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

Category question[edit source]

Hey Mike! I'm trying to sort some of the categories into more manageable pieces and when I ws looking at Category:Federation it looked like we could use a Category:Federation conflicts to mirror the Category:Earth conflicts one. As I got into it, II was thinking, at the very least, we need categories for the Romulans, Klingons, and Borg. Now, the Federation one was pretty straight forward, but for the others do you think I should use Category:Klingon conflicts or Category:Klingon Empire conflicts? (And similarly for the Romulans). Since you're the main active admin, i thought I'd see what you thought? Thanks!--Long Live the United Earth (talk) 03:19, February 6, 2017 (UTC)

I think the simpler names would probably be best - in that way we could include conflicts from various iterations of the Romulan and Klingon governments acroos the various universes -- Captain MKB 10:46, February 6, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and suggestions! Let's see if I improve with my edits later this week. --Meacott (talk) 12:53, February 8, 2017 (UTC)

Infobox format[edit source]

  • Starship classes of the Federation Starfleet infobox
  • NX (Columbia • Poseidon
  • After Poseidon, there needs to be an “)”.

Syalantillesfel (talk) 17:08, February 10, 2017 (UTC)

I can take a look at it next time i get to my desktop but honestly you could just edit the template file yourself --Captain MKB 06:43, February 11, 2017 (UTC)

Rank symbols[edit source]

Hey Mike, since you're the expert on ranks and rank images, I was curious if you could help out. How can we source/is there a way to source/do these images need user approval the following 4 images?

I'm trying to finish the clean-up and this is one of the outstanding issues. Also, I posted the rest of my questions/some discussion topics we partially brought up here: Forum:Image questions. Thanks! --Long Live the United Earth (talk) 04:10, February 14, 2017 (UTC)

The first one goes with my author credit i think, and the last three go to kuro.
i'm not sure they are all valid however - it wouldnt take a validity discussion/consensus, but just a citation of when those ranks were used. theyre certainly not from canon, but there could be a non-canon source- -Captain MKB 13:30, February 14, 2017 (UTC)

RE: Lisa Cochrane deletion discussion[edit source]

Do you think the content should be moved to the Zefram Cochrane page or do you think the page should be renamed to "Zefram Cochrane's mother"?--NetSpiker (talk) 11:52, February 17, 2017 (UTC)

I wouldnt move it to the page of another character - but yes, the content is not appropriate for deletion. Apparently those sources describe her as an individual character, so we would need to verify how each referred to her and make an unnamed character page accordingly, either grouped with other unnamed members of his family, species or allegiance or under an unnamed protocol like that, yes -- Captain MKB 12:03, February 17, 2017 (UTC)

Image uploads[edit source]

Hey, CaptainMike, many thanks for letting me know about the requirement for adding citations to image uploads. I hadn't realized I'd needed to do that, but I'm happy to add them for all the images I've uploaded. I've searched Memory Beta, but haven't found instructions for how to add image citations. I'll keep searching and hopefully I'll figure it out soon. Meanwhile, I thought I'd ask, is there a page on the wiki that describes the right way to do that? Thanks! --Meacott (talk) 17:19, February 26, 2017 (UTC)

We've undergone a lot of changes in the past few years, older documentation is hard to track down - sorry about that. The drop down menu in your upload form should have prodded you to provide a copyright to TokyoPop.
I think your best bet is to open an image I've uploaded and copy the source code and change it to your own data. File:Klingon strike raider.jpg and File:SpockLoS2-1.jpg are two that might help. -- Captain MKB 17:24, February 26, 2017 (UTC)

Hi CaptainMike, I didn't know this either - thank you for letting me know! Also on the drop down menu for fair use of images, there doesn't seem to be an option for Cross Cult - unless I am being blind, could this be added? --Igorlex (talk) 23:51, June 4, 2017 (UTC)

Star Fleet Warlord[edit source]

Hi Mike, this is the MA user Green47, not logged into Wikia. I originally posted this on Sulfur's talk page but I then realised that he hasn't been here in a while. Is the play-by-mail game StarFleet Warlord allowed here? I've tried to look them up to see if they have a license from Paramount but they weren't clear. What I do know is that they derived their material from Star Fleet Battles and that they did charge a fee, so were profiting from it, and the game continues to this day. So should content about it be here or Star Trek Expanded? 06:02, June 11, 2017 (UTC)

