Memory Beta, non-canon Star Trek Wiki

A friendly reminder regarding spoilers! At present the expanded Trek universe is in a period of major upheaval with the finale of Year Five, the Coda miniseries and the continuations of Discovery, Picard and Lower Decks; and the premieres of Prodigy and Strange New Worlds, the advent of new eras in Star Trek Online gaming, as well as other post-55th Anniversary publications. Therefore, please be courteous to other users who may not be aware of current developments by using the {{spoiler}}, {{spoilers}} or {{majorspoiler}} tags when adding new information from sources less than six months old. Also, please do not include details in the summary bar when editing pages and do not anticipate making additions relating to sources not yet in release. 'Thank You


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



Hey doc! I left you a long note as a reply to your comment on my page, but here's another topic. One thing I think we need to look at in reference to continued good administration of the wiki is spoilers. I don't really think it's OK to put spoilers into an edit summary at all -- at one point, somebody added a body count from a big climactic novel and then as their edit summary put all the information so anyone on recentchanges then knew the end of that novel.

Also, all spoilers from current novels and comics in articles and on talk pages should be marked, and perhaps our existing spoiler templates could be streamlined some to show what kind of spoilers are involved -- perhaps a date so we know when to remove it. Just a thought on that, although I definitely want to enforce the ban of edit summary spoilers and require spoiler warnings on talk pages.

After all, do you really want to know the ending of the comic I just read? I got the one with the limited edition photo cover after all and would love to share ;) -- Captain MKB 21:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


I have thuroughly review his actions, and some of them are opposite of the rules. His conduct toward others at times also is highly questionable as the least. The reason for such warnings is shown in your own comment. When one ignores a problem, no matter how minor, it usually only becomes worse. And yet that is what yourself and 8of5 are doing. Sadly, such a thing appears to be all too common on wiki sites, which is why I did not simply leave the matter with other administrators.

AdmiralYamakawa 12:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


Protecting pages In general, administrators should not protect pages which they have edited in the past (this includes discussing the article on the talk page). Administrator powers are not editor privileges — administrators are simply representatives of the community of contributors as a whole. If an administrator is involved with a page and wants that page protected, he should contact another administrator to do it for them.

Because wiki pages are supposed to be open to everyone, it's best to leave pages protected for as short at time as possible. Talk pages should never be protected.


02:45, 20 January 2009 (hist) (diff) N Memory Beta talk:Log in before making drastic changes‎ (New page: Could I have a consensus of registered users here -- would this policy apply to an anonymous user who wished to create a new detailed index of starship classes in a new format we would not...)

02:46, 20 January 2009 (hist) (diff) m Memory Beta talk:Log in before making drastic changes‎ (Protected "Memory Beta talk:Log in before making drastic changes": vandal protection [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 02:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)))

02:48, 20 January 2009 (hist) (diff) N Memory Beta talk:No personal attacks‎ (New page: Should this policy have a more detailed description of what constitutes a personal attack? Name calling, for example -- how much is too far? -- AdmiralYamakawa 06:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

02:48, 20 January 2009 (hist) (diff) m Memory Beta talk:No personal attacks‎ (Protected "Memory Beta talk:No personal attacks": vandal protection [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 02:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)))

00:17, 21 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Memory Beta talk:Deletion policy‎ (note on turnng meaningless/futureless definition/list articles into redirects to like categories (re: starship classes)

00:18, 21 January 2009 (hist) (diff) m Memory Beta talk:Deletion policy‎ (Protected "Memory Beta talk:Deletion policy": vandal protection [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 00:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC))) (top)


List of protected pages If you protect a page, or find a protected page not listed on Project:Protected page, please add it to the list. Please also add a short description of ten words or less indicating why you protected it.

Memory Beta:Sign your posts on talk pages

Because everyone is allowed to edit the talk pages, the discussions can sometimes get a little chaotic. It's important that everyone sign their posts on talk pages so that individual statements can be attributed to specific users.

Signing your posts is easy: use three tildes (AdmiralYamakawa) to sign just your name, or four tildes (AdmiralYamakawa 06:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)) to sign your name PLUS the current date and time.

Memory Beta:Be considerate to new members

AdmiralYamakawa 17:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Anon IP users[]

See doc -- no explanation why, but this user has a serious hate on for me -- thinks i've violated all these policies, but no fact to back up the flames. Completely ridiculous.

