Revision as of 04:34, May 20, 2009 by Cicero (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
| User:Cicero


Thank you for pointing out the discrepancy about the image size in our style guide. 8of5, one of the administrators here, has fixed it. --Jdvelasc 13:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sovereign classEdit

Hey, Cicero -- I think you misunderstand a few things about the Sovereign class article

  • I didn't remove the bit about transphasic torpedoes -- I only corrected the link and format. I'd appreciate it if you hadn't reverted it as it looks a little silly with "Uss" being miscapitalized.
  • The Gibraltar is indeed a Sovereign vessel -- but its registry is complete apocrypha. It should still be noted that the registry is not a valid piece of information.
  • The Republic is not a Sovereign vessel in any source we can determine -- it should not be added to the article unless it is in the Apocrypha section.

Thanks for taking the time to look at this! -- Captain MKB 23:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Preview Edit

Hey, Cicero. :-) Please try and use the "preview" button before you save your changes. That will cut down on a lot of tiny edits. --TimPendragon 07:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Filetypes Edit

Just a reminder, for natural images like shaded drawings and photos, a high quality .jpg is the best file format -- .png is best for digitally composed images with edged shapes, and .gif is best for images with only a few color ranges. I reuploaded your Data image as a result. -- Captain MKB 05:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've re-uploaded the textless, cropped image as a high-quality jpeg.--Cicero 05:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Leaving? Edit

Hi Cicero, can I just ask what has caused you to leave Memory Beta? We'd hate to lose such a good contributor such as yourself? --The Doctor 14:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have found contributing here frustrating. The dominant element of this wiki's regular contributors (moderators all, that I've noticed) and I regularly and methodically disagree as to how the wiki should be presented, what content should be included, and what editorial tack should be pursued. Its my surmise that we disagree as the the wiki's purpose, too; it's clear that our philosophies differ.
I'm sorry to leave; I was one of the earliest contributors here, and have long been hopeful we could construct a solid, dependable resources for Star Trek novel readers.--Cicero 03:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Curious about something, Cicero: how do you feel you and the "regular contributors" disagree on this wiki's purpose? Do you think Memory Beta should be doing something other than handling licensed Trek materials? --TimPendragon 07:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I really am curious as to what's got this bee in your bonnet. --TimPendragon 19:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
It's my impression that the wiki's primary purpose is to serve as a reference to the universe depicted by licensed Star Trek materials; other contributors seem to perceive the wiki's first purpose as to describe the content of those licensed materials.
I haven't elected to leave because of any single point of disagreement, but because I was regularly frustrated by finding my philosophies of contribution to Memory Beta at odds with those of some prolific contributors.--Cicero 23:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
By the way, one of my intended contributions, Image:Bombay.jpg, has been stalled on the supplemental images page for more than six months (the ballot is tied). Would you mind voting on it? It would be nice to see it resolved, one way or the other.--Cicero 23:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I've decided to give the wiki another try. It's a silly thing to become frustrated over.--Cicero 03:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I've decided to depart from the wiki. I'm not frustrated, but it's clear that a consensus which would allow a clean, well-organized encyclopedia is a long way off. I'm reachable by e-mail if anyone wishes to contact me, or at the TrekBBS.--Cicero 15:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me address your statement of a few paragraphs above:

:It's my impression that the wiki's primary purpose is to serve as a reference to the universe depicted by licensed Star Trek materials; other contributors seem to perceive the wiki's first purpose as to describe the content of those licensed materials.

The first part of your statement is accurate, but only to the extent that the universe is depicted in the licensed materials. Memory Alpha, whose primary goal is to provide an "in universe" reference for canon material, does not include non-canon material or speculation in the main body of its articles, which are limited to describing the canon universe by using canon sources only. The same rule applies here, exchanging canon for licensed sources. What Memory Beta does, in that regard, is no different from what Memory Alpha does.