Short answer: not here.
Long answer - Star Fleet Battles and derivative works are not licensed to use the "Star Trek" name. They did receive a limited license to publish using elements of the Star Fleet Technical Manual, but that license came from the TM material's owners, not from Paramount, and they only use specific material that falls under the TM and not from the Star Trek franchise. Hope this helps. -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png 13:59, June 11, 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Captain. I'll go onto Stexpanded and not ask for special treatment on this wiki like some people have done in the past. I'd better start drafting an article for the other wiki. Thank you, live long, and prosper! 06:36, June 12, 2017 (UTC)

Hewing to Manual of Style[edit source]

Your edits to picture captions (to put periods on non-sentences) are in opposition to our Manual of Style. -- 15:14, July 4, 2017 (UTC)

Re: Vishap class and Vishap Frigate, plus my old nomination for adminship[edit source]

I saw you delete the page I had intended to revamp, so I simply recreated it properly. However, there is a second page, using the ingame name for this type of ship, that is just as poorly written and deserves to be deleted. Also, I have been rethinking my stance on adminship. If the invitation (from over TWO years ago, geez!) is still open, I shall accept. Thanks! - Bell'Orso (talk) 14:59, July 5, 2017 (UTC)

In terms of the admin vote, i just gave the page an edit intended to bump it up in the recent changes, i'll see if the other voters are around and see if the comments hold. the invitation is still open but there's been turnover, have to see who's still here reacting to these things (i think i found myself last man standing, accentuating my 'autopilot' comment from 4/2015)
In terms of the deletion, i've been using the 'rules for immediate deletion' lately because of the sparseness of admin presence (i dont think i've ever seen DS9 Forever perform any admin tasks, ever), so deletions i've performed have been for the sake of expediency using the catch all 'substandard article' clause of immediate deletion. Since you are re-writing them, its of course allowed to recreate them with improved content. A duplicate should be merged, just to take the opportunity to coach you some on how the admin upkeep should work - the user(s) who tried to create the article deserve to have their good faith edits preserved in the article history once the article is brought up to a sufficient state - the deletion was just to remove the sub-stub insufficiency and make the article a wanted/red link until you came along. (unless the old remnants are plagiarized, in which case they deserve to remain deleted) -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png 14:10, July 8, 2017 (UTC)
Looking back at it now, I guess I can see the good faith nature of the Vishap pages. At the time I think I was too bothered by another user creating single-sentence pages, editing them once to add a category, but never giving any sources. I saw you deleting those pages en masse and just figured the same should be done with the duplicate Vishap page. Sometimes it's hard for me to take a step back when I'm bothered like that.
As for communication between users of this wiki, I've always noticed how there seems to be almost none of that on wikis in general. I'll try to counter that a bit and use the Ten Forward more, since I actually have a question regarding some other pages at the moment. - Bell'Orso (talk) 17:16, July 8, 2017 (UTC)
I've talked to Markonian and he assures me of his continued support. And it seems I even gained two more votes. So, once I'm officially instated I'll be happy to get to work. - Bell'Orso (talk) 14:22, July 28, 2017 (UTC)
at this point the only stopping block is the fact that my internet is off (i'm checking in on my phone) because i'm moving. also i was hoping to see more input, but youre correct there is a msndate and we'll have you on board once i survive the weekend -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png 01:11, July 29, 2017 (UTC)
I'm trying to make an effort to unpack and also check in after my absence - sorry i couldnt figure out how to admin someone on my phone - welcome :) -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png 15:23, August 5, 2017 (UTC)

Cdrone[edit source]

Hey, I just wanted to alert you of the actions of Cdrone. This person keeps creating pages randomly and does not do the proper editing style. Even right now, Cdrone keeps making improper pages with no details or sources, improper grammar, and some of the info in these pages are not correct. This is getting ridiculous and should stop. -- Humanoid21 (talk) 17:00, July 12, 2017 (UTC)

Let me just weigh in here and clarify that this is the "other user" I was referencing above. At this point I feel that this users edits can no longer be classified as good faith, but rather vandalism as Humanoid called it on Admiral Markonian's user talk page. And there's no communcation from this user at all. Previous blocks seemed to have no effect, so I actually find myself advocating a permaban. - Bell'Orso (talk) 18:32, July 12, 2017 (UTC)
I agree with that assessment. Maybe that user is unaware of their user talk page but it's our only means of communication. They're not responding or exhibiting any constructive attitude. Kind regards, -- Markonian 06:20, July 13, 2017 (UTC)
I instituted a two week ban for ignoring the coaching provided and cleaned up the articles.
The log notes this user just came off a much longer ban, so you are correct we should consider a permanent ban at this point. -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png 08:52, July 13, 2017 (UTC)