Coincidentally -- that IP address I accidentally banned for three days instead of permanently -- just in case that user was causing any sort of problem in the future. All three are now on permanent blocks. -- Captain MKB 14:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

On this latest "policy annoyance", I have a rebuttal:

Protected pages[]

I stand by my position protecting "Memory Beta project" pages -- these are administrative articles and do not relate to the rules about protecting articles in our regular namespace. Since only registered users are allowed to influence policy, only registered users should be allowed to debate policy. These pages aren't protected from edits, they're protected onlybfrom non-voting anons and vandals. -- Captain MKB 17:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Signing posts[]

Again, welcome messages are administrative templates and are not considered "posts" that need to be "signed" -- Captain MKB 17:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Being considerate[]

I've been very considerate to new members, even to the point of delaying banning them after they commit serious breaches of policy. I even unblocked a banned IP address to give the user a second chance. One banned IP i gave a shorter span to see if they wanted to return and contribute. Although, since the policy says to block these users, I should not be so lenient. If anything I've been TOO considerate. -- Captain MKB 22:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Breaches of policy[]

there are breaches of policy and then there are serious breaches of policy -- for example, no one is ever going to be banned for failing to sign a talk comment.

For banning -- A "serious" breach of policy would be a threat, like promising to destroy someone or to hack their personal information data. Another serious breach would be an insult, like calling someone a Nazi or spitting the f-word at them repeatedly. -- Captain MKB 17:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

So once again you quote rules while ignoring them yourself.

All conflict aside however, I do think line 122 of the following is interesting:

All of the minor words such as coffee, knife, camera, corn, food, drink, and plant as well as your obsession in adding them remind me of a certain hyperactive gerbil I had when I was younger. Even now, I am laughing to the point of tears. I thank you for that, as I have not laughed so in quite some time.

AdmiralYamakawa 23:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What rules are you claiming Mike ignored? You haven't offered a specific example, when asked numerous times. We're giving you a chance to explain your complaints. --TimPendragon 23:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You really do need to learn to pay attention Tim. They are only posted on at least four different pages - including this very talk page. Though I suppose I should not be at all surprised the you cannot see it, since that particular post is only ten inches long.

AdmiralYamakawa 02:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And every one of those points has been sufficiently refuted, I should think. If those are your bones of contention, then now I am forced to ask you to provide your rationale for continuing your personal witch hunt against someone who has done you no wrong nor violated any official policy of this community. What do you believe that Mike did to you that ticks you off so much? --TimPendragon 04:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad Man[]

I think that might be a vandal. Please stop him. – AT2Howell 18:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


In case you don't happen to check my talk page for a response to your comment: I'm sorry for misunderstanding the reason for your deletions of my attempted contributions. I thought they were being deleted as vandalism or errors, based on the comments you left. (This is why I signed in.) Where can I find the community discussion you reference?--Cicero 20:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for responding.--Cicero 20:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing at all to do with this wiki[]

Sorry, I know this isn't the place, but I was wondering, do they have Star Trek cereal in Britain? I figured you'd be the one to ask. – AT2Howell 21:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Doc![]

I'm sorry to trouble you with admin stuff since we have been all getting good edits done lately, but I wanted to know if you could do me a favor -- review the edit history of the article Ashalla, and the contributions by User: and my request on user talk:

If you feel a short block was undeserved, please do undo the block i engaged, or just take note of the issue so that i'm not the only admin contact for this user if the situation continues. -- Captain MKB 22:21, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Question About Titan: Taking Wing[]

On the page for Taking Wing it says the book takes place in 2379/2380, but I thought it took place fully in 2379. The 2379 page has the whole book in that year. Which is it supposed to be? If it's 2379/2380, the templates for the 2379 and 2380 year pages should be edited accordingly. Chapters 23 and 24 take place in 2380 according the stardates given in the chapters. Also, on the 2380 the stardate given for the mention of Tuvok promotion is the stardate of chapter 23 of Taking WingMbruno 00:06, December 4, 2009 (UTC)


I might have asked already, but if I did it was too long ago for me to remember....