If MB were to habitually allow or encourage material from non-licensed sources, that would be detrimental to creating "a clean, well-organized encyclopedia" of licensed works and the universe contained therein, and I'm honestly shocked that you would think otherwise. --TimPendragon 06:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've misunderstood me. My criticism had nothing to do with unlicensed materials.
Imagine an encyclopedia based on Gray's Anatomy of the Human Body. The Memory Beta I see constructed and pursued by the contributors with whom I disagree resembles a version of this encyclopedia which is a guide to Gray's depiction of the human body. What I support is akin to a guide to the human body as depicted by Gray. Do you see the difference?
At any rate, this is a fundamental disagreement, one which I don't expect to be reconciled, and which lists among several I have with significant contributors to the wiki (none of which have to do with unlicensed materials, the exclusion of which is incontrovertibly essential).--Cicero 03:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about fan fiction or other such things. I was thinking of your Bombay image, which is the earliest instance of a disagreement between you and the "Memory Beta establishment" that I've seen (correct me if I'm wrong). If I understand what you're saying, and again correct me if I'm wrong, you're advocating that we create or bring in supplemental materials to illustrate things found in the licensed materials, be it images or what have you. Is that correct? If not, can you give a practical example of what you would do on Memory Beta that you believe others would disagree with? --TimPendragon 05:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to supplementary images, but to the textual content of a number of articles, over some of which I engaged in debate with other users. I don't remember which at this date. I'm sorry I didn't see your message before.--Cicero 20:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


Cicero, I hate to nitpick since you are writing so many good links, but I think you are going overboard dividing crew into templates -- is there a really a need for a "USS Titan counseling personnel" template? how many counselors are there, three, five?

I don't believe that a team of less than ten personnel really needs their own template, as they could fit well in the "USS Titan personnel" or "USS Titan medical personnel" templates and have said template provide more links. -- Captain MKB 14:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, only a few ships need their personnel lists split up (those with at least forty personnel, I'd suggest: NX-01, 1701, 1701-A, 1701-D, 1701-E, Deep Space Nine, Defiant, Voyager, Vanguard, and Titan; Aventine and Endeavour (1895) also, if their manifests continue to increase).
You're right about the counseling staffs, too. I'd included it as a separate department because it's presented as such on the show, but the low personnel totals (aboard even the most counselor-heavy ship) recommend merging it with medical. I'll change the medical templates to "Medical and Counseling," listing the chiefs and staffs separately, and adjust the template sets to match.--Cicero 01:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think changing the name is necessary -- before the counselor title was created, we saw that psych personnel were part of the medical department anyway. Dehner, Noel, etc.. -- Captain MKB 01:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
It's been made clear in several novels that counseling is considered a department unto itself in the 24th Century. I'd prefer to defer to them. Perhaps a change in Starfleet's departmental structure affected clinical psychologists sometime between TOS and TNG?--Cicero 02:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
It's still recognized as a medical discipline, even in today's world. The creation of a unified department and a new administrator title doesn't mean that has changed. I don't think there's any cause to introduce a more complicated template article title. -- Captain MKB 02:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the real world bears on this significantly. Counseling is very clearly separated from the Medical department within the Star Trek universe. Perhaps the directory title (Template:Etc, Etc) could be Medical, but the produced text (header, link text, etc.) Medical and Counseling?--Cicero 03:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I do think the real world bears influence on this, and I don't think that there is evidence that 24th century psych professionals are not medical professionals, as they were in the 20th, 21st, and 23rd centuries. Where is this supposed source that says that counseling has become a magic sort of new non-medical discipline?
I agree that the articles should be named "medical personnel" and perhaps we should leave it at that. -- Captain MKB 03:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not a non-medical discipline, but a department separate from the medical department within the ship's organization (at least in the 24th Century). I'll title the articles "medical personnel," and Medical and Counseling within the visible rubric.--Cicero 03:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek 2009 Edit

Look I'm not being arbitrary here, my changes were based on community discussions and decisions. If you have a viewpoint, feel free to contribute to the discussion but don't be arbitrary and disrupt the wiki, please. --The Doctor 20:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the contributions were being deleted as vandalism or errors, based on the comments. (Thus, I signed in.) Where can I find the community discussion? --Cicero 20:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I did consider that it could be vandalism, considering it was an anonymous IP number, I apologize for being hasty, but with the release of the new film you can't be to careful. The discussion thread is located on our forum, here. --The Doctor 20:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm a little confused - should I have titled the additions with (NT) instead of (Alternate Timeline), per the apparent outcome of the discussion? (I chose (Alternate Timeline) because of the existing title of the page depicting the new Enterprise, which was listed on the new movie's page.)--Cicero 20:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I think "(alternate reality)" is the consensus, AFAICT. --TimPendragon Hail 20:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The correct addition decided upon was (alternate reality) using the {{ar}} template around a name, such as {{ar|James T. Kirk}}, but as stated on the anonymous talk page, this would only be for significant articles with significant differences in the new reality. Everything else would be included on the main article under a "alternate reality" section. --The Doctor 20:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I see. Thank you.--Cicero 21:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Images Edit

