- For older discussions, see the 2006 archives, the 2007 archives, the 2008 archives, the 2009 archives, the 2010 archives, the 2011 archives, the 2012 archives, the 2013 archives, the 2014 archives, the 2015 archives, the 2016 archives, the 2017 archives, the 2018 archives, the 2019 archives, the 2020 archives, the 2021 archives, or the 2022 archives.
Voyager-A[]
Sorry. It was tired and I was late.
I also wasn't sure what DT was, so I left it alone. And I kinda default to Wikipedia conventions for cross-links - outside of the episodes, I forget about the double-curly linking.
--WTRiker (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Birthdays[]
Hey Sulfur. As we have quite a group of actors/production staffers who asked to have their birthdate/-year removed, should we have some sort of hidden category, a list, a note on each site to prevent the missing dates to be added again? Tom (talk)
- Something like the note that used to mention that Islam had not been mentioned on a Trek show...until it was? --LauraCC (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think that a template that displays nothing and has the note of how this was requested might be a good idea for that. It can add to a hidden category. -- Sulfur (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Response to message[]
Thanks for the advice – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jasonjb1987 (talk • contribs).
20th Anniversary[]
Hi Sulfur, I created a topic in Ten Forward concerning a podcast of sorts as a documentary about Memory Alpha. I already have Dan and Harry and was wondering if you'd be in for an episode. — Florian - ✍ talk 12:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia links[]
Sorry about that; being on Wikipedia has made me allergic to redlinks. :) Also, thanks for tidying up my edits, and apologies for any goofs I may have with my recent edits. Trivialist (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I apologize[]
Sorry, Sulfur, I thought that the pages for years 2402–2411 should have their content compiled in 25th century. It was like that before PIC: "The Next Generation" was released, and then they were moved onto pages because we thought it was set in 2411. So, now that MA's official stance is that Picard season 3 is set in 2401, I thought those pages should be redirected and have their content moved back. Also, I saw another user do it.
So I'm sorry I did that, and I won't again. Have a good day, Live Long and Prosper. 🖖 Mr. Starfleet Command (open a channel • contributions • activity) 17:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
And I just noticed you edited Template:Spoiler-header/doc, which I just edited a while ago (and I also edited I think all the spoiler templates), so I just want to make sure I didn't do anything wrong: did I do a good job with them, or did I mess up? If so, I'm sorry about that too. Kind regards, LL&P, 🖖 Mr. Starfleet Command (open a channel • contributions • activity) 18:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Impugning research[]
I didn't guess at Gere Ladue's DOB, and most assuredly wouldn't have; I was going by: [link removed], so stick that in your pipe & smoke it ;=) At all events she'd have been 55 in '07, not a usual retirement age Archer4real (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Then cite it. Your only "citation" was to the FB page. -- Sulfur (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think clustrmaps is a good link to keep, because it's a borderline invasion of privacy, or at least certainly exploitative, but it can be easily easily removed by request. Most all the other sources I've been using to cite all the other bdays I've been adding do confirm this date, and they can't easily be cited so, I'm sure this isn't as big of a deal as any of the other mystery info most actor pages have. –Gvsualan (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sound advice; but the only have public access resources that're available for me to consult in England occasionally block websites on grounds of “some results blocked due to data protection regulations in Europe” (not precise quote); hence my snivelling request the other week for you to use the resources you have at your disposal. Archer4real (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- So … where do I go from here? Consult you as before or other administrator, use uncontentious/legitimate resources or simply refrain entirely? Having Asperger's this last's not appealing but if it'll keep me out of bother I will. Not that I'm presently in bother but even so Archer4real (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Two Odo links?[]
Couldn't we just remove Odo from the references section entirely on the page for "No Win Scenario"? It's redundant, and he wasn’t actually referenced by name. - VaderFan01 (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- No. That's not just for things referenced by name. It's also for images of things. Odo's image was seen on an LCARS screen. So if we have a sub-section listing references seen on LCARS screens... we list him.
