We've noticed that you've made a contribution to our database—thank you! We all hope that you'll enjoy the activities of our community after reading this brief introduction.

If you'd like to learn more about working with the nuts and bolts of Memory Beta, here are a few links that you might want to check out:

  • Manual of Style: Please be sure to read this before contributing, so you know how to accurately cite your sources, and search the site to make sure the article you want to make doesn't already exist.
  • Policies and Guidelines: For a list of the policies and guidelines that we adhere to on Memory Beta.
  • Wanted pages: For a list of pages we want most, although any contributions you make are greatly appreciated!

One other suggestion: If you're going to make comments on talk pages or make other sorts of comments, please be sure to sign them with four tildes (~~~~) to paste in your user name and the date/time of the comment.

If you have any questions, please feel free to post them in a member's talk page or the community portal. Thanks, and once again, welcome to Memory Beta! --The Doctor 14:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, please try and cite your entries, some of your more recent ones have been lacking in this area. -- 8of5 15:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, will do so -- Darth Batrus 13:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I request a favor. Click the "This is a minor edit" box when the edit is, well, minor. When I check recent changes, I tend to use the "Hide minor edits" function, which is useless if the edit isn't catagorized as such. Thanks. (-: --Turtletrekker 02:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, don't forget, we derive our sources from many types of media so its helps to specify what the sources are when citing, eg: (VOY episode: Barge of the Dead). -- 8of5 13:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Accidentally created duplicate page for Star Trek: Assignment: Earth comic book series under name Star Trek: Assignment Earth (second colon missing). Please delete. Thanks.--CajunGypsy 04:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Darth: do you have any leads on better pictures of the BotF ships? Not a complaint, mind you (and thanks for your work on this), but if we can dig up larger/brighter ones it would be a Good Thing(tm).--Emperorkalan 19:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Sadly I do not, I found them on this website and that was the only size they had :-/ -- Darth Batrus 19:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I gotta say the implication of that and your previous comments around the site really concerns me, its really not the best idea to working from secondary sources, it doesn’t take much for fanon info to slip in. Have you actually played any of these games yourself? Not to deter you from contributing, you’ve really added a lot to the site in areas which are so far mostly neglected, it’s just a concern. -- 8of5 20:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I will be honest with you. I have not played Birth of the Federation or Klingon Academy but I think the sites I am using are quite reliable. The first game well no official words beyond stats are present on the site and I tried to make sure I did not put exaggerated figures in there. This unfortunately makes the articles very small but sadly thats the price that has to be paid in that regard.

I will show you the two sites I have been using if you guys want. thats for Birth of the Federation and the other one is for Klingon Academy. I know I made the mistake before of using secondary sources like that time with the Klingon dialects and am trying to make sure that does not happen again but sadly it seems like I have nothing else to contribute to the site :( -- Darth Batrus 20:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The main problem is separating what was actually in the licensed game vs. later independent mods and other fan additions. As long as you can do that somehow, you're all clear.--Emperorkalan 20:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I still have the game... somewhere (I got everything! Hey Mikey!). Again, no promises on a timetable, but when I can I'll try booting it up and seeing what I can pry out.--Emperorkalan 20:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I know for some games if you search around you can find pdfs of the game manuals which should give you some good stats about ships and such. And on images there are plenty of screencaps about of most games, how well framed they are is a bit iffy sometimes though. -- 8of5 20:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Class namesEdit

Me again, just to note, when making a ship class the page it should be title Name class with the type of ship science vessel, scout, etc noted in the article. -- 8of5 12:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Ah right, thought that was only the case with starships. Thanks for that, will remove the additional designation in the next vehicle articles I am doing. -- Darth Batrus 13:00, 3rd December 2006 (UTC)
Umm.. not actually sure there now you mention it, I'd go for any kind of vehicle being just the class name, but other things, such as your Kang class disruptor battery having that full description. -- 8of5 13:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What about structures? Because I have found the game manual for New Worlds and I am going to add all the unit and structure articles because I have always found this game to be one of the most reclusive on articles, along with Invasion. Even if they arent that great games.... Darth Batrus 13:06, 3rd December 2006 (UTC)

Editing styleEdit

Darth can you please take care when editing. You just uploaded a new image of the Klingon Raptor claiming the old one showed the Romulan raptor, the only reason it did so, is because you uploaded the image of the Romulan raptor over the Klingon one!

