Talk: Capricorn

---

---

Welcome to Memory Alpha, Capricorn! I've noticed that you've already made some contributions to our database – thank you! We all hope that you'll enjoy our activities here and decide to join our community.

If you'd like to learn more about working with the nuts and bolts of Memory Alpha, I have a few links that you might want to check out:

• Our policies and guidelines provides links to inform you on what is appropriate for Memory Alpha and what is not. Particular items of note are the content and resource policies, the editing guidelines, our point of view, copyrights and guidelines for proper etiquette.
• How to edit a page includes a basic tutorial about how to use our special wikitext code here on Memory Alpha.
• Naming conventions provides guidelines on how to name a new page that you may want to create.
• The Manual of Style is an overview of the basic guidelines for how to format and style your articles.
• How to write a great article is a list of suggestions that can help you put together an article that might end up on our Featured Articles list someday.
• See the projects page for current projects of our archivists, or help us to reduce the number of stubs.
• Look up past changes you have made in your contributions log.
• Keep track of your favorite Memory Alpha articles through your very own watchlist.
• Create your own user page and be contacted on this page, your talk page.

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 our Ten Forward community page. Thanks, and once again, welcome to Memory Alpha!--Alan 01:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Formats, etc[]

Please note the Manual of Style mentioned in the welcome message above. Ship names should be found in italics in the various articles on MA/en (such as "USS Enterprise"), and various items should only be linked once, the first appearance, in articles, unless the article is very long. Note that image captions do not apply to the multiple link policy... Thanks! -- Sulfur 15:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Mike Sussman[]

Just an FYI, Mike was a writer and had no involvement with the special effects or ship images and designs, so he really wont have an answer for your rather long post. As he stated here on a similar question, "You know, I really have no idea. This would probably be a question for our visual effects team." --Alan 03:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

crap, I figured that since he was for example involved with the writeups for the defiant computers in IAMD, he might know this as well, but you're probably right, its just a minor note, most likely inserted by the art department without writer involvement. Oh well then, I suppose its just going to be one of those great star trek mysteries then, right along with Odan's look and the relation between guinan and Q :( Capricorn 18:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Antede system[]

Hi Capricorn. On Talk:Antede system, you asked if there's a way to tag or list articles that may contain inaccurate information. There is... ;)

We have lists for "pages needing attention", both for general purpose and for specific issues, and message templates corresponding to those lists. Just follow the instructions on Memory Alpha:Pages needing attention, and everything's fine. On Antede system, I already added the message template {{pna-inaccurate}} for you. -- Cid Highwind 10:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll use that in the future. Still learning I guess :) Capricorn 07:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing information from articles[]

When removing information from articles, such as Nausicaa, it's recommended and suggested that you put the information on the talk page with a note as to why you removed it. It's also recommended that, when possible, you try to reword stuff to keep the useful information. I've done that for that article, but I do agree that the lack of constellation just isn't that interesting. -- Sulfur 19:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for that, I certainly see the usefulness in preserving stuff like that and will do so in the future. That being said, I considered the rewording but still found it trivial, as it seems clear that Nausicaa is simply named after the Nausicaans, of which in turn its firmly established that they are named both after the greek mythology figure and the anime film Nausicaä of the Valley of Wind. Nonetheless, it seems way to unimportant to press the issue so I'll just keep it the way it is. Anyway thanks for the suggestion, it is appreciated. Capricorn 07:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

termites discussion[]

At User:Capricorn/schematics and okudagrams#Biology and medical sciences, the link caption for Image:Termites of Loracus Prime.jpg says "don't forget to check out the transcript in the discussion page, it's brilliant", but the discussion page for the image, termite and Loracus Prime are all unused. Was the discussion deleted, or am I looking in the wrong place?

By the way, I love the subpage. Lots of interesting images and links there I've been perusing. Setacourse 17:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think he's referring to Talk:Handbook of Exobiology.– Cleanse 23:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Cleanse. :) Setacourse 16:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanse is right, the text must have moved or something. Anyway, nice to hear you love the page, for exactly the same reason I loved to have it. - Capricorn 05:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please[]

Do not edit Memory Alpha if you are stoned. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 01:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Technicaly, I should wait a few hours before answering this. But in reality, I can answer right now; fair enough, it won't happen again. -- Capricorn 01:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

re: category deletion suggestion[]

Actually, you created that category page when you added the deletion template - it didn't exist before. If a category link on a page is a "red link", the destination page doesn't yet exist. Instead of placing a deletion template there, please check whether a category link on the source page needs to be edited. -- Cid Highwind 16:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm not sure exactly how this stuff works, and how I should have handled it. But while I might have created the category page, there was already "something" there; the category kept comming up in category suggestions, and when I checked it out there was a page, without text (I agree, I added that), but with a single image already in it. What has happened here and how I don't know, and I guess I handled it rather poorly too. But there was something that wasn't right and I tried to fix it as best as I could. Appologies. -- Capricorn 16:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes. The way categories work, an automatic list is created as soon as the first page is categorized. However, the category page is only "virtual" unless it is manually edited later. For example, if I add a category "Bla" to the end of my comment, this talk page will be categorized as "Bla", and clicking on that link will open a category list containing this page. However, no article for this has been created... Feel free to remove the category link after you've seen that. :) -- Cid Highwind 17:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Neat. So what I should have done was go to the image, and correct the typo there, is that correct? -- Capricorn 17:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. -- Cid Highwind 18:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Another lesson learned :) Thanks for the tip, and sorry for the trouble I caused. -- Capricorn 19:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Image uploads[]

When uploading images, can you make sure that the extensions are all in small letters (such as "Checkers.jpg" rather than "Checkers.JPG")? Also, the preferred image format for screenshots is JPEG files rather than PNG files. Just fyi. That's not as important, the first is. Thanks! -- sulfur 13:24, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Ok -- Capricorn 20:19, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Just because sulfur thinks it's not important doesn't mean it is, so please stick to .jpgs for screenshots. ;) Also, try to keep the file names somewhat on topic/as descriptions, since it's suppose to be easy to find a image by the tile. - Archduk3 02:43, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I seem to remember that png was allowed, and jpg merely preferred. which given my own strong preference for png (it being lossless, and storage space costs increasingly cheap), I used as an excuse for using png. But I've just reread the image use policy, and frankly I must have dreamed up that bit. Rest assured that now that that's cleared up I intend to use jpeg.

Also, as for the second point, I'm guessing you're referring to this (all my other recent image uploads are pretty descriptive imo). It's not really a habit, but I was having a little bit of fun there. 'cause face it, there is no way that there's a cooler moon in that system. just look at it. Use common sense. :p. Seriously though, despite all that I'm still square enough that I've made sure that it wouldn't impact the searchability of the page. If I hadn't gone this road it would just have been called "Vintaak system moon", all words of that name being in the current name also. -- Capricorn 12:47, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm all for having fun with the images, I did upload this after all. All I'm saying you should have it on the image description page instead of the file name, since those should be encyclopedic what with them actually being in the articles. - Archduk3 03:26, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Linking to episodes and films[]

FYI, linking to episodes and films. -- sulfur 19:56, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Sorry... I actualy know that, I must have forgoten it this once. On a sidenote, I'm aware that I have a bit of a tendency towards such slip-ups, and I've noticed that it has often been you that ended up noticing and correcting them. I like to think that I'm still a net asset to this project, but I'm hoping that I'm not causing you too much frustration. In any case, thanks. -- Capricorn 20:14, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Unnamed Vulcans[]

FYI, I moved the "Unnamed Vulcans (distant past)" article to the correct naming. -- sulfur 14:07, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

ah ~damn sorry for messing up there -- Capricorn 14:21, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I was more worried, after moving it, that you were in the middle of editing it. Feeling a bit slow this morning. -- sulfur 15:09, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I was working at the article, but in Photoshop preparing screenshots rather then on MA, so you haven't caused any harm. :) -- Capricorn 15:12, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Images[]

I am not sure what you are seeing but it seems like you think there is something "horribly wrong" with images and I am guessing there is something up with the way your screen or settings are seeing this. Could some of them use a clean up? probably. The appropriate tag would then be {{pna-file cleanup}} – Distantlycharmed 00:49, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

sorry for the colorful language, for while as a former professional image editor I can tell you that "horribly wrong" is pretty much the correct jargon for at least this image, I have to admit there was no reason to be rude. However, I am going to be blunt with you; I'm pretty sure my screen settings aren't at fault (for one, ultra-paranoid as I am I've actually taken the time to compare them with other images from the same eps, on the same screen). Sorry for the template confusion though, I'm not really experienced in dealing with this kind of problems. Incidentally, if you are seeing no problem with these images, particularly the Risa ones, I STRONGLY suggest that you check your own screen settings for problems before you upload more images. For the record, I am going to bring this to the attention of an admin, for I'm not interested in starting some kind of edit war, but I do believe the problems I've highlighted are valid, and just reverting my bringing of this image (again) to the attention of the community is just plain wrong. -- Capricorn 01:21, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oh feel free to go whining to the admins. I am sure that will put you in good standing with everyone in the community. Not being able to work out your own issues is always a good thing. I have no problem adding an image clean up tag to the pics, but the picture of Risa's beach looked very colorful and just like you see it on my screen. Thats the whole point of Risa. Personally I try to add image clean up tags where I feel I couldnt do good enough of a job myself but if i missed something, feel free to add. Also, if you can provide a better screen cap or editing feel free to do so. There is also nothing wrong with the Phlox picture, but you seem to think it is. Maybe I'm seeing what you dont and vice versa. – Distantlycharmed 01:43, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

This isn't personal for me, I just don't like seeing this site polluted with images that I feel are sub-par by site consensus. Hence why I will bring this to the attention of an administrator, not because I'm a whiner, but because I feel policy is on my side and I'm not interested in just picking a fight with you. As for the problem with the Phlox image, and so many of your other images, is that it seems to be taken from a source of significantly lesser quality then dvd. Given that better quality images are always preferable, and the ease with which a better quality screenshot could be taken by the probably many dozens of contributers which own the dvd, your image is simply sub-optimal. (Even to the point that it stands out as noticeably worse then the average image on this site). That's why it's tagged, not because the colours are screwed up or there is some abnormal artifact in it, but because it should be easy to replace with something dramatically better, if only people would have a way of finding such images. -- Capricorn 02:05, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with you or anyone uploading or improving on an image. That's fine by me. In some cases I can see why an image might need attention, in other cases I dont. If you wanna tag it for improvement, by all means. But note that there are a myriad of pictures on this site (past uploads etc) and they are not all superb quality and untagged. If you want to make it a point of tagging them for improvement, feel free. This is a wiki. At this point I dont really see what the issue really is. You tagged a picture, and i responded saying that the correct tag needs to be {{pna-file cleanup}}. I didnt argue with you that the images are perfect or that you shouldnt add tags to them. The only one really was the beach thing which looks like that from my screen (and no its not a you tube video - not that you tube has Star Trek - or some other cheap source). As to taking the issue up with an admin: I am not really sure what you think you are going to accomplish with that. I am not saying anything to you here I havent told Morder and I was cool with having pictures that need attention tagged appropriately. And some people were nice and competent enough to do the improvement when needed without starting a principals debate about it or instigating animosity - which is exactly what you are doing and....ehh...ironically enough tried to prevent in the first place. – Distantlycharmed 03:06, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

At this point you don't even seem to make sense anymore. (also you're going in circles) - Some points though. First of all, the fact that there are other untagged bad images on the site doesn't make it somehow right. all of those images will need to tagged when found, and eventually be replaced, even if right now I've only stumbled upon yours. All such images need a tag, and all I'm basically saying here is that if you have been made aware that some of your images could be better, then by now you should also know to tag them as such, in accordance with policy. Secondly, if those Risa pictures are indeed from a source even approaching dvd quality (and I'm not saying you're lying here)-then there is something seriously wrong with your computer's graphical ability. Those images might look here just like they look on your screen, but just take my word for it, that's not how they are supposed to look. I'm aware they aren't taken from youtube, they don't look like that. They look like a crappy Photoshop filter was applied to them, which initialy made me think that the problem may have lied with your image processing software. But I don't know, I don't have acces to your computer. All I know is that something has (objectively) gone wrong while extracting those images from your decent quality source. As for the whole admin thing, I don't have any specific plan there either. I don't have a personal grudge against you, my only concern is quality. I see a problem there (and one that I'm pretty sure everyone except you will agree is real), and I happen to have traced it back to you. I'd d like that problem solved, but short of starting an edit war (which while nasty can be effective) I have no idea how to solve this. So the best I could come up with is making people more experienced with stuff like this aware of it. I have no idea what Mordor would do with it, I just hope that this issue can be solved. An issue which, if I might remind you, isn't about your person at all, but about bad images creaping in without being marked as such, incidently through you. -- Capricorn 03:49, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

And i said feel free to add the tags if you believe they need improvement. Personally I do not see some of the images you tagged as being of lower quality but just the same. Anyway I dont know what your elaborate explanation is trying to accomplish as I believe you are blowing the issue out of proportion frankly. Again, I never said dont add those tags or that I would not add them if I could see how they could use improvement. – Distantlycharmed 04:31, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Kira Nerys talk[]

Just so you know, I think some of us have come to the conclusion that we might have a troll at our hands here and as you can see, this debate over this questionable contributor insisting that Kira's name is Neris Kira "NO MATTER WHAT OR ELSE IT'S WAR", despite all evidence to the contrary, has turned ridiculous. Duke has already protected the page and any more debate will lead to even more absurd posts and bickering. As Duke advised me the other day, dont feed the troll. Peace. – Distantlycharmed 08:52, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

this person doesn't strike me as a troll, just someone not experienced in matters like these. And with even the strongest of our rebuttals essentially consisting of "no you're definatly wrong", he was bound to get frustrated. Hence why I coudn't resit pointing to the bio. Now, as for everything I typed after that, you totaly have a point. :D -- Capricorn 10:44, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

it's v its[]

Please be careful in your usage of "it's" and "its". "It's" on ever means "it is" or "it has", while "its" is the possessive form of "it". Thanks. -- sulfur 19:18, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of this and I'm sorry. Guess it's due to not being a native English speaker. But the good news is, I do understand the grammatical rules and most of the time I'm making sure I follow them, at least I'm only erring when in a hurry or something. But sorry for the trouble. -- Capricorn 15:40, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Image categories[]

Btw, when removing a category from an image, make sure that it is still in an "in-universe" style image category, and if not, then put the Category:Memory Alpha images one onto it, since that allows us to figure out what is not appropriately categorized. Thanks. -- sulfur 12:58, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that. But now that I do, it won't happen again. -- Capricorn 15:18, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem -- just makes the life of the image sorting people easier, otherwise things happen to fall through cracks (as I'm sure that you can understand). -- sulfur 15:33, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

Birth joke[]

I see you spotted my birth/age bit on Thomas Small's page. (Well, it's not *mine,* I stole it from Steve Irwin.) I just felt like being a bit goofy. I felt the same way while writing another page recently, so the same joke is in one more article. You just have to find it. ;) Happy hunting! :) --From Andoria with Love 10:07, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Andrea Martin :p - Haven't removed it though, when I found the other one it never even occurred to me that it was intentional (must have been seriously absent-minded), but it's pretty funny and I guess it's harmless. Keep or lose, it's up to you :) -- Capricorn 17:44, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Well, we do have a policy which says Inform and entertain. :) It's kind of fitting on that page, too (Martin being a comedienne), and I'm sure she would find it amusing if she read it (she's on Twitter and I've sent her the link, so it's possible). I won't remove it myself, but if someone else does I won't fight it or revert it. As you said, it's harmless. :) --From Andoria with Love 07:13, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I'm sure she would find it amusing. -- Capricorn 12:49, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Citations[]

When adding background information (such as information from the DVD commentary), please make sure you cite your sources on the page, not just in the edit history. Thanks. – Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 06:06, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

Well, frankly I don't often add info from that kind of sources, and I don't quite know how to deal with it. Most other facts in the bg section aren't cited, so I decided to follow that lead (for lack of a better idea), yet adding the info to my edit summary seemed better then nothing. The link you gave has clarified the matter for me though, I should definably check out our help section more often! It won't happen again. -- Capricorn 06:27, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) There is still a lot of background information without citations on MA, and one of my primary goals is to cite these, or remove them if no evidence shows up. If you see any such statements, you can help out by adding an {{incite}} tag or a {{pna-cite}} as appropriate. – Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 07:44, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

Kassidy[]

Just so you know, the information on "The Way of the Warrior" was recently added by an anonymous user who is posting lots of uncited info. That user has refused to answer their talk page, and may just be posting internet rumours as fact. Until/if that is resolved, that information shouldn't be copied over to other pages as it is a bit suspect.–Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 23:17, June 8, 2011 (UTC)

sorry, should have checked I guess -- Capricorn 23:26, June 8, 2011 (UTC)

Vissian warp capability[]

Hey there. Please look up the quote on when the Vissians invented warp drive: Cogenitor (episode)#Memorable Quotes. --> "The man who invented warp drive on my world lived nearly a thousand years ago." That would put the dear man's lifetime around 1153, a time which may also be referenced to as the "12th century" in Human terms :p --36ophiuchi 20:17, August 20, 2011 (UTC)

I know the quote, it was what motivated my edit in the first place! ;) And you're right, it most probably places the invention in the 12th century. But I don't think we can say that with absolute certainty, and that was what I was trying to reflect.