- And the references section is to tie together ALL references from the episode in a simple and easy to find section. The original rationale there was to have everything linked (even if it appeared again in a sub-section, it would still be linked in that sub-section). It seems that we've gotten away from that over time for some reason. -- Sulfur (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Couldn't you just list him without linking him a second time? I don’t want to be continually chastised just for trying to keep this site's formatting consistent. - VaderFan01 (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Are you going to say something? - 18:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Please say something!!!! - 18:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
This is driving me nuts!! Do you know what it’s like to be blocked from a site for several months because of a disagreement in FORMATTING? - 18:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Why can’t you ever just ignore me when I want you to? - VaderFan01 (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sometimes people are unavailable due to outside commitments.
- The site's practice (as I have mentioned above) is to include all references in the references section. So, if someone's photo showed up on a display graphic (aka LCARS screen) and there's an LCARS sub-section... that person should be listed in the LCARS sub-section. That helps other people understand WHERE their photo appeared. -- Sulfur (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
For the record, no one said or did anything when I did this on the page for "Disengage". - 17:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Be realistic. Do you seriously think two barely "full time" moderators can possibly catch everything on recent changes, while simultaneously try to keep pushing forward expanding updated contend or correcting overlooked errors from the past 18 years, that everyone else has long forgotten?! For that matter, even if and when things are kosher and to our liking, they get changed after the fact by yourself and others, and we can't always go back again and again and again when, at one point, everything was said and done to the appropriate standards. –Gvsualan (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
I understand, but that's not the point for which I was arguing. - VaderFan01 (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Maybe you wouldn't be as busy if you stopped policing me. - VaderFan01 (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Questions in regard to changes to registries of ship entries.[]
Sulfur,
So still new to this site and wanted to ask a question about what I feel are discrepancies in some of the registries from the episode of "Conspiracy" and the "Starship Deploy Status" okudagram. I don't want to make changes to them as they have become "canon" over the last 15 years or more. Is there a way outside the talk pages to communicate potential changes or review? I have been reviewing the said okudagrams and HD Blu-ray screen caps and think there is quite a few that are incorrect. Please let me know how to proceed or not to make edits. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yaroze86 (talk • contribs).
- I might suggest creating a forum discussion (here on MA, not in the discussions web board) to discuss them. Some of them may have been from pre-HD captures and re-done for the HD graphics. That happened several times along the way. -- Sulfur (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Question in regards to a policy.[]
So in-regards to the policy of "Materials from members of a production". At what point does the intentions (if any) of the production staff segregate articles within MA?
Some examples:
USS Yamato (NCC-24383/NCC-71807): This is an assumption that these are the same ship and that might have been the intention of the production staff, but it's not explicitly stated to be the same ship. Why are we assuming this when clearly they are separate registries? Do we classify the Excelsior's as the same ship from the same Okudagram to the Excelsior-class II ship? Do we assign it 2 registries?
This one particularly bothers me, and I honestly think it's due to how MA references the article vs the intention of the production staffs, but then another production staff pulls that information from MA, to create the product they need to use.
USS Lexington listed from an Okudagram as the said registry, but the intention of the production staff was for it to be a Nebula-class with a given different registry. We are again assuming these are the same ship when clearly its not explicitly stated.
"As the ship was not seen in that episode, it would be unnecessary to think it wasn't the Nebula-class Lexington as it was already in service by 2369 according to "Explorers"." This is providing an opinion not based on fact. This assumption has lead to the ship now being shown in Picard with a registry much lower than anything of "Galaxy-type" And the first Lexington was intended to be a Excelsior class.
Would it not have been better to have assumed the first instance for said registry was intended to have been a Excelsior-class (though not actually stated within the article), and anything after 2369 would have been the Nebula-class as intended by the production-staff.
Some other examples: USS Endeavor, USS Constantinople, USS Sarajevo, USS Saratoga (4 of them....), USS Wellington.
Sorry for the rant, but is there a fallacy in this thinking?
