Memory Beta, non-canon Star Trek Wiki
Memory Beta, non-canon Star Trek Wiki


Hi, welcome to Memory Beta, the wiki for licensed Star Trek content! Thanks for your edit to the "Lethean" page.

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!

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! Captainmike (talk) 06:58, November 11, 2013 (UTC)

3rd Federation-Klingon War[]

Is there a source for this "3rd Federation-Klingon War" terminology?

i ask because there have probably been five wars with the klingons, including the Four Years War, the Federation-Klingon War of 2267, the Federation-Klingon War of 2285, the Federation-Klingon War of 2372-2373, and then this war in the 25th century.

I'd suggest 25th century Federation-Klingon War or a war title that matches the others here with the years supplied, instead of attempting to create our own numbering system. -- Captain MKB 04:06, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

  • I was basing it off of Memory Alpha's numbering, which calls the DS9-era war the second one. I honestly wasn't aware of the others. --StarSword (talk) 15:26, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
  • With the (official) end of the war as of Season 9, I've changed over to Federation-Klingon War of 2405-2410. --StarSword (talk) 14:25, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

USS Virginia[]

I am trying to keep my page about the U.S.S. Virginia from being deleted. I was formerly a member of Redemption Fleet an IMVU roleplay group and we made our own side story to the Star Trek timeline. We want people to see the things we have come up with so please, good sir, dont shut us down that quickly. CptCassidyJohnson (talk) 14:42, April 1, 2014 (UTC)

  • It's not you, it's the wiki. This is a wiki for officially licensed material, not fan material. There are other wikis that allow fan material. --StarSword (talk) 15:26, April 1, 2014 (UTC)

Page moves[]

When you move a page, please update the incoming links promptly. -- sulfur (talk) 23:36, April 21, 2014 (UTC)

Okay. How do I see the inbounds? --StarSword (talk) 23:50, April 21, 2014 (UTC)

Under "My Tools" at the bottom, look for "what links here". This is vital to do, else you have a ton of articles pointing to completely the wrong place. -- sulfur (talk) 03:03, April 23, 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages[]

Please note that for disambiguation pages, the link should clearly show what is actually being linked to, and the only things linked should be those things being disambiguated. Please see the changes I made to your Day of Honor disambiguation page for an example of what I mean. Thanks. -- sulfur (talk) 10:03, May 2, 2014 (UTC)

Links to disambiguation pages[]

Please try to avoid linking directly to disambiguation pages whenever possible. It is best to use the {{dislk}} template, especially when it comes to registry numbers and such. Having the links go to a [page name (disambiguation)] redirect helps editors realize which links are intentionally made to those disambiguation pages and which ones need to be corrected. Thanks! -- sulfur (talk) 16:45, July 4, 2014 (UTC)

My bad. I'll keep that in mind. --StarSword (talk) 16:50, July 4, 2014 (UTC)

User pages[]

Do not edit user pages belonging to others ever. -- sulfur (talk) 00:12, July 16, 2014 (UTC)


Please read my comments at Talk:Nimbus III. Your approach in declaring each source to be an 'alternate timeline' is quite incorrect and will need to be removed from many article you have edited it into. -- Captain MKB 07:52, August 9, 2014 (UTC)

Even where the sources directly conflict in key details? Like the part where the Decipher RPG declares the planet to have been abandoned but Star Trek Online shows it to clearly not have been? Or where the Star Trek: Voyager (Pocket) books show the USS Quirinal destroyed in the 2380s but STO has it docked in ESD in 2410? Or another of the novels saying the USS Lakota was destroyed in the Dominion War but, again, STO has it on active service? Or the novels saying the Aenar are extinct but they're a playable frakking species in STO? Or the novels saying Donatra's dead, but STO has her very much alive and a boss in two of the Borg STFs?
I know this wiki likes to pretend that all sources are one timeline unless specifically stated otherwise, but a person can't be dead and alive in the same timeline, a ship can't be active and destroyed, and a planet can't be abandoned and at the same time have had continuous sapient settlement.
Besides, I wasn't the one to start using that method. I copied it from existing articles. --StarSword (talk) 13:37, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
Yes, even when there are contradictions. All mainstream recognized sources that portray themselves as the same timeline as regular canon continuity are not "alternate" to each other.
there are minor details that are contradictions, and those can be noted with background notes that they don't match up. nobody should be creating the supposition that alternate realities are to blame for the contradictions, that kind of supposition is not desired here. please stop doing that, even if you did copy it from somewhere else, please stop.
if its the same ship that is destroyed in one source, and active in another, its still not going to be treated like two different ships. there's just going to be be two branches of the article dealing with the two sources. fabricating an explanation that there are two alternate realities could very well be wrong, so its not desirable to create such supposition. a ship could be revived through other means just as easily and it isnt our place to create our own explanation that favors one pieces of supposition and not the other. we simply reflect the information given in the sources -- Captain MKB 19:58, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
So there's still no such thing as "the Destiny timeline". please stop pretending there is. asking again. -- Captain MKB 22:25, December 27, 2014 (UTC)
Ref: STO novel: The Needs of the Many. The brain-damaged Marion Dulmur from (as far as STO is concerned) the prime timeline recalls events such as the Borg Invasion of 2381 that explicitly never happened. They're separate timelines. --StarSword (talk) 15:53, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