Here's my thinking: "nearly a thousand years ago" is a very vague statement, inherently murky. It could very well mean 980 years ago, though it probably doesn't mean 600 years ago. No absolute cutoff points exists in these cases of course, but to me at least, 952 years ago or less doesn't seem unreasonable. Which means we cannot without a reasonable doubt say it didn't happen in the 13th century.

(Unrelated: I did make a mistake in thinking that "Cogenitor" was set in 2152 rather then 2153, thanks for correcting that!) -- Capricorn 21:35, August 20, 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point. What about "around the 12th century"? That would still give a proper timeframe people can more easily relate to. And we definitily leave the respective remark on the century-article as a note. --36ophiuchi 15:48, August 21, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's exactly what we should be going for :) -- Capricorn 19:11, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

"Inter Arma..." FA Nomination[]

Hello Capricorn, I was hoping you might be able to spare a few minutes to read through "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges" and perhaps consider voting for it as an FA? Regardless, any comments you may have on the article would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. :) --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 22:00, August 20, 2011 (UTC)

I hate to say no to such a nice request, but FA's are just one aspect of the site that I can't get myself to care about much (not that I have anything against it, just a personal thing). And as such it seems like me casting a vote would devaluate the process. But I'll still read the article and see if I can contribute something else though :) -- Capricorn 22:23, August 20, 2011 (UTC)

I can understand that, that's fine. I'd still appreciate any comments or suggestions for improvement, though, if you have any? Thanks for getting back to me! :) --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 22:27, August 20, 2011 (UTC)

Adding new articles[]

When adding new articles, please make sure that you actually add links to them. For the books you've been recently adding, the best place to start is the references section in the episode page. If these are not added, the articles tend to be orphans and have to be cleaned up by someone else. -- sulfur (talk) 13:03, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, when adding a bunch of articles all from one episode, I tend to wait until I'm done so I can add them all in one edit. -- Capricorn (talk) 13:12, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Lazarus' species[]

Spock initially identified the species as essentially Human. However, Lazarus identified the person he is chasing as a humanoid. Kirk accepts what is told and begins identifying the illusive Lazarus as humanoid. Throwback (talk) 03:57, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, I'm not sure what point you are making. Sure I've made that edit purely based on memory and I've just scanned a transcript and what you're saying seems to be true, and I've probably done something wrong and you are probably right whatever right is; but I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say, what your issue is. Could you clafify please? -- Capricorn (talk) 05:29, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

Star Trek IV buildings[]

As you create these articles, please make sure that you add links to them from the Star Trek IV article. -- sulfur (talk) 23:55, September 20, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I noticed you beating me to that a few times... In fact I have been adding them, but I usually didn't immediately, rather waiting until I had a few to add before making an edit. I can understand your frustration though; I've never exactly completely been above overlooking to do that kind of thing, and of course there's no way for you to see if I've forgotten or was just planning to do it later. Then again, just making 20 edits to add one little thing also seems excessive. Well, in any case, sorry for that, and for all the other corrections you've had to do on my articles. -- Capricorn (talk) 01:56, September 21, 2013 (UTC)

Qo'noS' Moon[]

There is a planetary codex for Qo'noS seen in Star Trek: Into Darkness. A line in that codex identified Praxis as the moon and listed its current status. So, the idea that the moon seen in ST: ID could be anything else contradicts what was stated on-screen.Throwback (talk) 21:59, September 22, 2013 (UTC)

You're right; I didn't consider that the fact that just one moon was listed implied that Qo'nos in fact only had a single moon, and therefore that any moon seen would have to be Praxis. (well, there's still the theoretical possibility that this was some kind of other planitary companion, a la the whole Vulcan kerfuffle or Romulus. But that's never been taken into consideration in these kinds of things). I'll remove the unnamed moons entry again. Ugh, still getting used to the confirmation that Praxis was really a moon of Qo'noS specifically I guess. I've gotten so attached to the theory that it was not, it would have made a lot more sense as far as realism goes... :D -- Capricorn (talk) 03:23, September 23, 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguations[]

When creating disambiguation pages, please ensure that you clean up all incoming links to what was there originally and also ensure that you add it to the magic list of them. Thanks. -- sulfur (talk) 12:58, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

ok, but how do I do the latter? -- Capricorn (talk) 16:39, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

Simply edit the list and add the link to the page. :) -- sulfur (talk) 17:26, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to make sure I'll do all this in the future. And again, thanks for your patience when I make mistakes like that. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:31, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

Cid HIghwind[]

I had to leave the discussion because I couldn't understand what was being said. I was getting lost in the twists and turns. I am concerned as well about Cid Highwind. According to Wikipedia, an administrator has discretionary power on deleting pages. He can delete a page if it has less than 5,000 revisions. [1] In the discussion, in his frustration, he stated that he would delete pages out of spite. He didn't do it this time, but what about next time?Throwback (talk) 18:31, October 19, 2013 (UTC)

It was a very complicated and ugly discussion, so I don't blame you. In fact, I noticed your confusion and I really regret that I just didn't end up having the mental bandwidth to maybe at least give you a few more pointers on your talk page now and then about how to deal with those things. I do think you did a few things wrong (the deletion discussions and such) by misunderstanding what was going on, and that added to the collective frustration, but be assured, with a discussion like that you are only partially to blame. Although, for clarity, I would like to make sure that you understand that right now we neither have a clear policy, nor is the discussion still going. I understand that for you that might be hard, but unfortunately it just is the situation right now, things are just unclear. For what it's worth, I don't expect that Cid has any immediate plans for suddenly deleting large amounts of articles. (and also, Wikipedia policies aren't law here) I'd like to repeat the advice that I or someone else gave you last week, if you feel the need to make lots of changes on something, and you're unsure what the right course of action is, maybe you should quickly run it past a friendly admin first for now, just to make sure there's not another problem like the mass deletion nominations.

As for Cid, he himself has today suggested that if I have a problem with him, I should take it up with a neutral moderator. I've been planning to do exactly that, but with all the different places this was discussed I'm still working on a summary so that someone not familiar with the history can even understand what to read, and right now it's time for me to go to bed, so that will be for tomorrow. I'll be sure to mention that you have concerns about Cid too. In the meantime, take care. -- Capricorn (talk) 19:03, October 19, 2013 (UTC)

William Ross FA nomination[]

Hey Capricorn. I was hoping you might take a few minutes to read through William Ross and possibly consider casting your vote in the featured article nomination? Alternatively, any comments you might have would be greatly appreciated. --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 17:28, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

I have just recalled our similar discussion on this nearly three years ago so if you don't want to vote, that's completely fine. I apologise for disturbing your talk page with this again! :) --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 17:33, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

Hi![]

Um..Hi I'm new to Memory Alpha and a annon and you seem to know what you are doing so could you do me a small favor? I don't think it would take too long...Could you please up load this image: http://www.stevethomasart.com/home/digital/Star_Trek_Redshirt_Recruitment_web.jpg you have to have a account to upload photos...--98.67.109.83 19:44, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

Can I ask what and what it's for? That looks a lot like fan art, which we don't really cover. By the way, making an account is real easy, and free. :) -- Capricorn (talk) 19:58, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

I know but: 1:I am a minor and my parents won't let me 2: This is their computer so it is their E-mail address. It was for my profile but someone deleted it so I guess it doesn't matter anymore. I was making one because i often edit a wiki where I am allowed to have a profile. (It is a small wiki only 10 members or so They often forget i am a annon because i lead a team of editor there lol) Also next edit i will have a very different IP, Because i will be changing computers in a few hours.--98.67.109.83 16:00, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

Can I add to the Federation page that this power is in both quadrants?[]

There is this map from Star Trek Voyager. At Star Trek Dimensions, there is a higher resolution image of the same map. [2] On this map, the location of the UFP is depicted as the destination of the Voyager. UFP space is oval in shape. Based on the map, the UFP has territory in both quadrants. As this is a canonical map, as it was seen in Season 7 episodes, can I in the table for the Federation add the information that the UFP is located in both quadrants?Throwback (talk) 00:33, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

I've already given my opinion on the talk page (which I quickly saw because it's on my wachlist, but apparently I now officially don't notice the messages that someone has posted on my talk page anymore, damn wikia and all their spammy promotions). To summarize my view, I don't think you can be sure that the dot represents the volume and shape of Federation space, rather then it's location. And given that the dot seems at least 4000 light years wide, I doubt that it does. In fact, it may not even be associated with the UFP label, but rather represent Voyager's more specific destination, Earth. In any case, I'm not a special arbiter on that kind of stuff, this discussion should be had on the article talk page imo. -- Capricorn (talk) 01:04, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

Norcadia Prime[]

We have a map that was seen in Season 7. It's a map of the galaxy. Look here. [3]

On the bottom of the map, there is Voyager's flight path marked out by stardates. Now, look to the map. There is a red rectangle. One of the stardates is marked in red - 48315.8. These two, the rectangle and the stardate are the beginning of the journey. There are eight rectangles in all. It can be confusing, as they overlap. Each rectangle matches up to a stardate. The last stardate, in yellow, has a corresponding yellow rectangle. There is a white line that goes through the rectangles and the galaxy; this is the flight path of Voyager. For Norcadia Prime, I checked the stardate for the episode, then I did a cross check on where Voyager would be. Norcadia Prime was visited on stardate 53447. Where would this place Voyager, according to the map? According to the Voyager flight path, the last two stardates are 52970.2 and 53061.4. So, Norcadia Prime was visited after stardate 53061. Based on the information provided, and using the map as a guideline, Voyager is in the 3 kpc arm and so is Norcadia Prime.

I have run into trouble with this map before. Pseudohuman removed a statement I had made about the Alpha Quadrant for he called it speculative. For me, the squares are charted and/or explored space. We know from the canon material that the Federation has made it to the edge of the galaxy and to the galactic core. I see this in the map of the Alpha Quadrant, where the squares run from the core to the edge. I feel there needs to be a little leeway in what we provide as fact on this website. I don't believe in absolutes. Saying that something has to be explicitly said is the only truth seems a little absolutist to me. I lean more towards the middle approach. I like to work this way, but buttinng heads with Pseudohuman is tiresome for I don't feel anything is gained by it. So, I let it slide. If you are in the same camp as Pseudohuman, let me know and I will remove what I said about Norcadia Prime.Throwback (talk) 13:19, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

Where to start... it's hard to answer that second paragraph in a way that doesn't sound like an intervention. And as much as you may have added that paragraph as an afterthought to the first, it is the only paragraph really relevant here. This isn't about camps or letting things slide. What facts we want to add isn't something we agree on based on our personal tastes like this is some kind of collective worldbuilding project. I'd like to draw your attention to the "for me" statement you make. That's not a thing that belongs here. For me as an atheist there is clearly no god, while for my neighbor there may be three. But on Memory Alpha there are exactly the gods mentioned, and while I can make an eloquent argument that they must not really exist, that shouldn't be noted because this just isn't the place. As soon as there is the least bit of ambiguity it is not our job to figure out to find a valid solution, but rather to leave it alone as much as possible. And there is definitely ambiguity here, I could give you a list of at least 10 assumptions you've made in deducting that location if you want, each of them more then reasonable, but none of them absolutely certain, and each of them capable of invalidating the outcome.

Another phrase that is spectacularly besides the point : you say you don't believe in absolutes. Well, that's all fine and dandy, but you can't just edit the wiki according to your personal philosophy, you have to edit according to the existing guidelines. Your leanings just don't play into it. You could of course start a debate, make a proposal to change the way we do things at the forum. But currently things don't go that way, and until the community as a whole decides to change that, you have to either follow guidelines or not edit at all. As for personal beliefs: personally I really don't think TAS is/should be canon, but I don't expect a she sites I go to to bend to my will, and I sure as hell am not changing Memory Alpha to remove TAS info.

So yeah, ultimately I agree with Pseudohuman I suppose, and I'm actually suspecting you're pretty much alone in your "camp". But it's not about taking sides, it is about what conforms to the side chosen when the rules of this wiki were thought out. And it's not about this map specifically either, to be perfectly clear, and neither is it about some specific flaw I see in those two kilobytes of reasoning you've just posted. You can motivate your reasons very well, and it's actually pretty smart how you've solved that puzzle. But I'm sure there's other ways to interpret that map, even if maybe there's none that makes as much sense, and maybe there's even a map out there somewhere that can be solved in a way just as smart but which will then show that the planetoid couldn't possibly be anywhere near the 3kpc arm. Things like that do happen, there's articles out there that contain mutually contradictory statements about a subject because the eps they source did. Some puzzle pieces just weren't designed to fully fit into everyone else ever. That in itself is also a good enough reason to stick to only the most basic facts, actually.

If I may give you a bit of personal advice; maybe you should really start a site or a blog or something. That's a cool analysis you did there, and I certainly enjoy reading it. But its just too much for this particular place. To be clear, I'm not saying you should leave the wiki, I'm sure there's still all kinds of stuff you'd like doing here. I'm just saying, there's the art of documenting, and it is absolutist, We are absolutist so that the thinkers have the most correct possible basis on which to build. And then there's the art of drawing conclusions from observations. You're pretty good at the latter, but it goes beyond our mission. I thoroughly enjoy reading that stuff at Ex Astris Scientia, but I don't enjoy seeing it here.