User:U.S.S. Marvel[edit source]

The user recently moved the page Jadzia Dax to Jadzia Idaris, which I find to be at least debateable. Please refer to the character's talk page. Furthermore, the user recently moved the page Harris Eggleton to Gaylord Eggleton. Now, I have never read, nor owned, the source previously given on that page, but just going by the new page name I must assume this to be vandalism. Again, I would have simply reverted it myself, however the move created a redirect page and as a normal user I unfortunately cannot overwrite those. More and more I wish I had just accepted the nomination to adminship. - Bell'Orso (talk) 00:31, July 13, 2017 (UTC)

In this case i think the user's next moves will determine whether this is dealt with as a situation of a user requiring coaching, or intervention against vandalism.
For Jadzia, I just moved the article to Jadzia (mirror) - it covers all possible iterations of the character -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png 08:51, July 13, 2017 (UTC)

Marvel is at it again. I have again asked the user to provide a source to explain a page move, both on the user's own talk page and on the talk page of the article that was moved. If I do not get a response by midnight CEST, October 23rd (or essentially just under one week of me posting this message), then I will be happily testing out the ban function of this site (limited, of course, like a month or so). There is no need for you to take action, I am monitoring the situation. Just thought I'd give you a heads-up. - Bell'Orso (talk) 02:47, October 16, 2017 (UTC)

template changes[edit source]

Please have a look here and let me know your thoughts. Since I don't know a better way to get the community involved, I plan on continuing to advertise forum discussions on user talk pages. Please let me know if this crosses some sort of line. Thanks. - Bell'Orso (talk) 00:48, July 17, 2017 (UTC)

Possible vandalism[edit source]

Hello, just wanted to let you know of possible vandalism from a no-name editor. I would edit the pages myself but I have not read the source material. I don't mean to be the guy that points out others, as I feel some people should be given a chance, but when I see the way some people create some pages I scratch my head in confusion as to why they edit it that way. Pages that are created haphazardly should not exist. Also, Cdrone is back and created two pages. All the best, -- Humanoid21 (talk) 14:27, August 1, 2017 (UTC)

If you find the content questionable or even just lacking in format, but arent sure about changes, please use {{attention}} and/or {{unformatted}} to allow transparency for other users with better access to sources to perform cleanup.. thanks! -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png 15:23, August 5, 2017 (UTC)

naming/disambiguating shuttlecraft[edit source]

The links McAuliffe and Mitrios currently link to a Class-F shuttlecraft each, but since those were created, other shuttlecraft with the same names, McAuliffe (class H shuttlecraft) and Mitrios (NCC-1701-B/5), have appeared (also there are Christa McAuliffe and Verna Mitrios). Now, shouldn't the two earlier shuttlecraft me moved to McAuliffe (NCC-1647/11) and Mitrios (Class F) respectively and the bare names be used for disambiguation pages? That's how it was done with Ellis (shuttlecraft). I'll do all the moving and link cleanup myself, of course. I'm just asking first to prevent misunderstandings. I'd like to point out that I have not found anything in the guidelines on disambiguations or naming conventions regarding this issue. Might be a good idea to ammend those, if there actually is a consensus. - Bell'Orso (talk) 15:22, August 27, 2017 (UTC)

those bare names seem to be the best bet for locating the disambiguations. i think another admin was all over disambiguations for a lengthy period of time and never documented their approach (or i've just forgotten the appropriate description page).. i myself never really tried to codify Memory Beta:Contradictions and continuity until this year myself so some things might remain undescribed -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png 16:34, August 27, 2017 (UTC)
OK then, I'll get right on to moving the shuttle articles to disambiguated page names and the disambiguation paages to the bare names. - Bell'Orso (talk) 18:07, August 27, 2017 (UTC)

moving pages[edit source]

Your thanks is appreciated. I certainly have learned my lesson in the past few years, after Sulfur had to berate me half a dozen times for not cleaning up after my page moves. I guess the latest confusion stems from the fact that nowadays, I actually clean up before I even move a page. With pages that have incoming links from 20 or more other pages (excluding links from templates that are used on hundreds of pages), clean up can take while (especially since I tend to do other small changes across each entire page while I'm at it), so it's not surprising that doing such clean up before the actual move can look like vandalism to someone checking the "Recent Changes" page.