Star Trek mapping project[]

Hey StarSword. I'm Brandon, Senior Community Manager at Wikia. We're working on a new Star Trek project as part of the Wikia Fan Studio. To give a bit of context, Fan Studio is a program where fans on Wikia can be connected with brands from the entertainment and video gaming industries. Fans get to interact with brands and share opinions that could impact final products and releases, or whatever it may be that a partner brand is working on. This project doesn't have a partner brand involved, but it will let you be part of Fan Studio and other future projects.

This Star Trek project is based around Wikia Maps, and participants will be mapping different parts of the Star Trek universe. Participants will get to help decide what we should map as well. It could be the layout of the Enterprise, or Voyager's journey through the Delta Quadrant, or even more light-hearted subjects like Captain Kirk's romantic liaisons throughout the galaxy. Whatever the participants end up deciding. The maps that the project participants create will live on Trek Initiative, plus any other community that wants to can embed them.

As an active contributor on Memory Beta, we think you'd be great for this project. Would you like to join? Let me know on my talk page. Thanks! - Brandon Rhea(talk) 23:48, November 18, 2014 (UTC)

Memory Delta wiki Template:Characterbox[]

I made a Template:Characterbox on my wiki,, the Template:Characterbox won't go to the right. Like Template:Conflict infobox, Template:FederationMemberStateInfobox, Template:SmallcraftInfobox, Template:Armed force, Template:Starship, Template:Starship class, Template:Species, Template:State. Can you fix this.--Typhuss999 (talk) 19:39, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't know where to start, sorry. I'm not an admin here. Captainmike might know. --StarSword (talk) 20:49, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense edits[]

Are you seriously going through articles solely for removing the linebreak before the categories and their sortkey? Could you stop? Please restrict your editing to making USEFUL edits to improve articles. -- Captain MKB 21:35, January 31, 2015 (UTC)

No, that was happening on its own. I had moved Hunter-class to Hunter-class (Romulan) and was trying to null-edit the pages (edit reason "n" to keep from having to click "Publish" twice) to clear them from the "What Links Here" list as I went through it, because I couldn't tell which were ghost links from the linkbox templates and which were in the actual article. I had no idea it was auto-removing line breaks, too. --StarSword (talk) 22:02, January 31, 2015 (UTC)
I think this is a facet of the editor you are using? It has the category entering in a separate part of the edit window? that causes it to re attach the categories when you perform null edits, and varies out the linebreak.
I use the basic editor that can perform null edits without adding the null edit to the article's history, because the amount of null edits you are incurring is unacceptable to see. it's clogging up recent changes also, to the point of obscuring others from seeing any real edits. Stop doing it. -- Captain MKB 22:50, January 31, 2015 (UTC)
I noticed. When I've done this kind of thing in the past (e.g. to get a preview of a template to show up on its template page) it just cycled the page without writing an actual change to wiki history. How do I get to the editor you're using? I was either clicking "edit source" or typing ?action=edit on my address bar. (And sorry about all this; I really don't make a habit of intentionally being a pain in the ass.) --StarSword (talk) 02:33, February 1, 2015 (UTC)
I have my skin set to monobook and i think there is another preferences selection for 'basic editor' versus 'advanced editor'... i am simply used to writing links myself so i balk at having the editor write links for me for example -- not sure if it works for everyone.
one problem is filling out the summary field either way -- in some versions of wiki, a null edit with an edit summary could be used to append an edit summary to a previous unsummarized edit -- so if you use the edit summary 'n' or 'null' you could actually be labeling a valid (non-null) previous edit as null -- Captain MKB 06:36, February 1, 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, i apologize for jumping the gun and thinking it was an intentional spamming of my changes list. there are a lot of silly edits made these days so sometimes i err on the side of outrage -- Captain MKB 02:26, February 4, 2015 (UTC)


Certain types of short articles are candidates for immediate deletion and do not require -votes-. Please familiarize yourself with the criteria for adding pages to Memory Beta:Pages for immediate deletion and use that page for such cases - Captain MKB 02:26, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I had looked at that page but wasn't sure if the latest batch of junk fit any of those categories. (Although I suppose they'd fit under "patent nonsense".) --StarSword (talk) 02:43, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

Personal comments[]

This passed by a while ago but i noticed it while doing cleanup. Andrew Jude Dedo had an edit in which you called the article valid, but called the author a 'nitwit' and suggested they be blocked because of the poor state of the data entry.

Creating a substandard article is not a valid case for blocking, especially when the subject matter is valid.

However, calling another user a name is a personal attack and IS a valid case for blocking YOU.

Rethink your attitude. -- Captain MKB 00:21, July 6, 2015 (UTC)