I'm starting to feel like a b*stard now, but can I ask why you are basically uploading duplicate images for the rank insignia and disregarding the work that other users have already done? While your images are slightly larger, discussion on the subject would be prudent before uploading them. --The Doctor (alternate reality) 22:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I don't mean to disregard or depreciate Captainmike's work on the existing insignia. As presented, however, the insignia is both too small (it's smaller than the width of the standard templates) and incorrect (it displays a delta pattern different from the one used in the movie). I'm uploading a new set of insignia which has been corrected for both of these, and which has been color-matched to the uniforms on-screen (in publicity stills, at least).
It's clear that I have trouble with the Memory Beta communication systems. Oddly, I'm a generally effective communicator in person, but I have trouble even beginning to find the right place to talk about something here.--Cicero 22:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Well the current size of the insignia is deemed the best as we don't really want them to expand the whole width of the template, as we include the assignment badge in the same column as well. With regards to the color and style, it would be best to discuss the issue with Captainmike as he's the resident rank guru. With communication however, the best thing to do is to use the articles/or images talk page for general questions about the articles contents. Users talk pages would be best for more direct questions based on their contributions, such as the rank/uniform color issue.
I don't want to dissuade you, but MB always encourages discussion on topics before making drastic changes. I know that sometimes you get the grip of enthusiasm and get taken over by it, but it can lead to problems that way.  :) --The Doctor (alternate reality) 22:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll do my best to discuss more before acting in the future. Sadly, though, discussion seems to sap a great deal of my enthusiasm for the wiki. I too often find my conception of where things should go at odds with the general opinion of the group - which I suppose ought only to be further encouragement to discuss beforehand, less I cause trouble where others are looking for something else.
I'm curious as to why the smaller insignia size was chosen. The Starfleet insignia already renders on a different line from the rank insignia, so all that's accomplished is the presence of white-box brackets on either side of the insignia within its allotted template space.--Cicero 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

8 HoursEdit

I'm amazed, and sad. It's taken only eight hours to rediscover why I was so terribly frustrated by this wiki. Nearly every contribution I attempt to make - certainly nearly every one to a major article - is turned back or undone by persons who seem to not only disagree with it, but, strangely, to loathe it.

I don't understand why the culture of Memory Beta is so unwelcoming in comparison to that of other wikis. I have felt unwelcome here since sometime roughly a year or so after the wiki opened. (I think that was the timeframe. I've mentioned it elsewhere here.) This is one of the largest wikis on the wiki system, but it is dominated by a handful of forceful contributors, several of whom ask thresholds of content they do not like which they blithely skip past when they do. These posters typically decide a great deal among themselves, communicating their decisions - and their deliberations - poorly to the rest of the wiki community.

Some contributors here are excellent, and are very pleasant to work with - even to disagree with - and I appreciate their civility, their consideration, and their efforts. I have certainly had reason to admire and be grateful for them when I have made mistakes and when I have found myself on the opposite side from the majority view.

But a vocal, active minority treats this wiki as a private playground of an insular clique. They keep their own counsel, often out of the way, then declare the consensus of the community from the deliberations of a handful of voices - these often are the same handful. Wikipedia this is not, Memory Alpha it is neither. Very little of the openness, clarity, and focus on minor users - nevermind protection for such users in the company of the prolific - which characterizes those successful wikis are present here.

This is one of the largest encyclopedias in the Wika system. We're only five thousand articles fewer than Memory Alpha, and rank well ahead of many enthusiastically produced references.

But we're behind in structure, in openness, in kindness, in consideration, in civility. There is no reason why this wiki should be run like a private club. There is every reason why it shouldn't.--Cicero 04:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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