Who should take the time to post[]
In stead of putting content out there ourselves ... would it be better to message Sulfur and Gvsualan with our ideas and they can either post those ideas where they see fit or they can discard them. I totally knew my edits would be undone/deleted. It really kinda sucks when a person comes up with something interesting and takes the time to post it and it just gets deleted lickety-split. I learned a long time ago, back when dialup bulletin boards were a thing.... "Don't piss off the sysops." I get it. However - with the great power and authority that the moderators have - comes the requirement to have a little mercy on the little guys. LMK. THX. H Herb987 (talk)
- The talk pages here are about improving the articles. Your comment was more suited to the discussions boards. May I suggest that you take it there? -- Sulfur (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Sulphur. Thank you for your reply. Your reply was MUCH NICER than Gvsualan's response over on his talk page. Your response, above, is much nicer, much more diplomatic and much more helpful. Thank you so much! Herb987 (talk)
- Generally, unless you can cite a source that notes that such a seeming coincidence is in fact deliberate, this kind of note would not be included. There are notes that say things like "this is the ___th time that a character did X" or "this is chronologically the first episode to feature ____", but such notes are self-evident - in which case you cite the episodes/films where it happened. --LauraCC (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Completing designations[]
Were you able to complete replacing instances of adding -D to USS Enterprise etc. as I requested some time ago? I know you made a start and realize that other commitments took you away from it but I added a few -As to USS Titan refs the other day; not an urgent situation Archer4real (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- The majority should have it in place, though there were a handful of places where the -D (for example) wasn't appropriate in context, so I left those alone. -- Sulfur (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Infobox[]
- https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Battle_near_Xahea
- The bullet "circles" are over the letters in the combat infobox in the upper right.
Syalantillesfel (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Removal request[]
Hey Sulfur,
I've just received an email from Dave Blass, who made a formal request to have the Michelle Blass article removed for what I can only presume to be personal reasons... Now, I know I do not have the authority to do so myself, so I suggested to him to send him your email address so he could take up the matter with you personally...If you are in agreement can I have your email address for forwarding to Blass, or better still to you yourself so you'll have all pertinent correspondence?
Thanks in advance--Sennim (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- The email you want is here. Also, I'm not sure I see a valid reason to have something/someone that was clearly shown on screen, and identified publicly as such, removed. –Gvsualan (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Majalis city article deletion[]
Sir/ma'am, why did you delete the page? Certainly it provided no valuable content now, but the page was created as a a starting point as I could not write an entire article on a limited break time and the city of Majalis is different from its planetary namesake so I thought an article was warranted given the sparse information on the city within the Majalis planet and peoples' articles. Am I wrong? If so, why? I don't mean to offend or provoke, and am simply curious. But I'd at least like some sound and valid reasoning other than "because I said so" as answer as it, as I said, piqued my curiosity. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slaugth324 (talk • contribs).
- There was no valuable content on the page at the time. It was an orphan. And all of the content that was on the page was already on the Majalis article. Based on that, it didn't fit the MA requirements. If the article is created in a more filled out and non-duplicating sense, as well as not being orphans, then the article has more validity. -- Sulfur (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Admin+[]
Hey there! I’m reaching out to introduce the Admin+ program (if you haven’t heard about it already!) & let you know I’m here if you have any questions about it. Take a look at the details here & feel free to send over any questions you have. pikushi ✧.* 20:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
edits on original Constitution-class filming model[]
Sorry about that; I wasn't aware we HAD a specific way to cite those; was using the standard editor interface, which doesn't give an option beyond the ref tag. Captain Spadaro (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Did you not take the time to look at the surrounding text and how all of the references were done there? That would be the best way to do things. -- Sulfur (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'll admit I don't edit MA very often, and when I do it's usually just fixing spelling mistakes, plus I'm used to editing Wikipedia proper; saw the reference dealie and figured that was how things were done. My bad. Captain Spadaro (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
LCARS interface[]
Hi, Sulfur! How are you? I am good.
Just wanted to mention to you that I have created a CSS file that transforms Memory Alpha's interface into an LCARS-esque design. Over on the layout committee project, I have proposed that this be made into a gadget, but I wasn't sure if any admins had noticed, so I thought I'd comment this here in case you weren't aware of this.