The Miradorn ship class designated "Theta" by the Federation is listed as having a Miradorn name of Ma-Karn. Where was that name referenced?--Marhawkman 18:12, December 9, 2009 (UTC)


Evening Doctor, while Mike and I have been working on the Delta Vega I article the mountain article has come up with some information on the planet; however the article isn't cited. As you are the sole contributor to that article might you be able to shed some light on this? --8of5 21:29, March 20, 2010 (UTC) -- i tihkn we're dealing with this sifting over from MA. a vague dialogue reference. -- Captain MKB 21:52, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
Essentially correct. Piper's dialogue was repeated ad nauseum in either/or both The Fire and the Rose and Republic. Hope this helps :). --The Doctor 22:06, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes it does! The Fire and the Rose doesn't capitalise pointed peaks, so I guess not a proper name. Would you mind having a look at the Delta Vega talk page too Doctor, there's a few novels that reference Delta Vega that i dont have, would like to get the info from them if you or others do! --8of5 22:13, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Fan fic[]

See also Daniel Steinberg‎‎ for more fan fic from the Amy Howard user. -- sulfur 15:05, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Admin stuff[]

Hey Doc, there's a new user challenging the 'do not copy' rule - do you have a take on this? I know the rule is kind of vague regarding other wiki sources

Thanks for your help. -- Captain MKB 13:35, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Similar points have been raised before. I advocated that we could copy a brief summary from wikipedia for the episodes as their license was compatible with ours. So from my perspective, I don't have a problem with copying from wikipedia, but 8of5 and several others brought up the case that we didn't want anything copied over and preferred we write our own summaries. I can certainly see that viewpoint, but its really a grey area, unlike copying from Memory Alpha. --The Doctor 10:30, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
Noted. I kind of feel it could give us some leeway in filling out articles, even though i don't like copying myself. But if its something other admins and policy-makers have disagreed with, I guess I'd have to continue asking new users to not do so unless they get a consensus from the active community in general, if you see it that way too?
As to this user, the person seems to simply like making defensive responses to anyone who tries to communicate with them or edits articles they've 'possessed'. I see you experienced some of that today. -- Captain MKB 14:06, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
The situation has escalated, someone is trolling on facebook trying to convince new users to come onboard and challenge our policy, and me personally. I find it very distracting and want you to be aware I might need backup if the 'singling out' continues.
I'm not the only admin here, but at least two new users with no actual article edits are making their presence known, criticizing our site, calling for my 'removal' from the site. I'm going to have to take this personal and would like to count on your support in enforcing my own defense against personal attack -- so it doesn't appear like i am the only person on this site who has a problem with disruption and sockpuppetry and trolling. -- Captain MKB 16:19, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
You can certainly count on my support Mike. I've had a brief glance at the talk pages in question and have noted a few remarks of concern, and if the sockpuppetry is proved, then some harsh words would be needed. As for AdmYates, I'm not to sure what to make of him. He could be someone who felt that he was wronged, and I'm sorry to say that in the past that I have wrongly felt the same way. Although, the attitude that has previously been displayed could be a cause for concern, I suggest playing it by ear with him. --The Doctor 22:46, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
You can always ask Sannse or another Wikia admin to do an checkuser on them to see if they are sockpuppets. -- sulfur 23:59, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Collapsable tables[]

Hey Doc, nice job getting us collapsible tables. But, can I ask you not to use them on the series media lists {{TOS prose}} etc. They're big boxes, but they're not ones being used across lots of pages and cluttering up connections sections; they're an integral part of the series pages, they just happen to look like connections boxes. --8of5 18:37, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Second on that - nice work on the code. -- Captain MKB 19:00, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks guys :). 8of5, I'll take them off right away, I was just testing them on the largest templates we had just to see the difference, and forgot to take it back off. :) --The Doctor 22:22, April 28, 2010 (UTC)


