite your own website when adding to the wiki. -- Captain MKB 13:35, October 17, 2015 (UTC)
- I can see no indication that the above user is in any way directly affiliated with the source he gives, Trek.fm, and, as far as Star Trek material goes, that site looks like a news site to me and seems as trustworthy as the annotations page of an author's personal website. Not good enough to have its information included in the main part of an article, but good enough for a background section, as suggested above.
- Does it have to be startrek.com as the only permissible source for such information? Then why is there still a note that one character was named after some porn performer, even though that info is cited to a post on a fan forum? To my mind it's even more shady to accept some random forum user who might or might not be the author, rather than an audio interview where you can hear a voice, something that can be identified as belonging to one specific person much more easily than an online account on a forum. - Bell'Orso (talk) 15:19, October 17, 2015 (UTC)
- Wrong: The user's addition specifically identified him as the person who was the founder of the website that established the information about the character.
- I am concerned that this is going to spread further and the site in question is going to spam every topic on MB that the author might mention on his site. We are not here to have every article link offsite based on content that is being generated by a user on his own website.
- In terms of publications online: yes, StarTrek.com is an official site. it is published by CBS and Paramount. Other news blogs that are not maintained by CBS, Paramount, IDW, S&S, etc are NOT official.
- Furthermore, if a writer makes a statement about the Star Trek universe in a personal interview, its not official for this site. If they mention that they meant to make a ship Nebula class, for example, we arent going to change that ship's article to reflect this. It was never published as a Star Trek publication if the author happens to come around in a personal interview and try to add to the body of a novel that was already published.
- I know that author's annotations have been added to background sections as unofficial expansions here on MB -- maybe this information can be added if we can verify that interview. But there is a limit to how this will be accomplished and i certainly dont see it right to expand it to the degree this user seems to desire. we will resist spam. -- Captain MKB 18:56, October 17, 2015 (UTC)
Kessik IV and STO Edit
I noticed you reverted the changes on Kessik IV, they were correct, Kessik IV is no longer destroyed in Star Trek Online, they retconned that event to a another planet called Omicron Kappa II --Tuskin38 (talk) 16:19, October 17, 2015 (UTC)
- I feel the the complete deletion of all that information is the wrong way to go about this change to the article.
- All that info was added in good faith and was valid, it needs to remain in the body of the article, even if the article is changed to reflect a new history. Please take note that such wholesale deletions are not allowed as we find another way to describe this situation. -- Captain MKB 18:47, October 17, 2015 (UTC)
Characters category for individuals of unknown speciesEdit
Hey Captain Mike, I just wanted to talk to about a problem that I have been focusing on concerning this wiki. I've noticed that you have took some of the articles out of the Characters category, including the Caster one. I created it to put it in the category because the character's species and physiology is unknown. That is what I am trying to focus on currently, to use the Characters category as a place to put characters of unknown race and physiology. There are characters whose species is not known (or physically specified if species is named). There are categories for humanoids and non-humanoids, so whatever character that is unknown in that regard can go there (I know that most species in this series appear to be humanoid, but without written proof that they are humanoid, they should not be written as such). Memory Alpha has a page like that, as well as Star Wars, and many other wikis. I don't mean to be harsh on you like that, but that was one thing that really irked me about this wiki and why I put articles like the Caster one in there, and ones like Skrix Veestar (because there is not a clear physical identity to his species), and members of Starfleet whose species and form are not known should go in there as well. I don't mean to be anal about it, but that is why I put articles in there, and I don't mean any offence, but when I saw you change the Caster article I just had to say something.
P.S. I know this does not concern the Character category, but the Amanda and Arlia articles belong in the Characters (alternates) rather than the Characters (alternate reality), because the alternate reality article was for characters from the alternate reality created by Nero, and the alternates was for general characters from other alternate realities, just letting you know.--Humanoid21 (talk) 17:39, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
- The characters category is only intended to be used for articles that have absolutely no other character categorizations. Most characters are categorized as subcategories of characters -- we use these subcategorization by their species, affiliation as citizens or personnel, or occupation.
- these characters subcategories are easily found under the category:characters and are always in need of expansion, but even now are quite diverse.
- there's no need to create a redundancy and categorize these characters in the top-level category if they are contained in any subcategory of those subcategories. by rights, those article are already contained in the category tree.
- if we were to start doing this, consistency would demand we categorize every character in the top level category, regardless of whether we know anything of their rank, species, affiliation or occupation. this would create a category with several thousand articles, probably a quarter of our articles in my estimation, and would be difficult to maintain or navigate.
- in specific: Caster is listed under authors, which is listed under characters by occupation, which is actually in the category "characters" already, so categorizing the article into the top level category is redundant.
- in general: don't redundantly categorize these articles unless there is some agreement we should change the way the category is set up based on the parameters determined above. -- Captain MKB 17:53, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
- in addition:
- the "characters (alternates)" should be used for character definitions of primary universe characters that have counterparts like Spock (alternates) -- its plural and refers to lists of alternates like that article. Individual character articles don't really fit that description.