Furthermore, if you really insist in adding those kinds of notes, I think you should really consider incorporating your "proof" in the article itself, explain the reasoning in the background note. Or if it's too much for a background note at least leave an explanation on the talk page. The way it stands there is absolutely no transparency regarding those elaborately derived deductions, you are Fermatting this entire wiki by putting bold statements in the margins and then not providing the extremely hard to reconstruct proof. Please, at least do that, so that people can peer review those facts. Without it there's no way to figure out which users are adding facts and which assertions. -- Capricorn (talk) 15:02, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

NCC-2541[]

I would like your opinion. I value your opinion highly.

For the episode "Encounter at Farpoint", the registry of the Excelsior-class starship was changed to NCC-2541. The nacelles bore this registry, as seen in this shot from "The Child". [4] There were many stock shots of this ship that were seen through TNG, for named and unnamed ships. I was thinking about combining the unnamed Excelsior-class starships from the series into one article, titled NCC-2541. What do you think?Throwback (talk) 10:31, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I'm flattered that you would ask me, and I'd gladly give you my opinion if I could, but this whole topic of which ship is which is really not something I'm good at. In fact, I went to the relevant pages and spent some time reading through the background sections just to understand the basics of the debate, and I just came away very confused. I imagine I'd sooner get a headache then a full understanding of the issue, which is what always happens when I try to follow the long discussions in the same vein that from time to time rage over talk pages. I would advise you to contact someone who regulary participates in that kind of discussions, they no doubt will have a better answer then me. Or better yet, you could start a topic on this on the forum, so that anyone may weight in on what sounds to me like a pretty major change to make. I'm sure there's going to be people who would like to weigh in. Sorry I can't be of more help. -- Capricorn (talk) 11:34, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

Causing damage to the wiki?[]

I received this message from one of the members of this board.

What makes you think, a maximum degree of fragmentation is what any wiki-article should aim for? Go look at any random featured article in Wikipedia (e.g., ::Virginia, Mauna Loa, Istanbul), and understand that a string of a dozen 5-8 word mini-sentences is much less comfortable to read than 3-4 sentences with ~20 words each. Anyhow, by now it would be a mammoth-undertaking to reverse/improve those 1000s of edits you've done so far... I've been an active member of the MA-community for 10 years or so, and I certainly do not feel up for the task. I cannot be the first one addressing this. Can I? --36ophiuchi (talk) 12:08, July 12, 2014 (UTC)

I would like your opinion on this matter. Am I causing damage to the wiki? I will be frank - I know my communication skills are not say at the level of other writers. I have been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, with high levels of anxiety/depression and agoraphobia. I have been rated as having a Global Assessment of Functioning of 45. ([5]) A range between 40 and 50 is, Serious symptoms (e.g., suicidal ideation, severe obsessional rituals, frequent shoplifting) or any serious impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning (e.g., no friends, unable to keep a job, cannot work). I have never shoplifted; however, my severe obsessional ritual could be considered what I do on this wiki. I have trouble concentrating, so for me, I write like I think or say in dialog. I use short sentences. For instance, I was working on material from "Whispers". For this paragraph, the area in bold is what I wrote.

The ITA Elmira was a starship that was registered for Federation travel in the late 24th century. In 2370, the captain of this ship was G. Gulliver. The starship's point of departure was Carinae Delta V. The starship arrived at Deep Space 9 on stardate 47552.9. The ITA Elmira was listed on the space station's arrival roster. (DS9: "Whispers", production art)

So, do you think I am causing damage to this wiki? I would like to hear your opinion and any advice you can give. Throwback (talk) 21:06, July 12, 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why you're coming to me for a second opinion, rather then work things out with 36ophiuchi. I am inclined to agree that the format of "This planet was A. This planet was in B. This planet had C. This planet was D" is not particulary pleasent to read. Something like "This A planet in B was C. It was D" feels a lot more natural. Still, I wouldn't call that damage to the wiki, it's less then optimal writing at the worst, and then stylistic changes ultimately all boil down to opinion. On the other hand, you do have a tendency to settle on some action to do, and then very quickly go through a vast number of articles, making the same change to each of them. That's not a problem in itself, but of course if the initial thing you decide to do is problematic or even just controversial, then you will indeed end up changing a lot of stuff people don't agree with in a very short time. I guess some might frustratingly call that damage, if you have changed half the wiki before anyone can chip in with a second opinion. (also due to the vast amount of articles you edit, I suspect your actions become very noticeable on a lot of people's watchlist, which may contribute to the whole thing. And without you using edit summaries, it can be really confusing what you're doing with their precious watched pages). I do remember it being a problem with the minor buildings discussion a while back, you would take some comment and then unilaterally start making a lot of changes, which then turned out to be not what anyone in the discussion wanted at all. Waiting until you can be sure what to do is always the better option. (by the way, is susceptibility to peer pressure something you have issues with? That might explain some things).

Maybe if you have an idea that will affect a lot of pages, maybe you should suggest it on the forum first. It's not that unusual a step to take before setting about a big project, and it will give people a change to air any concerns they might have before you start changing things. They might even come up with suggestions as to how to go about it better. In any case, I think whatever the solution is, it will definitely involve better communication, and explaining what you're doing/will be doing, and why.

p.s. I expect to probably be too busy to be active on the wiki for this week, so I'm sorry but I may not be able to follow this up further. I'm actually taking time that I really should be working instead right now ;-) -- Capricorn (talk) 14:48, July 14, 2014 (UTC)

A response from Throwback[]

Thank you for your letter. I live with an ill tempered mother and I have a mental disability which limits me considerably. Star Trek is a venue for escape for me. I apologize for lumping you in with Pseudohuman. I find he or she most unpleasant, and there are times I feel that he or she lives up to their name. I have two issues with this wikipedia. Clearly, I am not as successful as I would hope in either.

The first is the "I"-messaging. What is "I" messaging? Wikipedia defines as,

In interpersonal communication, an I-message or I-statement is an assertion about the feelings, beliefs, values etc. of the person speaking, generally expressed as a sentence beginning with the word "I", and is contrasted with a "you-message" or "you-statement", which often begins with the word "you" and focuses on the person spoken to. Thomas Gordon coined the term "I message" in the 1960s while doing play therapy with children. He added the concept to his book for parents, P.E.T.: Parent Effectiveness Training (1970).

I-messages are often used with the intent to be assertive without putting the listener on the defensive. They are also used to take ownership for one's feelings rather than implying that they are caused by another person. An example of this would be to say: "I really am getting backed up on my work since I don't have the financial report yet," rather than: "you didn't finish the financial report on time!" (The latter is an example of a "you-statement").

I-messages or I-statements can also be used in constructive criticism. For instance, one might say, "I had to read that section of your paper three times before I understood it," rather than, "This section is worded in a really confusing way," or "You need to learn how to word a paper more clearly." The former comment leaves open the possibility that the fault lies with the giver of the criticism. According to the Conflict Resolution Network, I-statements are a dispute resolution conversation opener that can be used to state how one sees things and how one would like things to be, without using inflaming language. [[6]]

Now, using an example from the talk page, you wrote,

Can we maybe just use common sense and assume that this is just the full name for the Daystrom Institute which was also introduced in the episode? It seems very unlikely that tptb intended to introduce two separate but confusingly similar sounding institutes in the same episode.

I felt that this was an attack on me, by suggesting that I hadn't used common sense. I had considered the matter quite carefully before writing the article. Which leads me to the second issue. I have read the page you linked my talk page to. This is the first time that someone has done this.

Original research. Subjective essays which analyze or draw conclusions about Star Trek are not encyclopedic. Conclusions, synthesis, analysis or associations which have been mentioned in canon or sourced from a credible real-world authority are acceptable Background content, with citations.

Analysis is defined as, detailed examination of the elements or structure of something, typically as a basis for discussion or interpretation. So, the exercise that was being attempted in the Daystrom Institute of Technology talk page would not be allowed under this rule. There can be no room for interpretation on data, as I am not permitted to do an analysis on the data. I have to accept it as it is. The Daystrom Institute of Technology is regarded as a separate entity from the Daystrom Institute, by the writer of that okudagram. This is a contradiction between the dialog and the okudagram. So, what do I do? Well, according to the guidelines,

The preferred approach to dealing with conflicts is that to the greatest extent possible in-universe information should be construed so as not to be in conflict, as the presumption should be that a conflict does not exist unless no other explanation is reasonable under the circumstances.

In the event that two in-universe resources directly conflict with each other, either can be referenced as a valid resource, provided the other is also included in some manner in the article and the conflict noted. Explanations of the conflict and the reason for the selection of one resource over another should appear in a manner that is set off from the main text of the article, like in a background note.

I had to dig deep into the guidelines to find that. The search engine has a built-in preference - it will take me directly to one of the encyclopedic entries.

I included in the body of the text that the Daystrom Institute of Technology was affiliated with the Daystrom Institute. I believed that this would solve the above problem. I was wrong apparently. Should I have included it in a background note? I don't know.

I have been taught that if I don't know something, find it out. There are resources available on and off the web. For the above issue, there is TrekCore and Ex-Astris-Scientia. I ask myself, why does Capricorn need me to bring the material to he or she? I felt that you doubted my veracity. I have experienced this many times with Pseudohuman. I don't like being called a liar, a conjurer of facts.

So, yes, I do respond. I am going to copy-and-paste a portion of what I wrote to you and include it in the talk page.Throwback (talk) 15:55, July 29, 2014 (UTC)

I'll adress your two issues in a moment, but first I'd like to dwell on an issue I'm having myself. I've raised it before, but it seems I'll have to raise it yet again : I do not give a shit whether you lump me with Pseudohuman or not. They're not a villain which I may or may not be judged to scheme with by Great Throwback, Judge of who lives up to their Usernames. Again, this project is not about alliances in some conflict; Me, You and Pseudohuman are all Memory Alpha editors acting in good faith. In other words, for all valid purposes we all deserve to be lumped together. Your attempt to distance yourself from them in order to cozy up to me are therefore absolutely not appreciated. Keep to substance, and keep interpersonal politics out of all this if you want to achieve anything.

Ok, now that that's out of the way, First issue : what do you think a common sense policy is actually good for, if apparently simply arguing it amounts to breaking the rule against personal attacks? An important note on common sense: everyone think they have it and adhere to it always, but we fail all the time, and disappointingly often it takes someone else to point it out to us before we notice. You should not take offense at people entertaining the possibility that, like any editor or person ever, you are fallible.

It seems to me that you have some kind of problem where you see strongly worded criticism of your work as personal attacks on your person and self worth. I'm sorry, but while what I wrote happened to end up sounding stern and I could maybe have used more tact, it falls way short of being hostile or sounding anything like an attack. And pointing out an issue, or even a suspected issue or a wrongfully suspected one, isn't an attack either. If you see it that way, the problem lies with you and not my suggestion that there may have been a more common sense way to deal with the info.

Second issue : The short answer is that the use common sense rule can overrule the no analysis rule. You may not find that written out anywhere, because for most of us its pretty self-evident in those cases where it's the case. Apparently, this is something that you have some trouble with, and I can't give you much advice on that because what common sense is is inherently fuzzy, while you seem pretty reliant on rigid rules and definitions. But, were it not for you seeing personal attacks everywhere, that would be totally ok, you can just keep contributing your strengths, and you can rely on others to catch your weaknesses.

Here's an example of common sense overruling the no analysis rule : say a TNG okudagram gives us a list of starships also present at some Starbase the Enterprise is visiting. It's only a partial list with no mention of the Enterprise, but it does mention the USS Entreprise captained by Jean-Luc Picrad. A strict no analysis rule would force us to create articles for this weirdly named ship and person. Common sense tells us that maybe the art department composed this okudagram before they had their morning coffees or something like that. So we make the leap of judgement that the screen contains typos, and that it was Picard and not Picrad who's ship lies at docking port six. Technically speaking, that absolutely is speculation and is therefore forbidden, but by overruling it using common sense we end up with a way more elegant wiki.

Don't search for rules (or for helpful dictionary definitions of certain words) as to exactly what is acceptable and what not, they do not exist. Stuff like that is fundamentally subjective and can only be determined by talking about it as a community, or relying on the conclusions of earlier debates. Now, does common sense say the Daystrom Institute and the Daystrom Institute of Technology should be the same thing? I"m not certain, but I think it might be. That's why I didn't just merge the page, but instead started a debate on the talk page. Starting a debate, not attacking a user for making a mistake. And guess what, some of the information you've posted there has made me think that maybe the case for a merge isn't as clear as I originally thought. The system works, or at least it worked until you derailed it. Debate, and challenging each others work, is ok. In fact it's inherent to wiki's and essential for their success.

Which brings us to your last paragraph, the one where, lets not mince words, you equate my asking you to show your sources with calling you a liar. You like reading up on terms to get a grip on things you don't understand, and I'd like to try to use that to help you understand the problem here. First up : Peer Review - the fact that a scientist reaches a certain finding doesn't mean that that finding is actually valid, even if they're extremely confident that they're right; it has been proven time and again that you need other scientists to actively go find out if any holes can be poked in it before you can be (somewhat) sure. That's not because the original scientist may be lying (although every once in a while one actually does), but because they might have made mistakes. Big mistakes are not uncommon, even though these are all smart people who know what they're talking about. Ever had to proofread your own work? By the time you're going through it the fourth or the fifth time, you'll be blind to the biggest, dumbest mistakes. You might also read up on Quality assurance practices, you'll find that there are no supermen that never fuck up, and the only way to weed out errors is to ruthlessly and intensely look at everything, over and over again.

And I admit it, I have come to have some interest in looking into some stuff specifically in part because it was added by you, because I've seen you do one or two things that essentially no one except you thought made any sense. After that, I'm indeed often curious about your reasoning. But it's not just you specifically I question either. If I see an anyone adding to the background section of "Best of Both Worlds" that there's a wookie head mask visible among the props in Data's quarters, I'll question that too. Not because I know for a fact that that's false, but because of some vague thing about statement, which I don't even feel I have to define, that somehow strikes me as suspicious. While you were taught that "if I don't know something, find it out" I was taught gems like "it doesn't hurt to ask questions" and "nobody's perfect" and "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". I will continue to ask you for your sources for whatever reason I'd like to, and I'm ok with anyone treating me the same, no reasons need to be given. We're not working by the Führerprinzip, where you can do whatever you want and we just have to assume that simply because you are competent and have good intentions, all you do must just be accepted as valid.

I think I've heard you complain about the joke that is the state of your country in the past. Let me give you a small life lesson as a bonus : it's people with a very similar mindset like you that caused all that. People who had managed to finish university and therefore concluded that clearly, they were smart and competent. And since they were smart, their ideas must logically be good ones, and when they ended up with power they concluded they must have deserved it, and whatever this elite wanted to do with that power was good. No use wasting time explaining their plans to people, no need to pay attention to criticism because they were smart and therefore knew what they were doing. And when people started complaining about how all this was working out, it was ok because they knew that the allegations regarding bad intentions were false. The moral of the story : even smart people with good intentions are wrong all the time, and transparency and accountability are essential. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:01, July 30, 2014 (UTC)

I am not in a position to influene my country. I am one of the marginal people. I am mentally disabled, and this disability affects my ability to reason clearly and interact with others. I couldn't read all of what you wrote, my apologies, for I felt strong emotion in the words. I promise not to come to you in the future for guidance, as I know now that you are not receptive.Throwback (talk) 18:07, July 30, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah well, that's the thing isn't it: you may not be able to rise to a possition where you can just decree how things work, but you can lend whatever amount of talent you have to some cause that, even if it's a project that doesn't 100% function the way if would function if it was designed by you, seems like a worthy enough thing to help build and strengten. That's true in political activism, and it's true for us, this bunch of people trying to have fun building a star trek reference guide.