But, on the topic of site maintenance, is there a way to separate a single version of a page and move it to a new name? Someone recently accidentally overwrote one ship name template while trying to create a new one and I would have liked to preserve that users contribution in the page's version history, but in the end I had to just undo the changes to the one template and create the new one myself. - Bell'Orso (talk) 04:00, September 16, 2017 (UTC)

That user being me. Sorry for the trouble, Bell. I must've been ahead of myself when I tinkered with the template. Kind regards, -- Markonian 08:35, September 16, 2017 (UTC)
I've experimented with the process - you delete the entire article, restore only the part you want to isolate with the different name, move it to a new name, and then go back to the content remaining deleted at the previous name and perform a second restore. you might have to do cleanup edits to both versions to paste in the desired current version.
NO worries, we are all contributing in good faith and are approachable. i myself have a hard time dealing with the people who are not approachable for various communication problems, whether good faith exists or not, and just go right on ignoring counsel on how to correct their behavior. that's actually how i tested the history split process i described - a familiar user who haphazardly uploads images over other images that we should probably have kept. just as often this user uploads duplicates, seemingly with as little reason - thanks for cleaning up a lot of those as well -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png 11:17, September 16, 2017 (UTC)
Markonian, no worries. I figured it was an honest mistake. I myself have crtainly clicked the "save" button many times when I actually meant to hit "preview". My only advice for creating new templates would be to copy an existing template's code to the new name you want and then do all the tinkering at that new name.
Mike,yeah those unused images had been bugging me for a while as well. But I guess I kind got burned out on trying to fix those real quick. There are still quite a few that could be added to galleries on their respective comic or novel pages, but the sheer number of whiles can seem overwhelming. I guess going forward, I'll just do them one or a handful at a time, whenever I have the urge. Also, some of those images seem to depict characters for which we don't have articles yet, so I purposely did not delete those, keeping them for possible future use.
And thanks for demonstrating that page split. I'll reference that in the future, should I come across another situation where I find it applicable. - Bell'Orso (talk) 18:10, September 16, 2017 (UTC)

Enterprise-era uniform name[edit source]


I wish to discuss the naming scheme regarding the Starfleet uniforms worn prior to (and for a short while after) the founding of the Federation. It was originally name "Starfleet uniform (Earth)" which I then renamed to "Starfleet uniform (2140s-early 2160s)", the same way it is named on Memory-Alpha. Now that it's been changed to "Earth Starfleet uniform", I wish to talk about the possibility of changing it back. I understand the reasoning for changing the name, although I think "United Earth Starfleet uniform" would technically be more correct. However, the dating system is more practical for keeping track of when the various uniforms were worn. Not to mention the fact that, as stated in the novel A Choice of Futures, these uniforms did not immediately disappear following the founding of the Federation, they continued being worn around 2162/2163, at which time they had still not been completely phased out. The Wikia Editor (talk) 13:32, October 8, 2017 (UTC)

Sorry i didnt present a more detailed explanation when i reverted the move.
The general wiki practice is to keep things simple, so a simplest possible name speaks for itself.
However, there is further explanation. The uniform style is not provably "originated" in the 2140s, so putting that time period as the early use disambiguant creates a false impression the uniform was adopted in the 2140s, when a real possibility exists that it went back further. That's the first problem with using the new name.
Furthermore, this uniform style was also used in non-canon, in the Star Trek Live traveling production, as a 21st century uniform - so canon has an unestablished start date, while the non-canon source establishes a much earlier use. (Incidentally, this is also why "United Earth Starfleet" should not be used - this uniform was originated by that "United Nations Starfleet" which has been called a few different names by a few sources. Putting a specific organization like that would not be inclusive of all those variables)
Finally, with the unproven data about the time and originating authority, we know this uniform was as the Federation Starfleet went through the process of absorbing Earth's organization. So the "early 2160s" moniker is unnecessarily explanatory. We don't need to make the disambiguant longer to explain the time period of the Federation changeover period. It is a bit neater to add a description of the complexity of the process to the body of the article, rather than the title.
SO while i did make the move because the simplicity of the title speaks for itself, i hope my further explanation is sufficent as to why it makes it titled as such. -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png 19:06, October 8, 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I must admit that I was unsure about the uniform worn by Shaun Christopher and had actually thought about creating a seperate article about it, but I suppose the differences between uniforms are superficial at best, so giving it a seperate article doesn't seem necessary. Looking at it like that, I agree with your decision. Once again, thanks for replying. The Wikia Editor (talk) 22:50, October 8, 2017 (UTC)
Just to chime in. In STO, when addressing a tailor to change one's uniform, all uniform and clothing options are listed by name. Would it make sense to consider these names as article titles for the respective uniforms, if sensible? For example, the Odyssey uniform. I could get screenshots of the in-game list, if needed. Kind regards, -- Markonian 17:25, October 17, 2017 (UTC)