- characters from alternate realities should be listed in "characters (alternate reality)" -- the Nero alternate reality is not the only alternate reality, you know -- if there is/was to be such a category to specifically list those characters, it needs a disambiguated name. -- Captain MKB 17:53, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
- since i suggested a solution to recategorize the alternate reality characters by disambiguation if that is the aim of what you are voicing, i guess i could suggest the same if you really wanted to try and maintain a category:characters of unknown species. -- Captain MKB 18:12, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I will get on that as soon as I can. And I'm real sorry we keep butting heads like this. I will try to maintain the category to its specific intentions.--Humanoid21 (talk) 18:26, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
- No problem, i dont consider it butting heads. The characters category after all had conflicting categorization instructions from a standard operating procedure here, apparently that lacks such notable documentation. ---- Captain MKB 04:21, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
Characters of unspecified speciesEdit
Sure, I like that idea too. Do I have to change the title of the category or can I just put whatever I put in the Characters of unknown species into the other one? If it's the first one, can you help me with that because I have never figured out how to change titles for articles. I'm a "learning by showing" person myself, but I could not find any directions on how to do it.--Humanoid21 (talk) 12:21, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
- All articles need to have their category changed. It's is reasons like that that i gave it some extra thought early. -- Captain MKB 15:40, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
To: Capt. Mike From: Capt. Harker
You're the artist who did ALL THAT?!? Diane Carey told me her HUSBAND did the covers to her novels! On the cover of Battlestations!, the woman character is her, the Vulcan is a self-portrait. You're Diane's husband? How is she? I haven't heard from her since the early 90's!
As to the Nova Class: I very carefully measured it myself. Three times. I compared what was published in the July 2001 Star Trek the Magazine with the Blueprints put out by Strategic Designs. Using the people in the bridge image as a guide, I measured the entire vessel. The bridge is 12 meters in diameter. Using that as a guide, the outer hull matches far more closely the scale in Strategic Design, and she is 180 meters long. I believe the 165 m. mistakenly published in the "Starship Spotter" was just an approximation, because in "Equinox" they said that the Nova Class is approximately half the size of the Intrepid Class. That said, Pocket Books does occasionally print misprints. It happens. The measurements are the same I published in my Nova Class Technical Manual, which I just finished putting the final touches on. (In another episode, Bh'lana Torres told her husband that she had Harry Kim doing a Level 5 diagnostic, and he'd be at it for hours. A Level 5 takes 2.5 seconds, according to the Star Trek the Next Generation Technical Manual. It's a Level 1 diagnostic that takes many hours to complete.)
As to the images of the Nova interiors I found, there can't be a "Copyright" Violation, since Paramount owns all the copyrights to Star Trek, and anything anyone puts on the Net automatically reverts to THEM.
- Allow me to interject:
- * 1) Don't know what that's about, will have to let Mike clear that up.
- * 2) As I explained on your talk page, measuring a miniature yourself is not valid data on this wiki. From what I can tell, Strategic Designs is not a licensed publisher (as in, has no official license from Paramount or whoever holds the copyright to anything Star Trek) and therefor those plans are not valid here either. Rick Sternbach himself once said in an interview that the Nova was 221 meters long, but that info was also not published in a licensed source and is therefor not applicable here. However, "Starship Spotters" is a licensed source and therefor to be regarded as appropriate for this wiki. Also please cite your source properly. Check my last revision of the Nova class page on how to alter minicites correctly.
- * 3) I agree that the interior views of the Nova class bridge and briefing room could have stayed up, if they had been properly cited as STO screenshots and if they indeed depicted the default appearance of Nova class interiors generated by the game and not any personal modification done by a player.
- * 4) There already is a Memory Gamma. Link here: 
- Also, please sign your posts like this ~~~~. Thank you. - Bell'Orso (talk) 12:42, November 23, 2015 (UTC)
So, I'm trying to properly add the references to the STO ships' dimensions I'm currently working on, but I'm having some difficulties... the reference is from the video games's "foundry", where you can create your own map and stuff, where they give you a groundscale ship with its proper dimensions, so the citation would be something like "ref name="STOfoundry">STO video game: Foundry: Groundscale ship – Odyssey class</ref", but I dont know how to edit this properly so it appear correctly in the page. Can ya give me some help or make the correct edit yourself? tnx - Syk99 (talk) - 16:07, November 28, 2015 (UTC)
- Well that amount of detail is admirable, but it might cause problems. If it is in game but not part of a specific mission, citing the overall game itself might make sense until i can look up a precedent.
My main concern was that you might have been getting the stats from a fan website and not from the game itself. Basically, the only stats we can use are the ones from the official website of STO and from the stats you can see from within the game itself -- so this is the answer to the question about which of those two. -- Captain MKB 16:27, November 28, 2015 (UTC)
Dear Capt. MikeEdit
Excuse me, but EVERYTHING on this entire website is a "copyright violation!" The copyrights belong to Paramount Pictures Corp, and I seriously doubt you have their legal permission to publish any of this.
Everything published here is "fan based," under "Open gaming license" granted by Paramount to the players and gamemasters of Last Unicorn Games, and a host of other licensed products. Nobody can claim a copyright on anything in the universe of Star Trek, except Paramount.
That being said, I completely reworked the deck plans that were put out by Strategic Designs over ten years ago (before he went out of business--he was making a profit off Paramount's copyrighted material.) The deck plans he had published just weren't realistic; there weren't even enough berths for a crew of 80 persons, and key compartments and equipment were missing. If anyone could be said to own the "copyright" on the reworked plans, it would be ME--however, I know I cannot possibly copyright something that clearly belongs to Paramount. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captain Harker (talk • contribs) .
- Nobody ever said that Memory Beta is making a copyright claim to any material posted here. We simply do not wish to include anything that does not come from an officially licensed source. Again, the deckplans from Strategic Designs do not appear to have been licensed by the copyright holders and therefor are not eligible for inclusion here, just as, say, the "Star Trek Blueprints" by Franz Joseph would not be eligible as a source over on Memory Alpha, because that site chooses to restrict itself to information shown or mentioned onscreen in an episode or movie.
- Also, again, please sign your posts. And please create a new discussion on a talk page by clicking the link at the top of the page to create a new section. - Bell'Orso (talk) 22:51, November 28, 2015 (UTC)