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 13:49, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see that you are both having issues regarding the wiki of late, and I can clearly see that there are hurt feelings on both sides. I do hope that you can resolve the issue for the good of the wiki and continue to as the excellent contributors that you both are. In the, unfortunately rare, instances of comradeship and community cohesion you have both been excellent to work with, and I do not wish to see that be destroyed. --The Doctor 19:30, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
Doc, I miss the balancing element you added to the community. I am quite surprised at the aggression here, and I'm missing you being a tie-breaker. I've been trying to turn the other cheek against the personal attacks but this is going on a week, maybe we should ask Wikia to intervene? 8of5's not even making sense, unless he's right about my statements being complete nonsense, my laziness, my vandalism, my sneaky underhanded attempts to subvert his style guide which many others didn't even completely agree to in the first place? am I really doing such things? -- Captain MKB 22:59, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, it was being a "tie-breaker" that made this place so tiring from my perspective. Almost every day it felt like another argument was breaking out about how 8of5 didn't like what you were doing or vice-versa. Coupled with the fact that I was treading a fine line when I was adding/changing articles feeling I needed to gain consent/approval from one side or the other. It just stopped being fun and interesting, and looking at the dwindling contributors, stalwarts such as Sci, Turtletrekker and Seventy, it appears I'm not alone in this viewpoint.
Looking at the current issues with you and 8of5, I can see that 8 was out of line brandishing you as a vandal and of being lazy, but I'm hardly one to berate on hot-headed angry outbursts. If 8 has apologized for the outburst then you have to try and forgive and forget and hopefully work together again. Should this prove impossible, then contact Wikia for arbitration could be an option, but only when no others remain. --The Doctor 23:08, June 23, 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)

What's this wiki you talk of?[]

Just out of curiosity, what's this other wiki of yours you refer to? :) --8of5 23:24, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

It's called Memory Omega, and is intended to cover absolutely all of Star Trek. Still very much in its infancy, but I've taken my cues from Memory Alpha when it comes to the overall color scheme of the wiki, albeit with the better templates and category systems we have over here. --The Doctor 23:33, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

How do i get to your site. Is it 23:38, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Stop poaching you sneaky Time Lord. :P Seriously though, good luck with your wiki and pop in here from time to time. --Long Live the United Earth 02:12, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

The only Memory Omega I could track down was completely empty! But wherever you're hiding it, you should stick a link to it on our related wikis box at the bottom of the main page :) --8of5 02:15, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Personal Images[]

What is the policy for personal images for use only on ones userpage?--Not Spock 01:50, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Help me out here[]

Hey, if you've got a minute, could you help define just how many "extremely numerous" is? Would you think it would suggest a number greater than five? - AT2Howell 20:17, March 14, 2011 (UTC)


Thanks! I couldn't find it, you found it for me! --Tempest Wing 08:05, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

Ships named X[]

Hey Doc. I noticed you've done some templates for "Ships named XXXX" ... just to let you know, my standard operating procedure in the past was to not create such a template unless there were a minimum of three items sharing the name. I was concerned it was overengineering the linkages to make a template when less than three, the two articles involved could just link to each other

Now that you've begun creating some with two items, i was wondering if you saw it that way too, or wanted to maintain the rule. i have no strong opinion about it myself, but i wanted to let you know that i had originally had a concern against doing so. -- Captain MKB 08:48, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I originally did it out of a sense of uniformity really and find it an easy navigational tool to various starships of the same name. While I also have no strong opinion each way, if you wanted to seek the opinions of others then I'd happily abide with any decision that is made. --The Doctor 08:52, January 15, 2012 (UTC)


Hey -- when creating a disambiguation page, can you make sure that you also add it to this page? Thanks. -- sulfur 20:09, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Permanent Block[]

I have requested a voluntary permanent block on my username at Memory Alpha. My recent experience there has shown that I lack both the maturity and communication skills required for a contributor. I am, therefore, asking for the same on this wiki. I don't remember my password. My username is Throwback. Thanks. (It was 31dot who blocked my account.) 22:04, August 18, 2014 (UTC)

Mod rights[]

Hi Doc, thanks for returning to MBeta. I reinstated your mod abilities (when FANDOM took charge and started the new platform, we had a fresh start) -- captainmike •••• 21:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

image code[]

there's a slight update in image citing - you were pretty close though, good job! images being cited to a source are autocategorized with {{c-img}} (rather than {{c}} like we used to use). also, in articles, if you are linking to a comic without trying to actually cite it, you can use {{clk}}. the form follow with the -img and the -lk for most media citations.

also as to the image, i added some image ccategorizations to the {{imagesource}} for you. good job and thanks! - captainmike •••• 12:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the update, Mike. I wasn't too sure about the format, but this has made it a lot clearer. Thank you for updating my permissions as well. The Doctor (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)