Also could you maybe trying looking around the rest of the site for style precedents, you shouldn't be using the thumb function on images in the infoboxes and when you are using thumbs you shouldn't set a size as thumbs are automatically sized to user preference. -- 8of5 15:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I am not sure how that happened, must not have noticed it when I did it. Sorry about all that though and will make sure I don't do that again. -- Darth Batrus 16:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Me again =), just a note to be careful when you are creating links [[Vulcan's Soul: Exodus]] gets nothing because no such page exists, however [[Vulcan's Soul]]: [[Exodus]], will create the correct links like so: Vulcan's Soul: Exodus. If you preview your pages before posting broken links show up in red, of course not all articles exist yet but some widely used ones will so if they don’t show up you'll know and can fix it. -- 8of5 17:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Ah right, I was wondering about that. So would it be like TOS Vulcan's Soul: Exodus? Just want to be sure because I got the two Vulcan Soul books and plan on making a lot of updates with the contents of the book. Thanks for that 8of5. -- Darth Batrus 18:27, 16 December (UTC)

Maybes Edit

Hi Darth, I'm a little concerned about your sometimes use of maybes and might haves when adding information to articles. In most cases sources are reasonably certain about things and if not it would be best to make note of why there is an uncertainty, as simply stating that something might be the case is rather abstract. -- 8of5 22:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  • May I ask which articles they are? If its the recent Vulcan's Soul Exile articles such as those on the Watraii, its because Spock makes quite a few deductions and its just not actually 'seen' so I was not entirely confident if it was 100% accurate. Still reading the book though. If its not that then I think it might be that I am wording it wrong so will change those. -- Darth Batrus 23:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The one about Vre'katra made me bother to mention it, I'm sure there were a couple before, the only one I can recall off the top of my head was on the D4 class page where you added from Legacy that the class may also be known as the Predator class. That was a little difficult because the name had then to be applied to at least two designs for the class which lead to me writing a background section to explain the problem, but from the start it would have been better to just say “The D4 class, or Predator class….” Rather than adding some uncertainty when there wasn’t really any.

On the Vre'katra page you added "They may also have been known as an 'Urn of Memory'.", either that is so,, in which case you could have just added it to the existing opening sentence like so "A vre'katra, katric ark or Urn of Memory, is a receptacle used..." or, if there is some uncertainty it would help to explain why it’s uncertain that the Urn of Memory is a type of katric ark. -- 8of5 23:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

As a possible solution, may I suggest using the discussion pages. If there's something to add that you're not really sure about, post that bit to the discussion page with a note (e.g., "I'm not really sure how to put this exactly. Does anyone have any suggestions?"). Rarely hurts to ask.--Emperorkalan 00:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah right, ok I think I will us the discussion pages then though to explain in relation to the Urn of Memory well they never mentioned calling it a katric ark or that name plus the description was a bit off though it filed somewhat the same purpose but I wasnt sure whether it should be called an Urn of Memory or not. Anyway, thanks for the mention guys and I will use the discussion pages for that now. -- Darth Batrus 10:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Lists in listsEdit

Hi Darth, might I suggest in the cases where you have lists as a part of an already long list you put that list on the page of the thing it is a sublist of. For instance on the Klingon Empire page there is list of battle in the Dominion War which would be more suited for listing on the Dominion War page, similarly on the Federation page there is a list of divisions of Starfleet which would more appropriate on the Starfleet page. -- 8of5 18:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Hmmm, ok if you guys think that best. Just to confirm, I can leave the major conflicts in the 'States Conflict' section but the sub-battles like the Battle of Rashanar or whatever, leave them in the Dominion War article itself rather then list the State with such a huge list right? -- Darth Batrus 18:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I think, though that's me rather than us guys, if you want to know more about the Dominion War you can look at the Dominion War article after all, just makes the page a little shorter and concise and little less a big list. -- 8of5 18:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, no problem, it sounds a sensible choice actually and cuts down on clutter. Thanks for that 8of5. The next couple of times I am editing, will make note to do that. -- Darth Batrus 19:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Images Edit