Having some problems doesn't mean you go from a person capable of anything to someone completely worthless, you're on a spectrum of skill where you do better then some people and worse then others just like anyone else. Anything you can do will be felt and appreciated, and the things you struggle with can be compensated for by others - if you let us. Me and sometimes other people too have been known to get frustrated when you didn't accept something that we felt was obvious, especially since sometimes you respond by taking a discussion in confusing and irrelevant-seeming directions. (the resulting cranky comments are still not the same as attacks, but you're absolutely right to think they're not good) And given our culture of trying to debate things instead of just shutting up people we don't agree with, these frustrations can sometimes be allowed to build up for longer then is healthy. But at the end of the day we can all function here, and offer valuable contributions, if we keep assuming that we're all here to help each other, even if they cause frustration or anger or make us cranky. There's no such thing as users who are receptive to you and users who are not. We all try to be receptive, but some of us temporally lose or patience sometimes-- Capricorn (talk) 19:00, July 30, 2014 (UTC)

Raktajino and the Star Trek Cookbook[]

Hi Capricorn, no problem there with putting the information about the preparation of raktajino into a background box, that's fine with me. But - just why do you think the Star Trek Cookbook is not a valid source? Sibelius84 (talk) 21:49, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

The relevant policies are Memory Alpha:Resource policy and Memory Alpha:Content policy - In short, only information from the five live action series, the animated series and the movies are considered canon and therefore can be used in the main section. Info from official reference works and other tie-ins can be added if they're of interest, but only in the background section since they are not considered canon. -- Capricorn (talk) 22:04, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

The poster[]

I am not sure what to do with matters related to the poster. I did an on-line search for the poster, and found a seller. I bought the poster, which came to my home some weeks later. I was expecting the same poster as that seen in the 1990s. What I learned was that the poster was a updated version of the 1990 poster. (It had been updated in 2007.) As best as I can tell from Jorg's comments on the original poster, and comparing them to the new poster, it's about the same poster with slight modifications, especially in the case with Pluto. I thought there would be no issue with including information from the poster. I didn't have an issue with the TPTB at this wiki, other than how I was handling a long-standing issue with some of the character pages I was working on. I was given valuable pointers there.

Anyway, Pseudohuman raised an issue in the talk page for Rhea.

The information from the Solar System poster needs a better cite, we need a link to a legible image of the version of the poster seen on screen to confirm it has the text and information that the article claims it has. If the source of this information is another poster not seen on screen, then the information should not be included in the article. --Pseudohuman (talk) 14:28, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Then he removed the affiliation from the Rhea page, stating it hadn't been cited in the canon. He created some lines in the background info, which I thought were pretty useful. A legible version of the poster doesn't exist, as both DS9 and VOY are in SD, but I did find one picture from "Cardassians" on TrekCore where the poster was on display. I added a link to the picture, which he then removed without explanation. After restoring the affiliation, I sent him this comment.

I am not sure if you are going to get a legible version of this poster from the episodes. I went to the forum to get screencaps for a episode in DS9 and I got nada. There is no dedicated team of screencappers. I went to an on-line source to order the poster, and I got the updated version of the poster. They changed it slightly, especially in regards to Pluto. I have deliberately left that information out. If you think the articles are wrong, I hear there is an option. Add the delete tag to the pages and modify the others. There is a list at "Cardassians". Throwback (talk) 20:29, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Then he removed the affiliation again, citing it wasn't mentioned in the canon.

I feel you are attempting to pick a point. If you are, then I feel you should be consistent. We don't have affiliation for most of the Sol system bodies. Why not remove affiliation from those that don't have affiliation data? I provided a source that shows the poster in a room. I see that you removed it without explanation. Are you looking for a picture that shows this poster more clearly? That is dependent on CBS deciding on whether or not to proceed with DS9 on blu-ray, and, so, could be at least a year from now. Are you looking for written words that confirm what you have written? I don't think you will find them from the production sources. Have you read the talk pages for the Sol system? Jorg, who is an infrequent contributor now, bought a copy of the poster in 2006, and described what was found on the poster and what was not. Until you are consistent and realistic, I see no merit in your edits and I am undoing what you did.Throwback (talk) 07:57, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

So, for now, until this settles, and until I see what Pseudohuman does next, I am not working on this project. The first thing I do when I begin my time on the wiki is to check the recent activity page, so if I see that someone has opened a talk page on a page I worked on, I check it out. Information on the Great Red Spot was from the poster. As for the habitable zone, it was mentioned in "The Battle". Throwback (talk) 22:15, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

• A composition containing all that was seen about the poster in "Cardassians" can be found here. I am not entirely sure from your post what other picture you feel you need or what you'd like to do with it. If you want I can upload a non-composited screenshot though, I happen to have the dvd.
• Posting a link to a trekcore picture on which the things you write are illegible does not constitute a cite though. I imagine that's the issue that led Pseudohuman to revert the page, even though they did not bother to put that in the edit summary (but hey, you remove info without writing an edit summary too, all the time)
• You want to state that Rhea is part of the Federation. I imagine that's almost certainly true, but I can't prove it : as far as I understand it was not stated anywhere. I think that if you can't be absolutely certain, you should err on the side of caution and not make that kind of statement. Unless you do have a source (not just argumentation, but a source), that says it is. That is the (only) kind of thing people will be receptive too, hard evidence. Even Pseudohuman will happily eat crow if you can show that. I'm sorry, but I have to side with Pseudohuman here.
• Is the poster a valid source of info? Well, issues about visibility aside, I find it troubling that you're making edits based on something that did not appear in the episode, but rather is just similar to it. I'm inclined to believe your assesment that it seems pretty much the same, but again we can't be certain. A scientist may make guesses about the behavior of an rare and too elusive to study species by studying a very closely related living species, but at the end of the day, nothing is sure until the former species can be brought in for study - and there are always surprises.
• Regarding the two specific questions I raised, you've typed a very long reply and at the end managed to mention something about your sources at the end, but ultimatly you did not answer my questions. I find that troubling. Maybe you will reply to this by saying you are a person with trouble communicating. I already know that and it is something I can live with, as long as you don't give up on trying to get it right (that is to say; please give adressing those questions another try).

Here's some things regarding, directly or indirectly, your communications with Pseudohuman. I hate to interpret other people's intention, but clearly something has seriously soured between you and them, and as much as you think Pseudohuman is not helpful, one can only really control one's own actions, and you're not always very helpful either.

• You say "Why not remove affiliation from those that don't have affiliation data?" - well, I think that makes perfect sense to be frank.
• You say : "If you think the articles are wrong, I hear there is an option. Add the delete tag to the pages and modify the others" - No! That is, and that should not be, an option. It is quite simply not how the wiki is supposed to work. If they actually did that, every commenter would then quickly say that it shouldn't be deleted, but at most merely fixed. Putting any pages you have doubts about up for deletion is disruptive behavior. And in a related note; creating pages and then expecting that people should either accept them uncritically or put them up for deletion is also disruptive. Also, there is a very important nuance that you are missing: Pseudohuman by and large didn't say your pages are wrong, but is rather very concerned that they may not be right.
• I wonder if maybe you reverted their edit on Rhea because by now you feel that Pseudohuman is out to get you and the edit was motivated just by that. I really do not believe that is the case. On the other hand, I wonder if Pseudohuman has maybe not answered what you wrote on their talk page because they felt it would get them nowhere. After all, their note at Talk:Rhea was not productive either, you feel you have a counter argument and yet did not bother to post it there.
• Your personal philosophy of "I don't know something, find it out" seems to mean to you that people should either buy the map and check themselves, or completely shut up. At least here on Memory Alpha, that is absolutely not how things are supposed to work. This is not a place for people to publish their own findings in a vacuum, this is a place for people to collaborate, and improve upon each others work. Questioning others every now and then is an essential and unavoidable part of that. It is a natural and a good thing. You do make mistakes, everyone does. And it's perfectly normal that people sometimes ask "are you sure about that?", or even, "could you tell us exactly what was on the map said" so they can form a second opinion. I remember you once asking me if I thought you were harming the wiki. Nothing of what you actually add harms the wiki, rather it enriches it. It does not harm the wiki even if you make a mistake, because others can improve on it. But I think the way you handle criticism does occasionally harm the wiki. As much as I sympathize with your anguish, flat-out ignoring feedback, even if you can't help it because of how you feel, is not really compatible with making good contributions. In that spirit, please answer this post, even if just to acknowledge that you've read it, so that I know that you have.

I am lately getting a bit worried about your mental health Throwback. Please don't take criticism personal. And please don't treat Pseudohuman like someone that's out to get you. They are apparently pretty frustrated with you, but they are not engaged in a personal vendetta against you. -- Capricorn (talk) 02:22, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

Answering your questions

Did the poster explicitly mention the great red spot forming in the 16th century? Because if it did both adding that info to 16th century and adding a background note pointing out the problem with that statement might be useful. (But as a general rule, I don't like spreading info which I can't verify, bad experiences with that) Sorry for posting here rather then on the article talk page. I figured that since you sometimes don't see those talk pages, while at the same time you're probably be the only one in a position to answer, it would be more efficient to just post here. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:49, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Also while I'm at it, in "Habitable zone" the statement about which solar system planets are in the habitable zone is uncited as of now. I suspect it's from also from the poster, which is cited at the end, but bringing that citation to the relevant paragraph would be useful. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:53, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

In my post with you, I said that,

Information on the Great Red Spot was from the poster. As for the habitable zone, it was mentioned in "The Battle".

I thought I had answered your questions. So, let me reiterate, information on the Great Red Spot was from the poster and the habitable zone was mentioned in the canon and described in the poster. I apologive for not mentioning the last. I read your comments that you left with Pseudohuman that you have given up teaching me the finer points of Humanness communication. Couldn't you have said that less harshly? I am open to criticism and having me put on the right track.

Please do not use abbreviations when creating disambiguation text. Spell the word out. "Capt." is not acceptable, use "Captain". For example. -- sulfur (talk) 01:57, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, for some of the entries for the characters named after production staff, the full title was used in the past. When the pages were merged, it meant that if a character had the full title, the reader would then be sent to that page. For example, Throwback (Captain) is created as a page. Then, there is another page named Throwback (Admiral). Some point in the past, these pages were merged. So, now if I attempt to write a page for Throwback (Captain), I am sent automatically to Throwback (Admiral). If you know a way that I can bypass this, and use the full title, I am listening.76.21.54.57 03:10, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

When you are redirected to a different page, the page you originally wanted is linked to at the top of the destination page; click on that to be taken to the original page. 31dot (talk) 09:01, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.Throwback (talk) 12:19, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

In this communication, I feel that I am respected and I respond favorably to this criticism.

I directed Pseudohuman to the talk page on the Sol System, where Jorg goes into detail what he has learned about the poster. It has become personal between me and Pseudohuman because of the tone I am picking from his words, which seem overly unfriendly to me. I don't expect a person to buy a poster; however, I do expect them to do research.

As for answering your questions, I don't know what more you want from me. I have accepted that you think my communication skills are sub-par, and I agree with you that these skills are. However, it doesn't make me any less Human than you. I have seen prejudice since I was little and I have experienced prejudice. I have little acceptance for it. Throwback (talk) 04:43, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I am going to try to modify my questions so it is as clear as I can make it what information I'd like from you:

• What exactly did the poster say about the great red spot. For simplicity, please just post any sentence it is mentioned in.
• Did the poster explicitly make a statement that Venus, Earth and Mars were in the habitable zone, yes or no?

Don't worry about the rest anymore. If you can give those answers, I'll gladly work with that and do the rest.

Regarding the rest of the point you make. The tone you are sometimes picking up in people's voice is frustration, never disrespect. I did not really talk about you with Pseudohuman, I merely tried to appologised to them for talking with you about them behind their back. I suppose I could have said that thing you point out less harshly, yes, and I probably should have. But for fucks sake, Throwback, you seem totaly oblivious about how passively agressive you are talking yourself. You are very much punishing people for things you do yourself, and did before they did it, just because their language doesn't contain the exact tools you have develloped for trying to deal with your own frustrations while sounding reasonable. Comment will sometimes be cranky, that's just the way it is. For all you know I might be PMS'ing pretty hard right now. It is not our job to appease you so that you cooperate. You cannot let the amount of respect you feel in a message influence how helpful you'll be, but that is exactly what you are doing, saying things like "In this communication, I feel that I am respected and I respond favorably to this criticism" - Should we maybe bring gifts too, if we want you favor to shine upon our inquiries? I feel that your example of a a communication in which you feel that you are respected would not have worked out that well if it was Pseudohuman instead of Sulfur that made the initial criticism. You acknowledged 31Dot's advice, but for some people, you never do no matter how often we spell it out, instead diverting in talk about how you feel about tone or putting your head in the sand. (Although, I have to admit, 31Dot is definitely a better communicator then I am) You only respect those you have judged to deserve your respect, and go astray with the rest. As long as you don't try to do better on your side, nothing will improve. Lastly, I do not think you are less then Human, and I am not prejudiced against you. In that last paragraph, I see you again lashing back at me for looking at the issues you yourself bring up time and again as an excuse, and for trying to listen and acknowledge them instead of giving you a free pass to do whatever you please or ignoring you completely. -- Capricorn (talk) 14:06, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

I attempted to introduce speculation into some of the pages by using language that is appropriate, according to the guidelines. For instance, the words "might be" are appropriate in a sentence. The guide calls them a subjunctive. I looked at the map of the Alpha Quadrant from Season 7 and I see that there are these large blocks in the quadrants. Some of the quadrants are broken into smaller rectangles. The UFP, the Bajoran wormhole, and the path of Voyager are shown in these blocks. Natural conclusion is that this charted and explored space. So, I write something to the effect, In 2378, the Alpha Quadrant might be charted and explored from the galactic core to the galactic rim. For me, I see this as the means that Aristotle spoke of, the middle between extremes. What does Pseudohuman do? He takes it, saying that it is fan-interpretation speculation. Pseudohuman is an extremist. I can't reach out to him. Before this situation spirals out of control - maybe it has already - I am putting delete tags on the offending articles and removing what I have written. I am including the reasons for the removal in the talk page. Don't bother yourself with these questions, as those pages are being either removed or altered.Throwback (talk) 15:07, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

Your natural conclusions are not necessarily everyone's natural conclusions, and challenging them is not the same as being hostile to you as a person, or being an extremist. You are the one spiraling out of control. Not the situation, but your unproductive handling of it. Your last message to Pseudohuman is way more aggressive then absolutely anything anyone has ever said to you. When you perceive agression, you write long talk page posts about being victimised that don't really help in actually resolving the issue, while Pseudohuman deals with such situations differently: by not engaging. Neither approach strike me as being as good as what I'm trying to do, trying to talk out the issue - but then again, that's not really getting much results either so far.