Anyway, that's all I wanted to say. Hope you're having a good day. Sincerely, 🖖 Mr. Starfleet Command (talk • contribs) 21:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Nova-class entries reverted[]
Hi Sulfur, may I ask why you have reverted my changes/additions to the entries for NCC-73515 and NCC-73998 ?
--> Resolved - I saw your message on my talk page. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anidhai (talk • contribs).
Admin Nomination[]
Hi! I just wanted to make sure you were aware that I've put in an admin nomination for Mr. Starfleet Command at MA:NFA. You may have already noticed it, or not. Either way, I invite you to drop by and give your thoughts. Thanks! —Noel Tucker (talk • contributions • activity) 02:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Locking a thread.[]
Can you please close down this thread here. https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Forum:Leftist_Admins_here_on_Memory_Alpha As another person pointed out.and I quote, I think the admins should consider locking this thread. quoting Gilgamesh here. The original poster has long since abandoned it and it's turning into a woke vs conservative argument that has nothing to do with Memory Alpha. Unquote So please please, PLEASE lock itCaptainProton12 (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC).
STO Wiki templates[]
Hi, Sulfur.
In your recent edits to Template:STO and Template:STOwiki, you changed the target back to sto.fandom.com from stowiki.net. The original change from one to the other was discussed at Forum:Star Trek Online wiki migration, so if you disagree with what was stated there, could you please give your reasoning there, or at least on the talk page?
This isn't a big deal, but I just thought I should bring this to your attention. I hope you're doing well :) 🖖 Mr. Starfleet Command (talk • contribs) 18:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- stowiki.net has been down for a week here in Canada. Not sure about the US. The Fandom one is currently marked as "official" again (it wasn't for a while). It's easy to flip back if stowiki.net comes back online. -- Sulfur (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy reply :) stowiki.net is down here in the US as well, I just hadn't noticed. Given that, I agree that we should leave the link pointing to sto.fandom.com for now. 🖖 Mr. Starfleet Command (talk • contribs) 19:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
OK, stowiki.net is back up, at least here in the US. Do you think we should switch the templates back to that, or leave them be? stowiki.net is much more active than sto.fandom.com, but it is probably more likely to go down again than the Fandom version. 🖖 Mr. Starfleet Command (talk • contribs) 14:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Achievements[]
Should this wiki add achievements? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jstewart2007 (talk • contribs).
- No. -- Sulfur (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Blueprint Archive[]
Greetings, It's Alex. Been a while. I have a website that may prove useful to you and to this community. It's filled with genuine pictures of ship/set blueprints, physical/CGI models, LCARS graphics, concept art, and matte paintings, and much more. All from the productions of Star Trek shows and movies. There are even Master systems displays for the Romulan Warbird and the PRO Dauntless class.
Webside: http://archive.frogland.co.uk/
I'm tempted to upload the PRO Dauntless class MSD to the Dauntless class page, but uncertain if you consider this image and its source permittable. But the image files are genuine from the production of Star Trek: Prodigy. I'll leave it to you to decide.
Best Regards: AlexJarrett242 (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- If they can be sourced directly to a production source, then they can be used for BG materials. -- Sulfur (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Another page merge[]
Good evening. Do you think the intruder and invader pages should be merged with Trespasser? –Brian Gordon (talk) 04:06, 4 March, 2024 (UTC)
- My thought is that invader implies encroaching on a nation's/species's territory, whereas intruder and trespasser suggest individual's property (someone's farm or home) --LauraCC (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
"Conditional tense"[]
Hi,
the bottom third of MA:POV#Tense addresses the use of "would" constructions, but contains quite a lot of erroneous information and overgeneralizations - and so is mostly and properly being ignored, from what I can see in articles. Beckett Mariner, to use a relatively recent example, has 17 occurrences of "would", many of which are neither conditionals nor mistakes. Not an ideal state of affairs, surely.
Going by the page history and the talk section Memory Alpha talk:Point of view#From Talk:B'Elanna Torres, it looks like you were the one who originally added that text back in 2007, based on another user's ad hoc complaints about overuse of such constructions.