Darth thumb images should not have sizes set, the site does that automatically depending on user preference. The only exceptions might be if the image was very tall and thin or not very tall at all but wide so might need to wider than the top default size of 300px. Also images should not have copyright info and all that marked on them, that should be on the image page, which should include a description of the image, a source and any necessary copyright/ownership stuff. --8of5 14:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to confirm, when i'm uploading an image for an article, I shouldnt alter the size setting or? Just to confirm. Also, how do you edit an image to add where the source comes from or add a description to the image or would I have to upload another image and delete the old one to do so? Sorry about that. -- Darth Batrus 15:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
If you are placing the image as a thumb you only need say it's a thumb, it will automatically set sizes depending on user preference and automatically place it on the right side of the page. If you are using in an infobox you need to set the size because that shouldn’t be as a thumb. You can add text to the image page either as you upload it in the summary section or after the image has uploaded by clicking on the edit tab like any other page.--8of5 14:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Whilst I'm pestering you, if you are intending to add these numbered classes to the ship pages you should wikilink them and make pages explaining just what a class 4 vessel (etc) is. --8of5 14:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for that. Though one problem on the numbered classes thing is that the Dominion Wars site does not explain the class system just that certain ships fit certain classes. I can't find it being based upon a size setting so I can only fathom it being based on a purpose or power setting namely class 5 are battleships and dreadnaughts while class 1 are fighters, gunships and escorts etc. -- Darth Batrus 15:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Has a look at site (whilst pondering the appropriateness of using a website, official or not, as the primary source of information from a computer game), yeah, I wouldn’t be sure those are even meant to be in-universe, if you look at the captains page there's a similar system, rank 1, rank 2, etc. --8of5 15:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Should I remove the class references then? As to the website, wouldnt it be considered a licensed source and thus be part of the material that can be included? I mean, if the official website can't be considered part of the material to be added then I'm not sure what else could be to confirm the Dominion Wars game material. Not trying to be aggressive or anything, just saying as its effectively second only to the game manual or the actual game itself. -- Darth Batrus 16:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You summed it right up there, the game and maybe the manual are the source, I can't really tell you not to use if you are contributing licensed Star trek info, but personally I would not add information from a game I have never played and cannot access right as I am making additions to verify facts. The numerical classes might be explained as something in the game, I don't know, I haven’t played it and evidently you don’t know either... --8of5 15:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Darth I think you've miss-understood the purpose of the image gallery on the source page, they are intended a place to store images from that source which we have on the site anyway, not just a place to collect random images from the source. And please don't upload images with watermarks, the least you could do is crop or edit them out but better would be to get your own screencaps. --8of5 21:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, noted. I think I just might avoid doing images since I have been doing it terribly from the start. Anyway, sorry about that again. -- Darth Batrus 12:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't give up, everyone makes mistakes and you are always willing to learn. :) --8of5 11:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sand and Stars Edit

Darth you've made several citations of "Sand and Stars" recently, that book is an omnibus of two novels, you should cite the specific novel not the omnibus, just as you would a short story in an anthology. --8of5 19:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Ah right, will do that then, wasnt really aware of that actually. Thanks for the mention 8. --Darth Batrus 20:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Would would would Edit

You might wish to add your thoughts to the current discussion on tensing, but irrespective of the outcome of that I really think you over use the word would, when, for example in your recent additions to the Confederacy of Vulcan page you constantly use it, when instead of “this would lead to this, that would cause that”, it should be stating “this did lead to this, and did lead to that” (not that you should just replace every would with a did, try a bit of variety in your vocab). As is your articles read very uncertainly and the tensing is confused. --8of5 20:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Hmmm ok will try, still working on the Confederacy, Vulcan and Surak pages but will try and tone that down abit. -- Darth Batrus 16:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • ahem* thought I'd remind you of this, some of your recent additions have been a bit heavy on the woulds again. As I said before it just makes them sounds uncertain about what they're talking about. If we know something for sure then it did happen. --8of5 18:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, been trying to tone it down a lot though can I enquire which article it is? I havent made any new ones the last few days and I have been trying to make sure that I cut down on the woulds and use a more certain word so that leaves the older articles. Anyway thanks for the mention, it just keeps creeping in but am trying to make sure I don't do it anymore. -- Darth Batrus 11:13, 01 May 2008 (UTC)

