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!
Starships content Edit
Great work there Newark, I was really curious about the content of this book and glad to see someone adding them to the wiki. I was curious though if there were any content on Vulcan starship classes or organizations? I heard there was something called the Vulcan Exploration Forces in the books T'Plana-Hath class section but I don't have the book personally. Anyway keep up the work :) – Darth Batrus 13:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- The Vulcan Space Forces was under the direct command of the Vulcan High Command and that this agency partnered with the Vulcan Science Institute for assigning missions for the starships. I didn't find a reference to the Vulcan Exploration Forces in the book.– Newark 05:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Sources for prototype shipsEdit
Hey Newark, I was reading through the recent changes, but I'm having trouble verifying the sources of the USS Challenger and USS Cheyenne articles you wrote -- could you let me know the page numbers of where the ships are mentioned so I could look them up? All i find in the sources cited is mentions of the starship classes, not the ships themselves. -- Captain MKB 07:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I was testing the waters to see how much source material an article needed for this site. I will be more careful on my articles.– Newark 05:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Newark, I noticed a recent edit you made that seems improper -- where was it specified that USS Aries was refit with new escape pods? None of the sources cited clarify the reasoning for you adding this information, which seems false.
I also notice that you have never answered any previous questions to you? Unless you provide reasons for these inconsistencies, we are going to have to assume that you are not editing with the best intentions of this site in mind, and consider your actions malicious. Please help us clarify this by answering. -- Captain MKB 05:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- According to the article in Memory Alpha for the Renaissance class, they mention that the ships in this class which were refitted with ARSVs were redesignated as Mark II variants. I assumed the author was accurate in his description. I see ARSVs as an advanced escape pod. As for my intention, I am not writing any articles which are malicious in nature. I am writing articles which meet the site's criteria and are based in precedent. I have learned much. For instance, I will not be writing articles on prototypes unless those ships are described in greater detail in the source material.– Newark 06:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- The Memory Alpha article probably refers to the STTNG Technical Manual mention of ASRV escape pods being fitted on the Renaissance class USS Hokkaido. I have no idea how Memory Alpha could have twisted this to refer to the Aries, that ship was not even mentioned in that context.
- In the future, I'd advise you to check the references themselves rather than Memory Alpha. It seems really likely you're misinterpreting what Memory Alpha wrote about the STTNG Technical Manual, and it would be better for you to check the STTNG Technical Manual itself just to be sure you know what you are writing about. -- Captain MKB 13:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree.– Newark 14:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I had to remove everything you just added to Daedalus class. Please don't take this the wrong way, but you added info that didn't have a clear source, and you also removed info that did have good sources. If you want to continue working on that article or see any of your info included, you'll have to explain the sources for each item in a discussion before you try to edit the article again. There are some contradictory sources, so I need you to stop the editing of that article and participate in discussion instead. -- Captain MKB 15:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Why are you removing edits from articles? I'm undoing a lot of things that seem like you are just randomly changing things into false information for no reason. Could you please answer why this is happening? -- Captain MKB 06:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I am not changing things into false information. I am just condensing the information. For instance, with the D'era, I condensed the information into a few sentences. The information about Benjamin Sisko and the Senator's meeting isn't relevant to the ship's entry. If the reader wants to know more, they can see the episode.– Newark 07:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree with that, but even so, it seems you are also removing links like the sidebar's "affiliation" fields for some articles, and a few of the articles I've edited I've seen you change links for "mid" or "late" centuries to the wrong time period.
- Please use talk pages if you feel the links are wrong instead of just going through and changing things. Our policy requires that you use the "summary" field to explain changes, as you need to take part in the community and explain why you make the changes you make. -- Captain MKB 07:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Could you please go through and fix this, or do I have to ban you from the site for a short time while responsible editors go through and undo all the damage you've done? -- Captain MKB 18:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
It's redundant and poor grammar. When you write USS Lindbergh Federation Daedalus-class Explorer Starship, you are actually writing United Star Ship Lindbergh Federation Daedalus-class Explorer Starship. The USS already identifies the ship as a starship in service to the Federation. Look at how they write articles on wikipedia. For the warship Ronald Reagan, the author's first sentence is:"USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) is a Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarrier in the service of the United States Navy." Now look at how you would like me to write the sentence: "USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) is an American Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarrier naval ship in the service of the United States Navy." Which is cleaner, and is more easy to read?– Newark 19:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with removing the redundant "starship" from articles when we know the classification, it reads very weird. I'm not convinced having the prefix is enough reason to remove the fully worded information on the affiliation though. --8of5 19:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- If the information does not fit tidily into one sentence, perhaps a second sentence would be possible? Since these are all Federation starships, having those links seems elementary and necessary and I still don't support removing the links from an article. Start another statement that could encompass the new links, instead of writing "the USS Lindbergh was a Federation Daedalus-class explorer starship in Starfleet service in the 22nd century" (which, despite being unwieldy, I don't feel is actually incorrect in any way), perhaps start a second sentence for the new information. "The USS Lindbergh was a Federation starship. The Lindbergh was a Daedalus-class explorer in Starfleet service in the 22nd century."
- The point I'm trying to make is, just because you have new information to add, older links should not be deleted. You should find a way to keep all the links in the article, and you should be prepared to write a new sentence if necessary, rather than just cutting things apart. I still feel that all the articles you've worked on now need repair to add these elementary links you deleted. -- Captain MKB 11:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)