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! -- 8of5 01:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Memory Alpha[edit source]

I've noticed you've copied some data from memoryalpha as the basis for some of your articles, whilst you have made minor alterations and adjusted to our referencing system you are still essentially copying the articles which is, so I'm told, illegal. Your contributions are greatly appreciated but you should write the articles yourself not just copy other people’s work. -- 8of5 22:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Real World information[edit source]

Hi, you're articles are very informative but considering the purpose of this site some of what you include my be outside of our scope, there is a discussion going on in The Forum as to how far that scope should extend, as someone who is obviously interested in the real world aspects of Trek your input into that discussion would be useful and prevent unnecessary work on everyone’s part in trying to format articles down the line when we do decide how much information we should or shouldn’t include. -- 8of5 18:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Q-Pid articles[edit source]

Hey, Servo... why do we need the "Robin Hood character" articles from "Q-Pid"? There's no non-canon relation, is there? --TimPendragon 18:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Kurn's wife and daughter[edit source]

Great job on the Kurn page - we have needed that article for a long time. I was just wondering about the source of the information that he has a wife and at least one daughter. If we know anything about them, presumably this should be mentioned somewhere in the article as well. --Jdvelasc 01:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image size[edit source]

Servo please don't set image sizes of thumb images, users can choice which size they want thumb images to display at in their preferences, anything from 120px to 300px, however if you set a size it will override that. The only time it might be advisable is if an image is very tall or very wide so needs to be kept thinner to not make the page over long, or wider to be able to see it properly. --8of5 16:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-canon wiki[edit source]

Hello, maybe you've missed this, but Memory Beta is the wikia specifically for non-canon Star Trek information. Sometimes it is necessary and quite appropriate to add canon information, however this should only be done if there is a reference to something canon in a non-canon work. Many of the quite obscure 100% canon articles you create do not have any non-canon citations and should not have articles here.

If you are not aware of a non-canon citation of a subject then please do not create articles for that subject. The most recent example of you doing this is the article for Gregory Quinn which indicates no non-canon information at all and only two pages link to the character, one to disambiguate, and one an episode he appeared in. If you want to write about canon information there are many articles which could benefit from it here, but only in moderation keeping in mind we are meant to be non-canon focused. Or you could try expanding some of Memory Alpha’s which is all about canon information. --8of5 09:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Real world infobox data[edit source]

Servo you should not be using infoboxes to try and sneak superfluous real world data on to real world character pages. Apart from the most basic information (such as sex, species and referenced occupation) real world characters should only include specifically what is referenced in Star Trek media. If information is not referenced in Star Trek it does not belong in the body of the article or the infobox. --8of5 16:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

IKS Pagh[edit source]

I noticed you contributed a reference to IKS Pagh, i corrected a citation. We've now enabled the novel template to handle disamgibuations like this: {{n|TNG|{{nd|Metamorphosis}}}}.

Thank you for your continued contributions! -- Captain MKB 18:42, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Dating the 25th Anniversary game[edit source]

Hi there. I noticed that you had authored the article on Richard Patterson. You added the year 2268 referring to the events of the video game he appears in, however I am not aware that a year number or stardate appears in the game.

I would like to know how did you arrive to the conclusion that the events of the game happen in that year, because the game cluebook, which is in the form of a narrative, begins in stardate 6022.9. According to some calculations (see here), this stardate would correspond to 2269, not 2268.

Unless you are aware of a source which definitely sets the game in '68, I'd suggest to alter the date in the relevant articles to '69. MoffRebusMy Talk 06:58, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, passing through... I wasn't aware that there was any consistent scale for TOS-era 4-digit stardates, and that they were essentially random. They show roughly similar progressions, so 6022 might appear in any year (personally, I think they're equivalent to months). (Huh, no maybe they're not so bad after all.) How, then, can it be reverse calculated? -- BadCatMan 09:31, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
Same here, the "some calculations" don't make sense since TOS stardates are also not occurring in order.
When people equated the game with 2269 i thought it was because it referenced 2269 events. Probably the only way we'll ever place it. -- Captain MKB 12:45, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
The TOS-era stardates were chosen randomly by the producers, however AFAIK they presented a progressive pattern so that you can at least deduce that a stardate corresponds to this or that year. The stardates weren't occurring in order simply because the episodes weren't supposed to be shown necessarily in chronological order. And it is true that they were repeating, however not that often; previous re-occurrences would have been before the TOS timescale. Here is an analysis of the stardates. MoffRebusMy Talk 07:01, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
Interesting, though sadly that article takes a rigid canon perspective and skips TAS :( which throws its estimates out of whack. It also makes a fair few assumptions.
Following the TOS+TAS stardate progression instead, 6022.9 falls within TAS Season 2, which Memory Alpha dates to 2270. I.e., you're both wrong. :p It's fairly low though, closer to TOS Season 3, so we might say 2269/2270.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not averse to calculating years from stardates - see my page for a reference stardate/SFC calibration. I've now noticed the surprisingly consistent progression of TOS/TAS stardates through the series and maybe a calibration system can be worked out; some backsteps can be explained or the series can be rearranged by stardate order. But no method can be accurate enough to determine a year-date with sufficient certainty. Mathematically, the uncertainty of such a system must be at least -/+1 year.
Generally, I feel we should use the source dating system where possible. That at least is accurate within the context of the source. An estimate for context can follow in brackets. That is, say, "On stardate 6022.9 (circa 2270)..." Then it's clear what the source says and that the year is an estimate. -- BadCatMan 09:29, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin Finney[edit source]

Finney is a major supporting character in the novel Renegade by Gene DeWeese.

After the events of the series, Finney is sent to a rehabilitation colony, but later recruited by another renegade Starfleet officer working with the Klingons. With their encouragement, he creates a complex computer virus to infect the Enterprise 's computers, believing he is aiding a plot to frame Kirk for the massacre of a ship of unarmed refugees. When he realizes that the Klingons plan to infect every computer in Starfleet, and then conquer the Federation, he balks and his superiors try to have him killed.

Escaping, he finds himself among the very refugees which the Enterprise is about to fire on. Finney hallucinates that he sees his daughter among them, and the experience brings home to him, in a way his years of rehabilitation therapy never quite have, how his hatred of Kirk has driven him to endanger innocent people. After the plot is foiled, with his help, he willingly turns himself over to Federation authorities, ready to give therapy another chance, and to assist Starfleet in creating countermeasures for his program. TyphussJediVader (talk) 18:56, September 8, 2013 (UTC)

Seth Maslan[edit source]

Can you come back to the Seth Maslan article you just wrote and cite it? --StarSword (talk) 01:03, October 6, 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the reminder. Servo (talk) 01:31, October 6, 2014 (UTC)

Spoilers[edit source]

Hey, you missed spoiler messages on the Constitution-class article -- you've been doing pretty well adding them, please try and make sure you get these messages on every Beyond article, please and thanks (there is another user who is close to being banned for this so i have to be fair and remind everyone) -- Captain MKB 23:01, July 22, 2016 (UTC)

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