No idea which specific article prompted that reminder, that was over a month ago! --8of5 20:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Linking articles to sources Edit

Hey there. Just a brief note to remind you that when you create an article, can you please connect it to the original source and any related articles. The reason for this is that the article can then be accessed instead of becoming an "orphaned" article. Although you aren't the only contributor to do this (I know its difficult sometimes, I've done it myself), it does mean that there are currently over 400 hundred orphaned articles on the wiki which can't be accessed from other pages, thus denying visitors to the wiki the chance to view every page easily. Thanks (-: --Dr. John Smith 23:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, do you mean that when an article is created I should make sure I put the name of the article in the references section of the source page? Like the last contributions were from Spock's World and I should put them in the references section there or do you mean something else? Just clarifying that and thanks for the comment Doc :) --Darth Batrus 11:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I mean when you create a new article just make sure that you then link the article in the reference section of the source page(s). Thanks (-: --Dr. John Smith 15:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources Edit

Darth, please remember to cite your sources. --8of5 23:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Added, accidently cut it out when I put in the quote. -- User:Darth Batrus|Darth Batrus]] 17:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Klingon ships Edit

In the Negh'Var-class article, you added the names of two Klingon ships, the Hurgh'ragh and the TajHu .. i was wondering what the source was for those.. -- Captain MKB 05:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Its been a while since I wrote that but I believe its from the game Legacy. -- Darth Batrus 12:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Treasury Guard Edit

My apologies, I inappropriately deleted Treasury Guard. However, based off the concerns of several users and the wider viewing audience which has been expressed, we have many stub articles which say little or nothing, I have decided to prune out some of the smaller stubs, which would then allow someone to create these articles from scratch and create a complete article.

Anyway, I was wondering if there was any further expansion that could be done for this article. Sorry to bother you (-: --The Doctor 12:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't currently possess the book anymore but from what I remember, it was only a short line that stated that they were defending Fereginar during an Orion attack, beyond that I don't think there was more added to the term. :-/ Thanks for the message though :) -- Darth Batrus, 12:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"Minor" editsEdit

Darth: just to note: a "minor edit" is things like fixing typos, tweaking layouts, updating a page with markup templates, adjusting categories, etc. (mostly procedural stuff). When you add whole paragraphs (see your recent Klingon and Qo'noS posts), it's a big enough change that you shouldn't check the "This is a minor edit" box. The "recent changes" page has an option to ignore minor edits so people can weed out the mostly-tweaks stuff, and by ckecking the minor box that option weeds out your posts (with more substance) too.--Emperorkalan 18:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Ah right, I thought it was for existing articles which were being added to, will note that for the future, thanks for the mention. -- Darth Batrus 18:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Looong section titles Edit

Hi Darth, nothing official just something that bugs me personally, I don’t suppose you could cut back on the long section names you add to articles, especially when they could have much more concise headings. For instance Beliefs, Religion and Mythology would function just as well simply as Beliefs, Marriage, Children and Family Life could be boiled down to Family and Psychology, Society and Interactions with Others works as a nice and simple Behaviour

Now on a more official note, could you also think about the rest of the article when you add information. Your recent addition to the Andorian article pays no attention to the information already presented on the page and as a result has made the page rather repetitive with your addition giving information that already existed. When integrating information into an existing article you must think about appropriate placement and pay attention to what already exists. --8of5 19:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Noted, I just thought it was better to lump the entries into one big lump article rather then multiple ones but if that clutters thing then will change my approach. In regards to the new information being added, I was planning on consulting the other members of the wiki in integrating the new material into the existing articles in order to make the best use of both worlds as right now I am kind of quoting from the books. Its because I want to add some of the new information but am somewhat hesitant on removing previous information without some guidance from either you or Kalan or Mike or someone else who has been here longer then me. -- Darth Batrus 19:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well when you add new information you don't have to do it in big chunks. Adding a small new fact and the citation to a pre-existing part of the article would be preferable to repeating information by lumping all the information from each source into a paragraph that only gives information from a single source.