So hey, what about getting back to those questions I've asked you. That was the only thing this conversation was supposed to be about, and if you keep going off on tangents I fear that I might soon be ordered to go back to whatever hell I came from too. -- Capricorn (talk) 15:41, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, looking at what you're doing now : this might actually work out. Information of which the veracity has been questioned is being removed, and you're neatly archiving it so that it can be re-added if and when better proof can be found. Probably the right way to go. And forget about my questions, if this stuff gets removed it does not matter anymore. -- Capricorn (talk) 16:01, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

Screencaps[]

Can you make screen caps? If so, I have a suggestion and a request. I had to undo a revision by someone at the Computer Page, because they felt the computers cloned from carrots was non-sense. I suggest that you include a screen cap where it says specifically this, so that this won't happen again. Do you have the blu-ray edition of Star Trek (2009)? If you do, can you do me a favor? In the short about shuttles, there are several key shots of the Dimassa 01. These shots show that the Dimassa 01 and 12091 are one and the same shuttle. I attempted a while back to merge these two pages; however, as I didn't have the screenshots, the merger didn't go anywhere. I would like to try again. Thanks.Throwback (talk) 02:56, August 16, 2014 (UTC)

I can personally vouch for the carrots thing being seen on-screen, but I don't have screenshots I'm afraid. I currently only have the first 11 movies as well as the complete ENT and DS9 on dvd, and nothing at all on blu-ray (although I can occasionally borrow blu-rays from friends, that's how I found the carrot thing for example). So I can't help with the Dimassa issue either, sorry, maybe you should ask someone else. I really wish I could be of more help.-- Capricorn (talk) 17:15, August 16, 2014 (UTC)

I have asked 31dot if I should be banned[]

Just letting you know, you aren't alone in your concerns about my mental health. 31dot has expressed the same feeling. I have asked him to consider banning me from this website. I have lost the ability to differentiate between what is a personal attack and what is an attack on my behavior, and I have lost the ability to differentiate between what is speculation and non-speculation. I think I am more dangerous to this site. Maybe 36Ophiuci was right, about the vandalism thing?Throwback (talk) 12:37, August 17, 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anything you might do on the site has to be much of a problem, let alone vandalism, as long as you can accept that you might potentially be wrong about certain things even if you have trouble seeing it. And not just while talking about yourself, but also in practice regarding specific issues that crop up on article talk pages. It's less what you do that might be a problem, its more about how you course correct (or don't). Anyway, I'm not going to give you my opinion if you should take a break or not, that's for you to decide. (I absolutely don't think it would be good for you to leave because we would be better of without you or something) But if you do decide to take a break, I truly wish you the best. -- Capricorn (talk) 13:01, August 17, 2014 (UTC)

31dot is implementing a block on my activities. I think my interaction with Pseudohuman was the breaking point. I have enough doubts as it is, I don't need them added onto by another editor.Throwback (talk) 13:04, August 17, 2014 (UTC)

Re 1987[]

Could you visit Talk:1987? Thanks 31dot (talk) 12:16, October 25, 2014 (UTC)

Done. Hey, as a return favor, could you maybe move Great Britain to Old Britain, please? With your last comment there there's now two vs one in favor of that move, but with the namespace already taken up by the redirect it's got to be done by an admin. (don't worry about the gazillion links, once it's moved I'll gladly take the job of putting everything in order again).

Star Trek maps project[]

Hi Capricorn. 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 Memory Alpha contributor, 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) 07:19, November 16, 2014 (UTC)

As "an active Memory Alpha contributor", I already read about this on the forum. So no need to come to my talk page with stuff like this in the future, I use community features like that. It would be much more interesting to me if instead of targeting users directly, you could answer the questions posed there by Archduk3, it's stuff I'm curious about too. Cheers! -- Capricorn (talk) 07:39, November 16, 2014 (UTC)

Yup, I'll be answering those once I hear back on a few of the answers from the folks running this project. - Brandon Rhea^(talk) 07:44, November 16, 2014 (UTC)

Hugo Award[]

Hey there. Now we have a problem with all incoming links from real life Hugo Award nominees and winners. Maybe the in-universe page should be created as "Hugo award"? That could be a way to solve this problem. And btw, we have redirects for every award, Hugo Award should be there too. Tom (talk) 06:53, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Aah sorry, I didn't think of that. I'll move the page as you suggested. Sorry -- Capricorn (talk) 07:00, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. -- Capricorn (talk) 07:04, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. No problem, you're welcome. Tom (talk) 07:07, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization[]

Hi, Capricorn. I have noticed that you are working on the capitalization of colonies. When the word colony is part of a proper noun, it is capitalized. When the word colony is a noun, it is not. I have included links to Wikipedia pages.

• Connecticut Colony
• Delaware Colony
• Massachusetts Bay Colony
• New Haven Colony
• Newfoundland Colony
• Plymouth Colony
• Roanoke Colony
• Saybrook Colony

I recommend that you read at least one of these articles to see how the word colony is used, and, in what context, it is capitalized.76.21.54.57 18:48, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

huh, that would essentially mean that virtually every colony we have with the term colony in it is capitalized wrongly. Confused. I've asked Sulfur about capitalization, and I'll stop editing for now and wait for his response, if you don't mind. Very glad to read you're doing better, incidentally. -- Capricorn (talk) 18:57, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

Setting a new precedent[]

I fixed what I did at Old Britain. Moving on, if I do as you suggest, say for instance Name (Ship), this will be setting a new precedent. I don't know of any character that has this header. I feel that if I did this, I think when I check my talk page the next day there will be a comment about me doing this. The simple issue is that the person who created these lists, who I believe is Mike Okuda, used the same names over and over again. This is fine when the names are scribbles and the viewer can't read them.. It becomes an issue when a person is attempting to create articles. If I attempt to form connections between these same named individuals, I am speculating. There are people here who are quick to pounce on speculation. So, I choose a naming scheme that had precedence.Lakenheath72 (talk) 16:35, January 30, 2015 (UTC)

Using an existing naming scheme isn't the same thing as avoiding speculation. But that aside, it's all dandy with me. It was just an suggestion, and it's up to the others in the discussion to decide if they like it or not. I do dislike it a bit to call people the affiliation we don't know anything about civilians, that's why I made the suggestion. But the truth is, I don't know all that much about the rules that have evolved for this type of character pages, why everything's done like it's done, so I don't feel I can weight in much beyond minor observations and suggestions like that one. And after that just read what what more knowledgeable people think of my ideas and accept it. Maybe I ought to take more of an interest in this subject one of these days. But not today :D -- Capricorn (talk) 10:39, January 31, 2015 (UTC)

Political Map[]

I found a map very much like the one used in "The Cage" remastered. This is the map from the episode.

This is the map I found online. [7] The major difference is that for reasons unknown areas of Antartica are blacked out. I realize after receiving a short pithy comment from User47 and your questioning the relevance of this map, that I may be repeating the Solar System fiasco. So, I deleted the information. The author of this map was the CIA. I didn't want to get into a long explanation of why I deleted this information, that is why I left out the information.Lakenheath72 (talk) 14:18, January 31, 2015 (UTC)

No problem. My talk page question, by the way, referred more to a concern that it wasn't really clear from the paragraph preceding the link why the link was included. I didn't recognize it as the same one from "the cage" and so I was puzzled. But I do agree that one ought to be extremely careful with such found larger versions of maps. One thing to keep in mind with professionally made maps though is that often a map is initially created, and then over the years numerous small updates and other tweaks are made, resulting in there being a large number of extremely similar but still different versions. So even though some version of this map appears to have been used, you just can't be sure that everything is the same. -- Capricorn (talk) 14:38, January 31, 2015 (UTC)

Starfleet Headquarters in ST:ID[]

I have noticed a major continuity flaw with Star Trek: Into Darkness.

According to a Starfleet Headquarters: Directory Kiosk created by Jorge Almeida [8], Starfleet Headquarters is on Second Street in San Franciso. (You might be able to open the image. I can't open it on my Apple Computer.) Here is a map of San Francisco from Google maps. [9] This explains the flight path of the Vengeance. However, when I was reviewing a clip of the movie at Youtube.com, I noticed something interesting. Here is the clip. [10] Five seconds into the ciip, there is a shot of something, and behind that something, the Golden Gate Bridge. The first suspension tower is seen directly head-on. I thought maybe the graphic artist made a mistake by calling it 2nd St. instead of 2nd Avenue, which is in western San Francisco. [11] However, from this street, a person would be seeing the bridge at an angle. So, now, the path of the Vengeance makes no sense, for the ship missed Starfleet Headquarters by miles. (The Bay to Breakers, an annual race held in SF, is 7.46 miles, from the Embarcadero (SF Bay) to the Great Highway (Pacific Ocean).) If SFHq was on the Presidio, more of the tower would be seen; instead, only the upper half is visible. There are four "openings" in the tower. Looking at it, it appears that the SFHq is somewhere east of Highway 1 in the Richmond District. [12]

What I am getting at is this, how does one reconcile this mess? You seem to have a better sense of what the admins want and expect here. Maybe you can do something to remedy this. I fear that I will make more of a mess.Lakenheath72 (talk) 12:03, February 16, 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't have to be a problem at all, at least as far as this site is concerned. Yes, the path of the vengeance doesn't seem to lead to where second street is today. And yes, the golden gate bridge may not be seen that way from anywhere near second street. Obviously the teams that created the crash and the SFHQ backgrounds didn't coordinate with the guy that probably without thinking about it much put a generically sounding street name among the many other pieces of textual flavor in his graphics. But what is there to do, exactly? If a graphic notes that SFHQ is on second street, you note that (and stop there, it's not because you find a second street on google maps that you can make any more deductions). If elsewhere you see the Vengeance passing over angel island and then touch down near the Port of San Francisco building, you note that too on the relevant pages, even though it may not be compatible with the other observation. But that's it, this is neither the place for nitpicks nor for the construction of elaborate ideas on how something no one bothered to fit together might fit together after all. Don't get me wrong, errors like that bother me too. But don't try to reconcile if you don't absolutely have to. -- Capricorn (talk) 15:01, February 16, 2015 (UTC)

Some points[]

In "Court Martial", Samuel Cogley said

• "Learn the intent of the men who wrote them, from Moses to the tribunal of Alpha 3?"
• "The Bible, the Code of Hammurabi and of Justinian, Magna Carta, the Constitution of the United States, Fundamental Declarations of the Martian colonies, the Statutes of Alpha Three."

The chain was the same in both, it starts with Moses (Bible) to Alpha III. Moses was one of the writers of the Bible. Someone who was educated in the Christian and Jewish tradition would recognize the connection. This is the web of associations that the episode has with the real world.

Also, before making changes to the pages, like the Nensi Chandra page, read the page about uniforms. On Starfleet uniform (mid 2260s-early 2270s), it says, "Higher ranking lieutenant commanders wear the tunic with similar piping, but decorations are worn in lieu of the assignment patch and rank stripes for lieutenant commanders and above." Nensi Chandra wore a command division dress uniform with decorations. He is identified as a starship captain. A veteran can be a active service duty member or someone who retired from the military. (Starfleet has an active duty roster.) This is canonical fact.

Do your research before making changes. When I work on pages, I constantly verify what I am writing and I am aware of the web of associations that connects these episodes to the real world.Lakenheath72 (talk) 18:39, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

You're still overstepping bounds based on what was actually said and shown on-screen. I've simplified the text on Moses to better represent what was actually ON SCREEN. -- sulfur (talk) 18:50, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

I have seen pages on Memory Alpha that went further than I did on Moses and the Bible. For instance, when there is only an image seen in an episode, people, including myself, have added information from the real world. I added information that was acceptable on those other pages to the Moses page, like him being a lawgiver and prophet, and the centuries he lived in. I then added what was said in the episode about the rights he gave to the accused; these rights are enumerated by Cogley. If what I did was unacceptable, then the pages I wrote and the other pages that people wrote about images seen in an episode should fall under the same scrutiny.Lakenheath72 (talk) 19:12, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

I'm fully aware there's pages on memory alpha that go very far in adding real world info. This is not good and those pages ought to be cut down, which is what I did to the bible article. And I don't know what kind of drugs you're smoking to add the fact that Moses lived in the 14th century bc to an article and still dare put "read the transcript. It's canonical" in the summary field. I find it very troubling that you can make advanced deductions and still be under the impression you're doing absolutely nothing more then putting down what was in a transcript. Perhaps the fact that others are confused ought to be a warning sign that what you find obviously clear is often only clear to you.

Regarding Chandra, fun fact; I did actually check out that exact Starfleet uniforms page you're pointing to make sure I did the edit right. But did you read the page on captains? Having the title of captain doesn't imply you're in command of a starship, which is change one that I made. Secondly, to be described as a veteran we would have to know that he has been in starfleet for a long while, you aren't a veteran from day one. Now, I'm sure you're going to argue that someone like Chandra most likely didn't enlist yesterday, but at the end of the day that's speculation for which there is no need whatsoever. The rest I thought was just simplifying obvious information for readability, but your mileage may vary. -- Capricorn (talk) 06:02, March 26, 2015 (UTC)

Also regardless of what your third party sources call him, Moses was never identified as a Lawgiver in Star Trek, and it would be better to not use that term that the term has a very specific other meaning in the Star Trek universe. Even if yes, laws have been canonically said to derive from him. -- Capricorn (talk) 06:14, March 26, 2015 (UTC)

The situation[]

I am like Charles Evans on the good ship Enterprise. Well, I am like him and not like him. I am like him as I am isolated and haven't learned how to live in the world of people. I am not like him in that I don't have his powers and that I have placed a value on life. A high value. I have reached the point where he and I are saying, Everything I do or say is wrong. I'm in the way, I don't know the rules, and when I learn something and try to do it, suddenly I'm wrong! I felt rage - the rage that is common to Autistics yesterday night. I have learned how to control that rage to my benefit and when not to use it.

Communication is a struggle for everyone. I have come to learn that people live in "bubbles". Communication is so easy when the people you are communicating with are in the same "bubble" as you are. When a person speaks to you, who is not in your "bubble", you don't understand them. In so many ways, they are alien to you. I have read over and over again how a failure to understand the other has led to misunderstanding and to conflict. You are the Roman, I am the barbarian. Or is it the other way around? What does it matter? My world is as alien to you as your world is alien to me.

When I do attempt to communicate why I do an edit, I am constantly told many negative things about how I write. I have read that I don't communicate clearly, that I am incoherent and rambling, that the pathways of my thinking are poorly laid out. One person has even stated that my posts are unreadable and refuses to read them. People can identify me in the way I write. I believe this has created a bias - a bias that they might not be aware of. I might not be attuned to the nuances of neurotypical behavior; however, I can feel when someone is negative to me. Any creature of sufficient awareness can detect negativity from another creature. It's in the way that you write. It's in the way that you phrase sentences.

I have to read your words for us to communicate. The experience is excruciating. It's like walking through a dense forest at night with only the light of the Moon as my only companion.