Rank insignia[edit source]

Contributor OvBacon provided Memory Alpha with rank insignia we don't have yet, specifically 2240s (DSC) and 2800s (Relativity) ranks. Link to example insignum: DSC Sci. The copy right of this image allows for reproduction, as long as the source is referenced. I know you have been curating the rank insignia we use so far (primarily sourced from the Kuros RPG). Would you consider OvBacon's work suitable for Memory Beta? Kind regards, -- Markonian 17:25, October 17, 2017 (UTC)

I have no immediate plans to do a Discovery set myself, so as long as we can get the permission to use in order, i'd say go forward with that. I only briefly looked, there seems to be some unrefined parts i might've done a more robust approach to, but like i said, this seems sufficient to use.
As to the 29th century, i'd say hold off if we have a kuro version that suffices for our purposes already here - not sure if it'd be worth the time to replace existing infrastructure. -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png 18:23, October 17, 2017 (UTC)

Please help me to rename a page[edit source]

I'm trying to move the R. Torres page to Rene Torres because Rene actually has some dialogue in The Buried Age, while Ricardo is only briefly mentioned in Q&A, so Rene should be the default name. Unfortunately a Rene Torres redirect exists so I can't move the page. I removed the redirect code, thinking that might work but it still won't let me rename the page. Can you help me? --NetSpiker (talk) 05:18, November 16, 2017 (UTC)

Is that enough to give preference to one first name over the other, though? Both have only appeared once so far (the episode and novelization do not give a first name at all) and I believe the current name of that page (with the "R." instead of a proper first name) was chosen specifically so as NOT to give preference to either choice. - Bell'Orso (talk) 09:05, November 16, 2017 (UTC)

I feel that if a character has a first name, it should always be in the article title. If there are two first names, we should pick one. --NetSpiker (talk) 09:13, November 16, 2017 (UTC)

Well we didn't feel that way last time we discussed it, when the consensus was made to move the article to use the first initial. You're attempting to move the page in a manner which is contrary to what was resolved by a previous discussion. -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png 15:11, November 18, 2017 (UTC)

two things[edit source]

First, this might warrant your attention. Second, as stated here, there is uncertainty about the registry number of the Sao Paulo-class prototype USS Sao Paulo from STO. However, since the Defiant-class USS Sao Paulo was renamed to USS Defiant (II), there is actually only one USS Sao Paulo ship page on this wiki right now (the aforementioned class prototype) and no indications (so far) of more ships of this name appearing any time soon. Therefor, I intend to move the ship page to the non-disambiguated namespace and the disambiguation page (which currently sits at "USS Sao Paulo") to "USS Sao Paulo (disambiguation)" (which is currently a redirect). And don't worry, I'll sort out all the other redirects as well, maybe even delete a few (cause DAYUM, there's a few of those for just three pages). - Bell'Orso (talk) 18:43, January 12, 2018 (UTC)

well articles that have a number of possible names will tend to generate a number of redirects - sorting them is fine, but i'd say nay to deleting them - redirect exist for a purpose after all, to direct traffic from one form of the valid name to a better form of a similarly valid name for the same thing.
Is there an issue to just leaving the article at "USS Sao Paulo (prototype)"? I don't quite get the point? The other Sao Paulo was also a ship and deserves to keep its article name, even if it functions as a redirect -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png 02:00, January 13, 2018 (UTC)
My thinking is that we should try to have as few disambiguated page names as possible, and to not give the non-disambiguated name to a disambiguation page. Leaving aside the redirects for a moment, only the later ship still actually carries the name, hence why I'd prefer to move that one to the non-disambiguated name. Your suggestion would be fine, of course, if I thought it were needed. (which, to me, would only be the case if there were another USS Sao Paulo, say a TOS Loknar-class ship mentioned in a reference work or whatever, that didn't get its name changed) - Bell'Orso (talk) 12:57, January 13, 2018 (UTC)
But the reason we have disambiguation names is because that name could lead to two things. the USS Sao Paulo and the USS Sao Paulo are two different ships and arbitrarily choosing that one doesnt need a disambiguation, and one does, means that someone could type "USS Sao Paulo" hoping to follow the USS Sao Paulo (NCC-75633) link and instead be sent to the other direction to the USS Sao Paulo (prototype)
What you've stated here is the opposite of our disambiguation policy -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark.png 13:36, January 13, 2018 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.