And I hope that was just a bad choice of words when you said "I am kind of quoting from the books" because that is entirely not allowed, it's copyright infringement. Your additions should be in your own words. --8of5 19:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad choice of words but will double back to ensure I havent quoted stuff directly if its ok. -- Darth Batrus 19:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

One other thing, typically the section title "background" is used for real world background information on subjects. So when adding information to in-universe articles you should probably avoid that one. I'd suggest "Overview" as a suitable substitute. --8of5 20:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, does that mean if there was background in the Human article it would talk about real world stuff while if I mentioned overview it would be used to talk about the race? Just making sure, and thanks for all the mentions 8of5, will work on all the newly added material. -- --Darth Batrus 20:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well there is no strict rule to it, but generally sections titled background do deal with real world behind the scenes sort of information. We don’t have that many articles with general "overview" sections, typically we'd either not have any subjections for a shorter article or split it up in to several distinct sections, history and culture for example. --8of5 20:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving Edit

Hi there. When moving text from articles it is best practise to just move the page to the desired name and then re-edit the old page. For example, with the Age of Expansion move, the article should have been moved to Vulcan Age of Expansion and then the original article should then have been edited to make it a disambig.

The only reason for this is that copying and pasting data to different articles mean that the history attached to that article doesn't get transferred with it. No problem if you didn't know this, I'm just letting you know for future reference. Thanks (-: --The Doctor 16:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry, how do you do the move? I've never done it before and thought it was done this way :( sorry about that. Darth Batrus 16:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
No probs. To move an article you just have to click the Move tab at the top of the page and a screen will come up asking you what title you would like to move the article to. So for instance you would put Vulcan Age of Expansion in, then simply add a reason in the box below (in this case "for disambig" would be fine), and your done. --The Doctor 16:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Got it, just looked at it and will do that in the future. Thanks for that Doctor :) -- Darth Batrus 15:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Community consensus Edit

Hello, I wondered if you, as a consistent contributor to the site, would mind indicating your preference in a matter of debate on site policy. As recently discussed on the Talk:Double Blind page there is some disagreement over whether two-part stories should exist on two separate pages or as a singular merged entity. The more people willing to give an opinion the better as it would allow the community to make its preference known and resolve the issue – so a response on the linked page would be very useful. Thank you. --8of5 15:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Over use of overview Edit

Ciao Lord Batrus, just a thought, you might be overusing the Overview heading a little, articles such as the Andak Project don’t really even need a sub-heading, what's it dividing the information off from?

Also when citing the Star Trek Online timeline please cite that exactly {{web|ST|The Path to 2409}}

Thanks. --8of5 18:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit fussy on the use of overviews as I liked to use them to separate the information about the topic from the articles history. But I can see that being the case here, will note that and thanks for the citation for the website :) – Darth Batrus 18:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Edit

Wanted to drop you a line and thank you for fixing the errors on the pages I worked on. I appreciate your work! – Commander Phoenix 03:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh right, no problem. Glad to help :) – Darth Batrus 10:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RPG citations Edit

Hi Darth, it was suggested some time ago (by Mike I think) that to be consistent with our citation system the PRG references should follow the standard (SERIES media: Title) format, so should be cited to the series rather than publisher - same way we cite comics and novels to series rather than publisher. --8of5 13:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh right, must have missed that :-/ is there an article that adopts that style so I can take a look at it? – Darth Batrus 13:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well, an example article doesn't spring to mind, and having a look through a random selection of RPG citied articles the systems are currently EXTREAMLY inconsistent - every other citation is formatted in a different way. It is detailed on the Memory Beta:Style page though, and is no different than citing another other book - if the RPG book is associated with a specific series then you cite it to that series, if not you cite it to ST in general. --8of5 13:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

So lets say I'm citing the FASA book The Klingons do I do (TOS modules: FASA, The Klingons)? Or don't mention FASA and simply mention The Klingons? Sorry to bother you about this, just want to be sure rather then make more mistakes :) – Darth Batrus 13:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No promlems, it would be (TOS module: The Klingons) :) --8of5 14:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks for that :) going to add a bit more from FASA but will go back to all the rpg articles I have done and modify them. Anyway thanks for letting me know about the mistake. – Darth Batrus 14:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