Although I would like to continue to be an editor, the truth of the matter is that there will always be misunderstanding and conflict. I can adapt to a small degree; however, for me to able to communicate like you and the other neurotypicals, well, that's impossible. We are biochemical computers (genes) with programmed software (epigenetics). For me to communicate in a way that is not alien to you, that would require a reprogramming. This is a skill far beyond our current science and technology. (A small note - the cat is dearly missed.)Lakenheath72 (talk) 12:46, April 2, 2015 (UTC)

Sorry you are suffering. I don't think you need to communicate like others to function, only to be open to feedback and accepting of specific suggestions. Don't challenge things you feel you don't fully understand, ask further explanation. I'll put back the cat. -- Capricorn (talk) 18:33, April 3, 2015 (UTC)

It's great to see your cat back. As an example of listening, I have been explaining why I am changing the planet pages either in the edit summary or in the talk pages. I am being very careful about how much information I put in the pages, to make sure the information is relevant to the pages, and to make sure that the links meet current standards. The last is respecting Sulfur's request. If you have any suggestions, the door is always open.Lakenheath72 (talk) 02:17, April 4, 2015 (UTC)

Great! -- Capricorn (talk) 15:45, April 4, 2015 (UTC)

Category[]

Hey there. Regarding your category change on Collective memory. The article implies that Spock is talking about the Vulcan society and since there is no other reference to other species the Category:Vulcan does fit very well. Tom (talk) 13:17, June 13, 2015 (UTC)

I'll put it back then. I suppose I just couldn't make the mental bend -- Capricorn (talk) 17:53, June 13, 2015 (UTC)

Excuse the intrusion, but I'm kind of with Capricorn on this one. The article makes out it's a general term not necessarily specific to Vulcan. If that's not the case, perhaps the intro line of the article needs changing? I haven't seen the episode lately so can't judge it. --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 13:54, June 14, 2015 (UTC)

Clearing up junk[]

So it was you, eh? It never would have occurred to me; thought it was our energetic new friend Laura. Not to worry it can and will all be rectified, ugly or not; not oil painting myself: attempts at prettification notwithstanding--Archer4real (talk) 09:42, June 29, 2015 (UTC)

Bigotry[]

Following your redirect...where is an in-universe reference? Tom (talk) 20:45, July 12, 2015 (UTC)

Creating that redirect is related to this discussion. (I moved on creating the redirect after getting no replies after a number of days) Basically, there are a number of mentions of bigotry, and looking at them it made more sense to me to include the concept in prejudice rather then have it as a page of its own. -- Capricorn (talk) 01:13, July 13, 2015 (UTC)

I see your point. But an in-universe reference would be great though. Tom (talk) 18:01, July 13, 2015 (UTC)

But now I don't see your point anymore :p I'm not sure what concretely you'd mean by a reference, and by extension I'm now unsure if I understand what your issue is in the first place...

Regarding the inclusion of bigotry, it was an executive decision I made while reviewing the mentions, and seeing how it got conflated in ent:stigma. The page quote is exhibit A in that, Archer talks about what in the rest of the episode is framed as prejudice, but he only uses the word bigotry in that exchange. To get back to the point, in retrospect I can see how discussing the two concepts jointly might be controversial, and feel free to say so if you're not confortable with it: I'll happily spin off bigotry in an article of its own. -- Capricorn (talk) 20:20, July 13, 2015 (UTC)

My only concern was if the term was ever used in a canon production and deserves the redirect. You've answered it so the reference can be added to the episode's article. Why having a redirect for bigotry when the word was never used? I'll add the reference now. Tom (talk) 20:24, July 13, 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yes it was definatly used, in several episodes. I suppose I forgot to add mentions to the episode pages. -- Capricorn (talk) 20:26, July 13, 2015 (UTC)

Another project[]

Since you did such a good job on debris, perhaps decomposition/rot might be up your alley? --LauraCC (talk) 19:30, September 28, 2015 (UTC)

Honestly i still have things I'm wanting to do on debris that I keep postponing , so not that good a job... -- Capricorn (talk) 02:22, September 29, 2015 (UTC)

"you may" links[]

When putting these in, please use the {{disambiguation}} template. In addition to that, please ensure that they are put immediately below the sidebar or images (if not sidebar) on the page. Do not put them above, as they screw with the format of the page presentation. Thanks. -- sulfur (talk) 03:59, October 12, 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate images[]

When you come across these, don't put up a deletion page/process for them. Just simply suggest a merge, and post on the talk page what the issue is. Far faster and cleaner. -- sulfur (talk) 18:43, November 25, 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I always get confused about how to delete images, so that's a really helpful bit of concrete advice. -- Capricorn (talk) 21:53, November 25, 2015 (UTC)

Suzie Plakson on Everybody loves Raymond[]

Why did you remove the note? It's not as though the show has only that one listing - there are now three references in episodes of ELR to Star Trek. Plakson played Robert's ex-wife Joanne in two episodes. --LauraCC (talk) 17:45, January 9, 2016 (UTC)

Can you give a link to the edit? I'm afraid I don't remember it, and as a result I have no idea what you're talking about. -- Capricorn (talk) 01:21, January 10, 2016 (UTC)

Here. Maybe a mistake? [13] --LauraCC (talk) 17:21, January 13, 2016 (UTC)

I was rolling back a previous edit (the "the" thing), and it seems I somehow accidentally changed more then I planned to. Sorry, and thanks for noticing. I think I've corrected the mistake now. -- Capricorn (talk) 08:41, January 14, 2016 (UTC)

Adding script references[]

It's all great that you're adding these to the wiki, but please ensure that you add them to an appropriate section on the episode or film page, such as here. I'm not sure that I captured all of them, but hopefully I got the bulk. Thanks. -- sulfur (talk) 16:42, January 25, 2016 (UTC)

Aah... I suppose I keep forgetting that that's a thing because so few of the pages with deleted content have such sections. I should probably systematically go over the relevant categories somewhere in the near future and fix that. That'll Teach me :D -- Capricorn (talk) 23:26, January 26, 2016 (UTC)

I do think you got them all, btw, I checked. -- Capricorn (talk) 23:28, January 26, 2016 (UTC)

Gallery tags[]

Please make sure that you use the "File:" portion of the name on these as it makes bot use far easier, even though the gallery tag doesn't require that tag. -- sulfur (talk) 14:05, February 12, 2016 (UTC)

I had no idea. I'll try to remember, though I don't do this kind of stuff very often. -- Capricorn (talk) 16:48, February 12, 2016 (UTC)

Weigh in[]

Can you do me a favor and consider (and hopefully answer) what I've been trying (and failing) to get opinions on @ Talk:Android? Also, A Cadet's Guide to Sector 001 Earth has similarly languished under the pna before i changed it to rename. --LauraCC (talk) 15:52, March 19, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, but I've looked in the past, and now again, at it and I honestly don't know in both cases. In the case of the androids I would think that maybe how we deal with holographic duplicates might figure into it somehow, but not sure how. -- Capricorn (talk) 08:38, March 20, 2016 (UTC)

You mean move them to Doppelgänger under "physical duplicates"? That makes sense.

We were talking @ Talk:Alice series about pages for individual copies of robots to say which one did what, but the Alices et al. are Mudd's idealistic people, not known to be modeled after people he knew, unlike the Stella bots. --LauraCC (talk) 17:10, March 21, 2016 (UTC)

Well yes I suppose they ought to be listed at Doppelgänger if that description fits, but that doesn't preclude a page of their own. That wasn't what I meant to say though, I was just thinking out loud. I've tried to find a system or unifying logic in how these things are done, and did not find anything (which doesn't mean there isn't one). Basically, I just don't know, I don't have an answer to your question. Sorry. -- Capricorn (talk) 21:09, March 24, 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. --LauraCC (talk) 16:23, March 28, 2016 (UTC)

Why?[]

Why would you create a page and not bother to link it from ANYWHERE? This isn't such a good idea. It's best to ensure that you actually bother linking new pages from somewhere else. -- sulfur (talk) 01:32, June 5, 2016 (UTC)

Oh, that's an oversight. I take it you're talking about unnamed sectors? Will fix -- Capricorn (talk) 11:27, June 6, 2016 (UTC)

Anchor links[]

For anchor links, they work like HTML. ONLY link to the specific anchor you want to point to. "Page#Anchor1#Anchor2#Anchor3" doesn't work. Just use "Page#Anchor3". -- sulfur (talk) 19:36, September 13, 2016 (UTC)

Been there. But I finally figured out what the heck sulfur was getting at after countless failures on my part. Glad I did. So much easier. :) --LauraCC (talk) 19:41, September 13, 2016 (UTC)

Not me, I barely passed introductory HTML, and the way simply typing Yorktown daughter leads to the correct place essentially looks like magic to me. I thought I kinda understood the new system from edits I've seen, but apparently I don't come close. -- Capricorn (talk) 19:48, September 13, 2016 (UTC)

Well, I know next to nothing about this. So if you wanted to link to (an example I added) "Simon Tarses' brother", you would NOT type [[Unnamed people#Unnamed members of unknown species by century#24th century#Simon Tarses' brother]], but rather [[Unnamed people#Simon Tarses' brother]].

That about right? --LauraCC (talk) 19:56, September 13, 2016 (UTC)

I should better clarify where my confusion lies. I read that I ought to use "Page#Anchor3". To me that reads like I should have typed either "Starbase Yorktown personnel#Sulu and Ben's daughter" or "Starbase Yorktown personnel#Daughter 001". I actually did try the latter, it didn't work, so I doubled back on what I submitted and thought (imagined?) it worked. I don't understand the link between the template "Page#Anchor3", and how the correct link actually looked, "Yorktown daughter". Is it heretical to end this post with; Help me, Sulfur, you're my only hope? -- Capricorn (talk) 20:10, September 13, 2016 (UTC)

That involves the creation of extra pages. That's all I know. --LauraCC (talk) 20:12, September 13, 2016 (UTC)

So, for your example above, LauraCC hit on the correct way to list it. When you do a link that has multiple '#' in it, the anchors throw off the web browser and it doesn't know where to end up on the page.

So, this is the appropriate way to do it: Starbase Yorktown personnel#Sulu and Ben's daughter

Because there's a "hidden" anchor of "Daughter 001", this would also work: Starbase Yorktown personnel#Daughter 001

Now, we're SLOWLY moving to a system whereby we are trying to create redirects for all of these "list" pages, so as you discovered, Yorktown daughter goes to the right place too, and when these redirects exist, those are the only ways we want to be linking to those "things/people/etc", so that we can a) track where links are coming from for each "thing", and if the "thing" moves, then we just have to update the redirect, not check 100+ incoming links to the whole page. -- sulfur (talk) 18:40, September 15, 2016 (UTC)

Ah, ok now I get it. Thanks for explaining further, I really appreciate it. -- Capricorn (talk) 18:47, September 15, 2016 (UTC)

Renaissance[]

Regarding the Category "Culture", which you readded to Renaissance, according to its description it's supposed to be a "Supercat" with ideally no articles at all. Since an appropriate subcat exists with "Historical Eras", I see no reason to add it as well and reverted your change. Kennelly (talk) 07:33, October 24, 2016 (UTC)

ok -- Capricorn (talk) 12:18, October 24, 2016 (UTC)

Leda and the Swan[]

Thanks for rewording the background note. It is now (for me) clear. The previous note was somehow strange leading to the confusion the prop used could be the original. Thanks. Tom (talk) 19:13, November 20, 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't even thought of it that way. Great that it's cleared up now though -- Capricorn (talk) 22:59, November 20, 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia link on Planet X[]

I actually believe that they are very much related. The Adventures of Captain Proton was supposed to represent the early 20th century's view of the future, and during that time, it was believed by some scientists that Planet X was an actual planet in our solar system; although it was eventually proven (pretty much) to be wrong.

Doctor Who actually had another version of Vulcan in the show, based upon the hypothetical planet that didn't actually exist; but was previously believed to exist in our solar system by some scientists at least.

Just saying, with all that taken into context, I think that Planet X is supposed to be the hypothetical planet.

--Noah Tall (talk) 17:25, January 14, 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Captain Proton planet is just a reference to the sketchy naming practices of the time. That general era has actually given us a few planets called Planet X in science fiction and allied popular culture, and they were rarely linked to the specific hypothetical planet that also had that name, they were just named as such because it sounded cool. And that's the core of my reasoning, there's no evidence that the episode intended to depict the tenth planet then thought to exist in the solar system, which makes the link a bit like having a background note making the unsourced claim that this was supposed to be the tenth solar system planet. If anything, it seems like this is the wikipedia link that ought to be on the page. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:59, January 14, 2017 (UTC)

Undoing changes to the definition of 'Starfleet'[]

The reason given by you was ""official CBS definition" isn't what we base stuff on, we go by what was said in-universe." - That's fair and I would understand, except you don't. The "military arm" thing was never said in-universe but was added by a user who insists on putting the term "military" in there - when canon goes out of it's way to avoid the military definition of Starfleet altogether. In-universe, Starfleet's purpose was exactly defined as CBS Database entry suggests. Exploration, Science, Diplomacy and Defense. Aside, the way it is worded right now makes no sense: "It's principal functions included... the military arm of the Federation" - that's not a function, defense is. And the article said "defense" all the years until a few days ago someone changed it for no reason. In my opinion, MA should really check on their priorities here because a lot of articles are faulty if based on in-universe evidence alone, as the site claims. Most of the times it's "what I feel right now" or is based on off-camera comments. --Angrytarg (talk) 07:31, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

To be completely honest, when I saw that edit I did realize that the article might benefit from me doing a whole lot of research and then making changes accordingly (in particular, that cbs info seems like it is very interesting, but should be added to the background section only). But I didn't have the time, and it is a fact that info from secondary sources isn't allowed there, so I just trusted your summary when it said that problematic info had been added, removed it, and left it there.

Look, it's perfectly possible that the article as it was before wasn't quite right. That happens, it's in the very nature of a wiki that no article is ever finished and perfect. In fact, that issue around "military", that vaguely rings a bell to me, I think that might have come up before. (on the other hand, with cases like this is is also not unheard of for people to look at actual quotes from episodes and come away with a different explanation of what starfleet is about then they felt it was - and ultimately we're slaves to what was said). But one thing's for sure: information that's from another source then the episodes doesn't belong in that part of the article. Even if what was there before is wrong, it should be replaced by something else then what cbs said. So I removed the cbs info, and admittedly I could have done more after that, looked at everything and figured out what should be there - but the removal of the cbs info was absolutely the right thing to do, and I stand behind it. If you have a better understanding then me (and it seems that you might) about what should be there then by all means fix the paragraph, but it's going to have to be done without referring to cbs, because the way this place is set up only what's in the episodes and films is relevant, other sources are only discussed in background sections. -- Capricorn (talk) 12:50, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

Literature opposition[]

Just checking if you're still opposed to category suggestion in its current form. - Archduk3 04:31, May 25, 2017 (UTC)

Short answer: kinda yes. Long answer is now posted at the discussion. -- Capricorn (talk) 06:16, May 25, 2017 (UTC)

Calypso (captain's yacht - Enterprise-D) - rename to what?[]

The name of the captain's yacht attached to the USS Enterprise-D has been changed for the latest edition of the Star Trek Encyclopedia. In the background info to the entry on this ship type, the authors write, "The yacht on the Enterprise-D was apparently also named Cousteau, although we never saw it in use." (Star Trek Encyclopedia, 4th ed., vol. 1, p. 117) This presents a dilemma, as it might require a re-name. What should the page be re-named to? This site has Cousteau (shuttlecraft), Cousteau (shuttlepod), and Cousteau (yacht).--Memphis77 (talk) 22:45, June 5, 2017 (UTC)

I'm really the wrong person to ask, because that ship stuff isn't exactly a strong area for me. You should start a talk page discussion, in fact you have to, because renaming shouldn't be done without seeking a consensus. However, that aside I think you could do with explaining your rationalle more clearly. Where does that note come from, an article on the Calypso or Cousteau? Does the encyclopedia in fact still have both articles, Cousteau and Calypso? Etc etc. (don't answer here, just go straight to the talk page) -- Capricorn (talk) 18:12, June 6, 2017 (UTC)

Jeff Summers Page[]

My page you questioned has been fixed. The relevance of the page is that I am a contributing artist to the 2018 Star Trek Ships of the Line Calendar. --Jeff111458

Wow, you're actually the guy. Should have put that together myself. Thanks for fixing the issue, and respect for having contributed to this! -- Capricorn (talk) 19:06, July 6, 2017 (UTC)

Can you give your opinion on this discussion?[]

Talk:Pitcairn --NetSpiker (talk) 13:38, August 17, 2017 (UTC)

Reminder[]

When creating new Star Trek: Discovery articles, or adding content to existing MA articles from Star Trek: Discovery, please be sure to add the {{spoiler}} template to said article. Thanks. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 14:37, October 10, 2017 (UTC)

Am aware of this, just still not adjusted to the new normal. Will try to do better. -- Capricorn (talk) 21:25, October 10, 2017 (UTC)

I'll have to remind you of this again, just so that I am being fair to everyone else I've reminded lately. -Alan (talk) 03:28, February 14, 2019 (UTC)

Sorry -- Capricorn (talk) 14:06, February 14, 2019 (UTC)

Vulcan (star)[]

I disengaged from the conversation as I saw that you were closing doors to a solution. I witness you directing the conversation down a path which was only accepatable to you and excluding all other paths. I have come to believe that all paths must be open until a solution is found.