There's already a detailed comment to the same effect from a couple of years ago at the bottom of the talk page. In short, "would" and "could" are the past forms of "will" and "can". These forms came to be used as conditional modals, and it's likely true that that is their main role in modern English. Nevertheless, they still continue to function in their original roles, and as such are typically good choices in a past context wherever a present context would use the present forms.
The first ("would encounter") example in the text isn't a case of bad grammar any more than the second ("would have allowed") example is a case of good grammar, in and of themselves. The difference is rather that the one didn't properly work in its context and didn't properly express what it was intended to, while the other does. Without that context, they're kinda meaningless, and even with context, a proper explanation of why the first one doesn't work may well be too involved to be worthwhile for a general policy page like this. English Wikipedia:Periphrasis is anything but simple formally, yet people get it right instinctively way more often than not anyway.
If you think overuse of "would" continues to be a problem, I could try and come up with a draft that improves on the current text. Otherwise, I'd suggest to just throw it out.
Cheers!
- SomeGrue (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- As someone who grew up with an English teacher as a parent "back in the day" and if you read any classic writing that is in the past tense, there is NEVER use of "X would encounter Y" because it reads very poorly wen spoken aloud. Unfortunately, based on modern writing (especially in news stories), the taught way of writing is to use "would" in every single sentence when something is being written about something in the past.
- This is what we are trying to avoid here. In short, it's a poor construct and the preferred use at MA is to properly conjugate the verbs in question.
- So, if you want to suggest a new draft, go ahead and post it on the talk page. -- Sulfur (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Community Manager[]
Hey there!
As you may have heard last month, Fandom introduced new Community Managers who would be coming in to support wikis.
I'm just dropping in to let you know I'll be working with you on Memory Alpha as its assigned CM, replacing Lostris. I'll fulfil similar roles to what Lostris has done (amazingly) here - heard a lot about it! Feel free to ping me if you need anything!
I'm out next week unfortunately, but I just wanted to let you know the situation beforehand. Lostris will still be around if you have questions/issues.
Am I okay to join the wiki's Discord server and introduce myself to everyone? My Discord handle is spongebob456.
If you have any questions or concerns, please do let me know as I know this is a big change. Thanks! --Spongebob456 talk 09:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think you're already on the Discord, aren't you? For when you coered a few months back? But yes, welcome to stop in. -- Sulfur (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Images[]
How do I properly modify that picture I uploaded so that it can be put on the relevant pages again??? There's a severe lack of images on here lately and I was trying to fix that a bit, but I've never done it before. Can you specifically tell me what I need to change please??? The guidelines section is a bit too confusing for me, I work better by being given a direct explanation of what needs to be changed.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 03:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
I think I got the licensing thing figured out and done so I'm gonna go ahead and restore those pages. If I'm wrong, remove them again and help me figure out what I'm doing wrong please.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hope no one minds if I chime in here ;)
- You did a good job. The only issue is the licensing info you included: the file is not in the public domain; since it was taken from a copyrighted production, it is owned by the owner of that production (in this case, Paramount Global).
- Luckily, there is a shortcut for including copyright info for Star Trek screenshots. Just replace the licensing template you have now with {{image star trek}}. That will add all the necessary info.
- Thanks for helping to illustrate MA articles! Hope you're having a good day :) 🖖 Mr. Starfleet Command (talk • contribs) 13:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks I'll try that and post back here once I'm done.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I made that change. I think it's correct now.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Deletion accomplished[]
Does this still require an admin comment for posterity? Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Template:Social The page in question is already long gone. --LauraCC (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
The Vindicator and the Diviner[]
Given the two versions of Asencia/the Vindicator and Ilthuran/the Diviner in the show, I'd like to propose changing the future selves to the Vindicator and the Diviner and giving the past selves their own pages under their real names. It's just too confusing to have it all in one page when they're not technically the same person anymore. Like how we've given their own pages to Locutus of Borg and similar situations. It's just too confusing to try and keep it all on one page in this situation.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)