Hey Darth, I nominated you for admin rights -- should you choose to accept, the discussion is at project:Requests for adminship. -- Captain MKB 15:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, your nomination for adminship has been accepted :D. If you have any questions, feel free to ask 8of5, Captainmike or myself :). --The Doctor 15:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for letting me know :D will not let you guys down. – Darth Batrus 09:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned Articles Edit

May I ask that, as you're creating new articles, you make sure to create links to them on the page of the appropriate novel? Otherwise, you're recording all this information, but not providing any easy way for others to find it. -- 14:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Will do, sometimes I get carried away with adding new information that I forget to add them to the novel page :) will begin putting them in now. – Darth Batrus 14:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

References Edit

Just an FYI, the proper way to list references is with a dot character, not the vertical pipe. See the Style Guide. --Captain Savar 15:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Introductions Edit

Darth I've noticed your introductory paragraphs tend not to do much introducing; The first few sentences should sum up what the article is all about and it's position in the universe, so a user can read that and decide if it sounds like something interesting that they might want to read the rest of the article to find out more about.

One sentence, such as "Blindvaults were a type of technology." tells the reader next to nothing, it is not a useful way to start an article. Instead I would suggest you need to condense some of your later information into the introduction to provide a concise and informative start to the article, with greater detail following. --8of5 20:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I was still adding to the article since I'm still in the process of going through the novel so rather place them as soon as possible. The intros I tend to write try to classify what field the article falls under such as technology or planet etc as I don't personally like writing excessively long intros as it just means the entire article is an intro with little content. Though in Blindvaults case I admit it was not that helpful. Will try and adjust my intros in the future :) – Darth Batrus 21:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The Blindvaults case is not the exception though, it's the same approach to all your articles. You should think of the introduction as an integral part of the article, not something to try and make the shortest sentence possible with little to no indication of what the article is about - that is after all the entire point of an introduction, to introduce the subject!

The introduction should provide a general overview of what the article is about, not an abstract statement of what is it (that's what categories do), but useful descriptive information that leads into the more detailed sections below. --8of5 22:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, got an example for you: A few days ago I rewrote your articles on the Borg Entreaty, I had to rewrite the entire article because doing a proper introduction changes the structure of the article, plus I added a couple of details you missed, anyway: Your original introduction was "The Borg Entreaty was a speech that was made in 2367", which I expanded to "The Borg Entreaty was a speech made in 2367 by Julie Elliot, a widow of the recent Battle of Wolf 359, calling for the imprisonment of anyone suspected of collusion with the Borg." Now surely you can see that tells the reader what the article is all about? And in doing gives them the context, immediately, to understand the rest of the article without having to hunt about trying to figure it out as you disclose the details in the bulk of the article? Having a proper introduction informs the reader, and makes the entire article easier to read.

Also, I see on smaller articles, such as Project Blue Sky, you use the same, sentence-introduction-followed-by-further-information structure. An article that size simply doesn't need to be spaced out like that, if we've only got one paragraph of information then present it as one paragraph of information, spacing it out just makes it read rather oddly. --8of5 22:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Very well, I shall attempt to do so with future articles when I get back to adding them though personally the Blue Sky article looks the same to me either way but I have changed it to be one paragraph. Though I would point out that I was finishing the novel with the Borg Entreaty in order to fish for more information on it and when I got back to it, it was rewritten already so... – Darth Batrus 11:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
If you read paying any attention to grammar, not having that paragraph break removes a big and awkward pause. And all the information I found on the Borg Entreaty was spread across two consecutive pages, so... --8of5 13:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
As I said, I shall be doing it the way you mentioned and as for the Borg Entreaty thing, after I finished the book I noticed that there was no further mention of it so when I got back to the wiki the article was rewritten. – Darth Batrus 14:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

DS9 comicsEdit

Good work with DS9 comic sources! I thought no one read those but me. -- Captain MKB 20:18, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Automated categoriesEdit

The 'articles referencing STO' category is automated for use with a notice template. it shouldn't be added to articles on its own, if that article belongs in the category, you should use {{STO notice}} at the top of the page. -- Captain MKB 14:21, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Also, here's some examples of the {{imagesource}} template in case we haven't gotten an auto-add for a certain publisher. Also, even if you use the uploader drop-down, you can still add multiple subcategories:
{{imagesource|Malibu Comics}}
{{imagesource|Malibu Comics|subcat=starships}}
{{imagesource|Malibu Comics|subcat=comic covers|subcat2=DS9 comic covers}}
hope this helps. - Captain MKB 21:58, May 25, 2010 (UTC)


don't forget category:planets :) -- Captain MKB 11:20, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