I believe that the artists who copied the map were honoring the work, and the reasoning behind that work, of Geoffrey Mandel. I was willing to entertain the idea of re-doing the pages to [Name] system, as someone pointed out, the labels were the names of systems. I was open to the probability of me misinterpreting the reasoning of Mandel and of looking at the subject in a new angle.

My flexibility in this matter ran into the inflexibility of your position. As you put it so bluntly and openly, But p. 96 of the Star Charts wasn't seen on screen, and in fact nothing in the Star Charts has been made canon by this, only the derived map as seen. Extra context provided only by the Star Charts shouldn't really figure in our logic., you demonstrated that for you there was only path. The extra context is not extra context - it is the context of the map. When a thing is copied, the essence of a thing is retained. The essence of the map is contained within the Key of Charts. It makes the map understandable. By raising your objection, you demonstrated that the path of keeping things as they are was not a available path. Your later responses to me and UncertainError proved that point. That left one path - the path you were advocating in the conversation.

So, why continue the discussion?--Memphis77 (talk) 06:36, October 31, 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't quite get that from your comments. Which leaves me in a sort of a danger zone because It was and is never my intention to come off as agressive to you as you perceive me to be - but I still think the legend seen in Star Charts shouldn't figure in the calculus, and you call this inflexibility but all I was ever interested in is enforcing the project guidelines - which happen to be inflexible in some aspects.

Talk pages aren't really about finding a compromise between what various people would personally prefer, ultimately the only consensus that can be is one that is consistent with the mission, which is to document what is on screen. (and yes, that typically means that of all paths discussed towards the end there's supposed to be only one left) There's a valid discussion to have about wheter it's fair to assume they're stars, and I was ready to have it, and I'm willing to be proven wrong even. But the place where you want to go it that simply isn't one I think the mission allows us to go - I wasn't so much trying to close a door as trying to keep a door that's by design always been closed from opening. And your disengaging sure has consequences beyond what you choose to edit, in that sense you have chosen to close a door yourself.

That being said, in the end this is still a project of people working together. So we'll have to find a way to split the distance between our two views regardless of the above, there's simply no other way. I feel I'm in the impossible position where I can't accept to just ignore issues that I see, but at the same time I really don't want to alienate you, so only pragmatism is going to help here. Time to answer your question, why continue the discussion? And I don't know. I wish the discussion had gone in a more productive direction, and I can't say I put all the blame on myself for that not happening, though I'll definatly take some. But it went the way it went, and ultimately there's no reversing that. So that's it, when you disengage I will as well, that's the only option this turn has left to me.

On the other hand, I dunno, in my ofline life I've lately been complaining that I need a vacation, and just maybe I'm starting to get ready for a little break from this place as well. I've sure been stressed with the influx of new users happily adding data without having much concept of how this project works differently from say Memory Gamma, and in light of a few recent things I'm not willing to discount the possibility that that has translated in me acting with less patience overall. If that's the case, or really even if it isn't, then sorry for contributing to the fact that you seem to be more stressed out as well.

Okay, that's all I wanted to say, disengaging in 3,...2,...1... ;) -- Capricorn (talk) 07:17, November 1, 2017 (UTC)

I was in such a rush to bring in the new information that I did not take the time to properly evaluate the information. I was a cat crazed by energy and excitement, running wild around the house. "Crazy Time", Simon's Cat

Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. - Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park.

I realized that I made mistakes. If I had a means of reversing time, I would go back and knock myself silly. I am deeply regretful that I wrote many of those pages. And, honestly, towards the end of this crazy fit, I began to think of you and I imagined how you would respond. You did not disappoint my expectations.

I saw a possible fix by using the original source material. However, even before I could suggest it, you were already opposed to it. I could not see a way forward and I did not want to get into the discussions that caused me so much consternation in the past. My intent here is to be a productive, not a disruptive, member of the community. I failed in the past. I do not intend to fail again.--Memphis77 (talk) 08:36, November 1, 2017 (UTC)

Georgiou's last name origin[]

I was wondering if maybe that note you added would be better on Greek language, rather than Greece. I didn't want to remove it from the latter without asking. --LauraCC (talk) 17:48, February 13, 2018 (UTC)

It's a matter of perspective, and I don't mind you changing it if you feel strongly about it - but my gut still says it fits best at Greece. The interesting fact ultimately isn't so much that Georgiou's name is also a word in Greek (bc is it even?), but that her name implies some sort of connection to the place where the name comes from. If it were her first name instead of her last one I'd might have felt differently.

Sorry for the late reply btw, somehow I missed this. -- Capricorn (talk) 07:27, February 18, 2018 (UTC)

Alpha/Beta Overview Map[]

A heads-up - you changed all images to the fan image. If the star chart has the word "Archanis" spelled "Archanel", it is the fan made star chart.--Memphis77 (talk) 22:49, February 26, 2018 (UTC)

Not quite. I made the edits as discussed, but Archduk3's bot did a run regarding the same image very shortly thereafter, resulting in a bit of a confusing situation. I'm on it though. -- Capricorn (talk) 23:07, February 26, 2018 (UTC)

FA review project[]

Hi Capricorn. I am currently in the process of going through the FA list with a view to bringing the article's statuses up to date as some of them haven't been looked at for over ten years and have changed quite significantly in that time. Consider it a little project of mine. As an established user, I was hoping I could ask you to keep an eye on the Memory Alpha:Featured article reviews page from time to time and perhaps weigh in on any discussions there to help speed up the review process? I'm not asking you to necessarily agree with anything I post there, just trying to encourage discussion on the subject. Thanks in advance. --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 17:15, March 27, 2018 (UTC)

The truth is that, like many editors I guess, there's parts of our mission I'm deeply invested in, and others that I've nothing against but don't really have an interest in - and unfortunately the FA's fall distinctly in the latter category. (in fact, I've mentioned this to you once or twice before ;)) And I don't even mean that in a "I can't be bothered" kind of way, it's just that copy-editing and writing pleasant to read text are not exactly my strongest points - I'm more about making sure all known facts are correctly presented even if it occasionally requires breaking open a perfectly nice paragraph as to jamm a square reference in a round hole in the context.

I wish the FA project all the best, but it's just not for me. -- Capricorn (talk) 01:14, March 30, 2018 (UTC)

Babel[]

In "Journey to Babel", it is stated that Babel was in the same sector as Vulcan.

We have departed Vulcan for the neutral planetoid code-named Babel. Since it is in our sector, the Enterprise has been assigned to transport ambassadors of Federation planets to this vitally important council.

When the log was made, the Enterprise is seen leaving Vulcan.

If I stated in the article for Babel that it was located in the Alpha Quadrant, would that be a stretch? And, if I located Babel in Sector 001, would that be another stretch?--Memphis77 (talk) 19:57, March 29, 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would indeed be a stretch, and should not be added except potentially as some kind of background note. Stating facts that were stated on screen obviously is ok, but putting two such facts together to to infer a third that was never stated is ill-advised. (also see policy regarding editor's own conclusions, synthesis, analysis or associations)

One reason why what you're doing here is a bad idea is that not all facts mentioned in Star Trek have been perfectly coordinated to be consistent with each other. Consider the following hypothetical situation: In episode A, Babel is said to be in the same sector as Vulcan. In episode B, Vulcan is said to be in sector 001. However, in episode C, Babel is said to be in Sector 004. Sadly situations like that do occasionally occur, because writers don't exactly work with some centrally distributed map lying next to their keyboard. But look at what problem that poses: if you were only aware of episodes A and B (as for all you know you might be), then if you'd allow synthesis you could say with some certainty that Vulcan and Babel were in Sector 001, whereas if you'd have seen A and C, you could say with equal authority that Vulcan and Babel were in sector 004. Reasoning like you're attempting can only really be depended on in a completely consistent system, and sadly while Trek is pretty consistent, it's too far from being completely so.

Also, I'm not completely convinced that the statement as you present it support Vulcan and Babel being in the same sector. All I can make out from it is that Babel is in a sector to which the Enteprise is assigned.

If there's anything in this answer that isn't clear of that you disagree with/think isn't right, feel free to express as much :) -- Capricorn (talk) 01:14, March 30, 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.--Memphis77 (talk) 01:38, March 30, 2018 (UTC)

Sainte Claire and 1944[]

In your edit to the Sainte Claire page, you wrote, that it was not stated the year was 1944. In the episode, Janeway's character says, "I'm the leader of the movement here and right now my opinion is the only one that counts, so get the oscillator. I think we're all feeling the strain. It's been a hard four years. But believe me, the Third Reich is feeling it too. We just have to hang on a little while longer. Word from the Americans is going to come any day." In the real world, France was invaded by the Germans in 1940 and, if we apply real world facts, this simulation would be set in 1944. However, this is a fictional setting. Do we apply real world facts to this situation and say it is 1944 in the simulation?--Memphis77 (talk) 00:31, April 7, 2018 (UTC)

When I said it wasn't stated it was 1944 I meant just that: it wasn't stated. Yes yes, I fully appreciate that there's a thousand reasons why it either has to be 1944 or history was dramatically different in the Star Trek universe (or at least the Hirogen got creative with the simulation), but I think that if the canon didn't specify it, it's just generally better that neither should we. We're just documenting a tv series after all, not our job to integrate it with world history. -- Capricorn (talk) 16:58, April 7, 2018 (UTC)

Fima colony[]

Regarding your note about Jessen, what were you trying to imply in the note by putting quote marks around "in"? --LauraCC (talk) 21:22, April 20, 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing it seemed an interesting nuance to note to me that they used "in" instead of "at" or "on" or something. To spell it out in waaaay to many words: "at" would be the most logical option for a traditional colony, which is a bunch of buildings and infrastructure situated at a planet. "On" makes sense if the colony is the planet name or conflated with it, as you are typically on a planet rather then in it. "In" makes sense for a city, but terms like "x colony" aren't typically city names. Colonies are generally described as settlements rather then cities, and while you are in a city, you are at a settlement. So that's why I thought the "in" is interesting: because it could mean something else then all the above-mentioned scenarios might be going on. (There are actually scenarios where "in" would make sense, like if it's space based or an arcology or geofront, but that would be speculating). Then again, look at the size of this paragraph. I might have been overdoing it with that note. -- Capricorn (talk) 19:47, April 22, 2018 (UTC)

Hypothetical[]

Vulcan is 16 light years from Earth. It is located in the Alpha Quadrant. There is a list of locations which are closer to Earth than Vulcan. Say, like, Alpha Centauri. Can we say on AC's page that this location is in the Alpha Quadrant?--Memphis77 (talk) 13:59, May 25, 2018 (UTC)

God no, That doesn't follow at all. Just because Earth and Vulcan are both in the Alpha Quadrant doesn't mean that everything within a circle of 16ly around Earth is. Specifically, if Earth is less then 16ly from the border then some locations closer then Vulcan will be beyond the border. Also what I said at User talk:Capricorn#Babel still stands I think. If you ask me, you should probably just generally leave this kind analysis to the map makers (our pour this energy in making one yourself, I'm sure it'd be good). -- Capricorn (talk) 15:12, May 25, 2018 (UTC)

I had to ask. FYI: There is this map from Discovery, seen in the "The War Without, The War Within", which shows the location of Earth relative to Vulcan. Sol (Earth) is in the upper left corner of the map and well within the Alpha Quadrant.--Memphis77 (talk) 16:40, May 25, 2018 (UTC)

Well there's still the issue that there's all kinds of maps and information that doesn't necessarily agree with the others. Picking one as a basis for reasoning out where everything goes will end up giving results that may directly contradict others. So it's better to stick with what can be seen directly on the map and stop there. I can't really read any label on that map except the sector and quadrant ones, incidently.

By the way, did you see the comment I left on your talk page? -- Capricorn (talk) 17:54, May 25, 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the message. I do not remember now why I thought it was Alpha Cygni. I remember correcting the page immediately after seeing your comment. Again, thanks.--Memphis77 (talk) 18:59, May 25, 2018 (UTC)

Okay, will research further then. -- Capricorn (talk) 20:10, May 25, 2018 (UTC)

Converting redirects to disambigs...[]

When doing this, please take the time to fix the incoming links so that they point to the appropriate place. Thanks. -- sulfur (talk) 15:17, July 17, 2018 (UTC)

Ashamed to say I never thought of that. This is not something I do a lot, but I'll do better in the future. -- Capricorn (talk) 12:02, July 19, 2018 (UTC)

No worries -- tied to that, new disambiguation pages need to be linked from the Disambig page listing too. :) -- sulfur (talk) 12:20, July 19, 2018 (UTC)

Update on Sector 2158 hot mess[]

Sector 2158 is referenced in the schematic for Baran's mercenary ship, as part of the heading: Starfleet Operations - Sector 2158. 2158 is followed by a dash and some numbers. Info is from "Gambit, Part I".--Memphis77 (talk) 13:02, August 16, 2018 (UTC)

I can't thank you enough for that bit of info! I was in the process of going through several episodes, edit histories, scripts, and more to figure out if it was time to put that page up for deletion. I owe you :) -- Capricorn (talk) 13:17, August 16, 2018 (UTC)

Vulcan mind meld v mind meld[]

... not the same thing. So please don't change those links from the former to the latter. -- sulfur (talk) 20:28, November 30, 2018 (UTC)

Re arches[]

Given the existence of Arch (anatomy) as well, might be better to make a disambig page. --LauraCC (talk) 17:53, January 17, 2019 (UTC)

Mikah confusion[]

Were you trying to replace one portion of text with the other here? --LauraCC (talk) 19:20, February 4, 2019 (UTC)

Yes something like that. That goof is an artifact from how I work when I rewrite a paragraph: I start writing the new one but keep the old one around. Then as I write I start transplanting useful bits from the old one like links, references, and good turns of phrase, also cutting bits that I've satisfactory handled in the new paragraph. That way I can be sure I didn't accidentally remove anything useful when I've "replaced" an old paragraph with my own version. In this case, I forget to remove the last bit left of the original paragraph when I was finished. Thanks for catching it, i fixed it now. -- Capricorn (talk) 05:52, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

Nitpicks[]

Whatever you think best. In most cases, I've been combining production inconsistencies that already existed on the pages with some notes of my own. Thanks! --DiceRoll1 (talk) 15:31, February 8, 2019 (UTC)DiceRoll1

Yeah the truth is many of these episode background sections are full of stuff that technically doesn't belong there, and they often go unnoticed for years, so I can hardly blame a new contributor for adding to that pattern. I hope this won't discourage you from editing though, the TAS pages are really underserved and you seem to know your stuff. -- Capricorn (talk) 19:45, February 8, 2019 (UTC)

Useful Idea[]

Granted my first idea about the tabbers was a bad idea (in hindsight), I do believe I have a useful idea. I mentioned it in the discussions section and one person (for now) seems to think it's a good idea. As you're probably aware there's a sidebar for governments, ship classes, etc. I propose one be made for agencies - like the Tal Shiar, Section 31, etc.