Issues Edit

Hello, I am having issues with some of User:Captainmike's recent edits, and in particular his unconstructive replies on the Memory Beta talk:Style page where I have attempted to address my issues with his edits in a way that benefits the entire community by trying to find community understanding on the purposes of what he proposes and a solution that finds an appropriate place for what he is trying to do. Mike seems to have taken it upon himself to reply to these suggestions in an entirely unconstructive and somewhat snide form. So I would appreciate it if a) you would step into the conversion to add your own opinion and stop it being a two way battle, and b) would keep an eye on Mike who I now believe is working to vandalise pages; an issue with what he is doing having been raised he continues to make the edits in question and refuses to defend them, replying only with bursts of cocky attitude. --8of5 11:38, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

If you look at that conversation, you'll notice that things proceeded as a matter of course until 8of5 took some thought-out comments of mine on what I had been doing and responded with a snide comment 'that argument is completely ridiculous' ... so basically, I'd hope that 8of5 ends up being held to the same standard of 'not being snide' that he proposes you apply to me.
In fact, proposing rules to the wiki, and then stonewalling any thought-out suggestions on how to alter them from an original structure, is quite self-centric and not at all cooperative. I'd ask that we reach an agreement to stop 8of5's heavy-handed rule changes that the average user is not able to make suggestions to without the snide comment I received. -- Captain MKB 13:50, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Dear fellow admin, in response to Captain Mike’s request I would like to point out that, despite his consistently antagonistic attitude towards me, I do recognise Mike is not, nor has ever been, a vandal. As Mike has explained to me, his comments were intended to cool off our heated discussion by marking his withdrawal. My misinterpretation of this as a threat led to Mike taking it much more personally than the situation required, and resulted in the subsequent ongoing confrontation of the past few days.

The original discussion that started this has now almost settled at a satisfactory outcome for all parties. Though a few more voices would help determine the exact outcome, so your further input would be useful. Additionally Mike and I have clashed on a couple of other discussions in recent days, not helped by us both apparently being under the impression we are actively targeting each other. I will not speak for Mike but I can reassure this is not the case on my part. Never the less we remain at a stalemate on several topics, so addition inputs would be useful there as well. Thank you. --8of5 23:20, June 23, 2010 (UTC)


Hey Darth, for future reference when adding data from STO we have a template ({{STO}}) just for adding missions, and also you don't need to put "Mission:" before every mission title. The template listing STO missions on the STO pages should point you towards the correct page names. :) --8of5 20:25, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

Thank you Darth for your recent copyediting. -- Captain MKB 12:46, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Sort KeysEdit

Hey Darth, when you create caregory sorts, please use the whole word. Don't just put "category:Starfleet|M" .. the category should be sorted by the word "Medical", not "M" -- Captain MKB 15:23, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Responded to your question on my talk page.
By the way, are you still in FASA land? I did a lot of Intelligence Manual stuff yesterday, and was thinking of continuing as long as we don't have too many more disruptive people on the wiki today -- let me know what you think of what i did with the first book of the SFIM -- Captain MKB 15:38, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Temples Edit

Hi Darth, I know you're pretty good with the cultural stuff, so wondered whether you might be aware of any more temples we could add to the known temples listing on the temple article. I think I found all the ones we have articles for already, but I imagine there are plenty that could be added to the list that don't yet have an article :) --8of5 19:20, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks --nice welcome! Edit

Thanks for the Welcome.I love the Alpha/Beta approach to Memory Alpa. I find that Memory Gamm
Sisko and Dax on Tyree

Sikk & Dax procuring fresh Data...Blueberr6014 (talk) 21:17, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

a also holds some of my flavourite "*Treasures" in the way of Organizing & Cataglorizing Data input. Merci! Muca Gracias. Lady VulcanBlueberr6014 (talk) 21:17, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

Infobox formatEdit

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

Syalantillesfel (talk) 20:10, February 5, 2017 (UTC)

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