--Hawkeye Pierce (talk) 22:33, March 16, 2019 (UTC)

There's really no particular reason to lobby to me in person, and doubly so since sidebars aren't something I spend much time working on or thinking about. Best thing to do for you would be to put that proposal to the community, at Ten Forward. Never hurts to check in with other editors before starting to make changes to large amounts of pages, in case there's something you've overlooked.

You sure do seem to love bringing order to things ;) I bet there's some half-forgotten project hiding out somewhere that you'll turn out to be perfect for. -- Capricorn (talk) 10:14, March 18, 2019 (UTC)

I couldnt figure out how to add to Ten Forward - ar least from my phone. Ill do that though. As for bringing things to order, i just think things could be organized a bit better. Easier to search like you mentuomed in the tabbers forum. If someone wants to specifially read about the discoverys mission to terralysium they should just be able to xlick on that header.

--Hawkeye Pierce (talk) 10:19, March 18, 2019 (UTC)

Ships end up doing a lot of missions though. You can't expect a ship page to go into too much detail about every thing they did. I have been wondering if the whole red burst crisis couldn't do with a page of its own, similar to Xindi incident. It's also the kind of big project that probably could do with community imput, but that would be the perfect place to talk about Discovery's mission to terralysium. Or maybe there's a simpler approach; the Red burst page still has an awful lot of room for expansion.

And sorry, but I'm the wrong person to ask how to edit on a phone too, don't use the things. I've got a "create a new topic" button on the ten forward page, don't you on mobile? -- Capricorn (talk) 10:34, March 18, 2019 (UTC)

It probably wouldn't hurt to give the red burst its own page. That way on the corresponding pages (Discovery, the crew, spock, etc) we could give a brief blurb but include the link to the main article. As for the phone,i probably would but i use the the built in Samsung app, not chrome or firefox --Hawkeye Pierce (talk) 11:04, March 18, 2019 (UTC)

Section 31[]

I was going to fix that mistake when i was at a computer. Going back to our previous conversation im doing this on my phone and gave up trying to copy/paste.

Guess the lesson here is don't edit on the phone.

---

Red Burst page[]

I have a day off tomorrow so i can work on turning the red burst page into a page about the incident as a whole. That is if you still think its a good idea.--Hawkeye Pierce (talk) 17:30, March 18, 2019 (UTC)

I see no problem with that. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:51, March 18, 2019 (UTC)

thinking of renaming the page "Red Burst Incident" or something along those lines. Along those lines is there any canonical reference to how long after the war the bursts appeared? --Hawkeye Pierce (talk) 17:55, March 18, 2019 (UTC)

That's not really what I had in mind. For starters, The red burst are in themselves a noteworthy concept, so any "Red Burst Incident" page would have to exist besides the red burst article, not replace it. If you do create that page, be sure to be very careful to look at other similar pages as examples for formatting etc, so your relative inexperience doesn't cause large amounts of work for someone else. Also instead of improvising the title "Red Burst Incident" you might want to go to the episodes to see if there's ever anything said that could pass as a more supported name of the crisis. We're big on canon that way, that's why we have the alternate reality instead of the Kelvin timeline, because a throwaway comment by Uhura trumps a name that was never on screen.

But I was thinking more in terms of growing the red burst article itself: there's no reason that page could not support a detailed look at where and when bursts appeared and what consequences that had, including a complete timeline of Starfleet's reaction. (the bursts are even conveniently numbered in on-screen graphics)

I'm not aware of any concrete evidence about how long the bursts happened after the end of the war, and I sure looked for it. But it's presumably soon since they happen when Discovery leaves Earth, and the visit to Earth seems to fairly directly follow the war's end. In any case, it would have to be less then the 10 months 11 days that Reno was stranded. -- Capricorn (talk) 18:32, March 18, 2019 (UTC)

i will leave the title alone for now and just expand the page.

As for the timeline, i thought DS9 was bad with stardates but discovery is even worse. It would real nice to have a concise length of time. --Hawkeye Pierce (talk) 20:04, March 18, 2019 (UTC)

I started the edit of the page, take a look when you get a chance. I was wondering if perhaps it should have sections for everything that occurred during the investigation so far - encountering the sphere, rescuing tilly, searching for Spock, etc. --Hawkeye Pierce (talk) 14:17, March 19, 2019 (UTC)

That looks pretty good. Note though that linking to starships should be done with a template, so don't do this:

[[USS Discovery|''USS Discovery'']]

but this:

{{USS|Discovery}}

Also, while we're at technical stuff: when communicating on talk pages like you and me are doing right here, we have an indenting system that I gather is a bit different from how other wiki's tend to do it. Basically, the first person to start a conversation does't indent, the second one to enter it uses one ":", the third two "::", etc. But here's the crucial bit: once you entered the conversation, you should always keep using the same indentation. This system works well for us because there usually aren't that many participants in a conversation, and this makes it easy to distinguish them. So in this particular conversation, you started it so you should not use indents anywhere, while I will always keep using a single ":"

Lastly, I don't think info on the sphere, rescuing Tilly, etc, is appropriate to the red burst page, and neither would it be appropriate to the hypothetical "red burst incident" page, because pages need to offer info on their assigned subject specifically, and those two things aren't, really. Unless the series starts tying stuff together, those are just things essentially unrelated to the red bursts that happened concurrently.

What you're proposing to write there is effectively a general summary of the season. We do have those at pages for seasons, like for example this, but I see that the DIS Season 2 one isn't written yet, and really maybe it would be smarter to wait until the season is finished to do so. (not that I really know how and by who those are usually done) -- Capricorn (talk) 21:56, March 19, 2019 (UTC)

I'm considering changing the headers to First Burst: Interstellar Asteroid, Second Burst: Terralysium, etc. What do you think? As for the Tilly and sphere bit's i'll keep that out. I was just going off the format for the Xindi incident page, where there was a section called search for the weapon that had bits about the Loque'eque, encountering the Osaarians, etc. --Hawkeye Pierce (talk) 22:09, March 19, 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking about something like that myself, except I'd call the asteroid "Signal one", Terralysium "Signal two", and Kaminar "Signal three", because they keep getting labeled like that on display graphics. (most recently as Spock examines the data in Project Daedalus, previously in Sound of Thunder, iirc) Also, you're still not getting indentation right. Take a look at the help page, it probably explains it a lot clearer then I did. -- Capricorn (talk) 22:20, March 19, 2019 (UTC)

I'll work on the indenting. BTW - how would one go about improving the search for images? The current keywords to find a specific image suck. --Hawkeye Pierce (talk) 22:26, March 19, 2019 (UTC)

You're still not doing the indenting right though. You used two colons there whereas the correct amount was zero. Is there something specifically that you don't understand about the guideline?

Regarding image search, I'm not sure what you mean by "keywords", but 1) it is a fact of life that wikia's search sucks, 2) I find categories to be the way to go to find images, they are categorized by a wide set of characteristics, like by species and ship type, by all kinds of subjects or characteristics, and (by far the most useful one since you already should know what you're citing), by episode. 3) as to how to go about improving the search for images in a more general way, I have no idea and you might need to go badger someone more involved in maintaining the tech with that. -- Capricorn (talk) 23:05, March 19, 2019 (UTC)

I'll post about it on the forum. for now I'm just going to find pages to expand upon--Hawkeye Pierce (talk) 23:13, March 19, 2019 (UTC)

And learn how to correctly indent, I would hope. -- Capricorn (talk) 23:16, March 19, 2019 (UTC)

no promises --Hawkeye Pierce (talk) 23:18, March 19, 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, well, as long as you realize that as a general rule of social behavior, communities of people tend not to put too much stock in remarks made by people who look like they're barely familiar with the community they're talking about... -- Capricorn (talk) 23:43, March 19, 2019 (UTC)

ill get the hang out of it--Hawkeye Pierce (talk) 23:49, March 19, 2019 (UTC)

And yet you don't. -- Capricorn (talk) 13:59, March 20, 2019 (UTC)

Red Burst[]

Have an idea for the page. What if it's renamed Red Burst Investigation. That way it can be both about the bursts themselves and the investigation into them. --Hawkeye Pierce (talk) 14:26, March 29, 2019 (UTC)

These are both points that I felt I've brought up before, but: 1) it seems to me that there does clearly need to be a page for the red bursts themselves, as that's a distinct and important subject, and 2) there's no particular reason to come ask me specifically about this. Maybe your early experiences have gotten you the wrong idea, but while people might be a bit short at times due to the influx of newbies a new season brings this isn't quite a place of gatekeepers, petty kings and clientism. A rename suggestion is something that needs to be brought up on a page's talk page, which triggers a 7-10 days commenting period during which consensus is sought. Unless the rename is completely obvious (typo's, style guidelines, etc) you're going to have a bad time not going through that process, and no advice I could give is gonna change that.

On an utterly unrelated note, since you seem to be into M*A*S*H to some extent, did you know about this? :) -- Capricorn (talk) 22:09, March 29, 2019 (UTC)

I know we discussed it earlier - but in light of last night's episode i felt the discussion should be started again. I'll start a discussion about it. As for MASH - I'm a huge fan, first 7 seasons on DVD; love the show. --Hawkeye Pierce (talk) 22:15, March 29, 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, I haven't seen the most recent ep yet. That'll be something for the weekend, most likely. -- Capricorn (talk) 22:17, March 29, 2019 (UTC)

It was good!!

side note - told you i'd get the indent right. --Hawkeye Pierce (talk) 22:22, March 29, 2019 (UTC)

Yeah you sure seem to have read that guideline -- Capricorn (talk) 08:26, March 31, 2019 (UTC)

Red Angel[]

Could you please look into the discussion on Talk: Red Angel? I 'm not caught up on DIS and therefore am not the right person to look into doing what is suggested there in terms of separating the character from the role.. as Archduk3 suggested.. which I believe is the best course of action, and I think you the most capable one here to do such a rewrite/split. --Alan (talk) 02:30, April 30, 2019 (UTC)

The merge and split ideas are pretty much moot in my view; as of the end of the season we know the thing Starfleet studied and called the Red Angel was two people in two suits pursuing two different agendas - and all this only became clear by the very end, so I think there is a red angel as a "phenomenon" worthy of a page. The article could do with a rewrite to make it more coherent, and that's on my to do list. And also while I haven't properly organized my thoughts on it but I still suspect "red angel suit" is an article worth having, but there's so little info on the suit yet on the article that I doubt a split would be the best way to go for that. So to conclude: in my opinion the split template can safely be removed, there are no issues left that require an admin's attention.

Sorry it took me so long to reply. My time available for being active here tends to come in bursts these days. I'll try to do some work on the article in the weekend. -- Capricorn (talk) 18:23, May 2, 2019 (UTC)

Citations in "Federation history"[]

You had posted a comment to my User:Talk page about my (lack of) citations for my contributions to the "Federation history" article. I have a response, but I think it may be better to discuss this at the Talk: page for "Federation history", so I have posted a reply there.

Syrrok (talk) 05:55, August 15, 2019 (UTC)

Paige Brooks[]

Please contact us directly at Info@PaigeBrooks.com for further confirmation regarding the removal of the incorrect Paige Brooks Memory Alpha page. We would like to have the opportunity to address your concerns directly and via an avenue that you will know is legitimate. We look forward to hearing from you so we may get the deletion process wrapped up. Thank you! Info19 (talk) 03:58, December 15, 2019 (UTC)

I think I've said about all I've got to say about the subject on the deletion page. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:13, December 15, 2019 (UTC)

Krada[]

Treaty of Armens[]

Thanks for your edit on Federation history. While we do not know when exactly the treaty was signed, it had to be before or in 2255, when the Federation-Sheliak radio silence commenced. Therefore I think the section was OK and accurate the way I wrote it. What are your thoughts? --36ophiuchi (talk) 16:58, January 14, 2020 (UTC)

We don't know that there were ever tensions with the Sheliak, nor that the last contact in 2255 signified anything significant, let alone some kind of crisis. Just because there was a tense situation in 2366 doesn't mean there was ever anything in need of smoothing out in the past (beyond them being extremely pedantic that is). So there's nothing justifying listing the Sheliak as one of the species the UFP had tensions with in the 23rd century.

Furthermore, I thought the specific way things were worded might lead people to assume that the treaty of Armens was signed in 2255. And since that has been erroneously claimed in the past, I was eager to nip that stuff in the bud. -- Capricorn (talk) 10:40, January 15, 2020 (UTC)

The Tragic Sense of Life[]

I was the creator of that page. I did research into the work and found it being described as an essay by Wikipedia and other sites, like Spainisculture.com [14].

Book - A collection of sheets of paper bound together to hinge at one edge, containing printed or written material, pictures, etc. [15]

Essay - A written composition of moderate length, exploring a particular issue or subject. [16]

I did not know how to include this in the page, as I am not the "best evah" writer. During his conversation with Picard, after being told he was Starfleet to the core, Rios replied, "That's just my tragic sense of life". Maybe you can find a way to include it on that page. --Memphis77 (talk) 00:13, February 8, 2020 (UTC)

I'm not denying that it's an essay. However since the episode did not confirm that it was an essay but did visually demonstrate that it was in book-form, I thought that out of those two possible words to describe it that was the one preferable. I suppose that's a pretty subtle point, but I do tend to think that way when looking at wording. That being said, this was hardly an edit that I had strong feelings about, so if you do, make whatever changes you want, up to changing it back. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:42, February 10, 2020 (UTC)

spoilers[]

You do realize that every edit summary that you announce stuff like "another page becomes inaccessible to those who are not up to date with ST:Picard and don't want to see spoilers" or "rnz collapsed after the evacuation ended, not after the supernova. Also, Spoiler warning!!!" is essentially doing the same thing you are supposedly trying to prevent. No one would know what was in PIC if PIC references weren't constantly being blabbed about in trivial edit summary points or otherwise on almost every single edit you make. --Alan (talk) 22:06, February 21, 2020 (UTC)

I don't really see the difference between learning that a page contains spoilers because you gaze upon an edit summary versus browsing to a page and seeing a warning on the top of the page. The RNZ criticism I understand better, I guess I'll need to try to be more vague in explaining why I made an edit. There's some more things I'm tempted to say on this topic, but it's late here, so nevermind that and ok, I'll cease that whole thing if it's that much of an issue. -- Capricorn (talk) 23:18, February 21, 2020 (UTC)