Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Badbilltucker2 (talk | contribs) at 13:45, 24 October 2006 (→Project Directory: - sorry). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hey yall

Can anyone verify the source of this explanation for telepathy within the framework of star trek? Please cite episode/movie or canon publication.Carterhawk 06:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard or seen any of that before. I think it might be invented. RayaruB 13:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I just want to make Memory Alpha more apparent

I posted this at the top and not in reponse to the other section becuase I think that this comment is so imperitive to this project. This Wikiproject should sirously merge with Memory Alpha. Memory Alpha, has more detail on Trek than any site on the Web, even StarTrek.com (the offical site) MA is also a wiki. I have been working on MA for a while. the people are quite nice. I think the MA administrators would be happy to do some kind of shairng of content, or merge. It is completely pointless to make thousands of duplicate articles about the same thing with the same prupose. Why work on them sepratly. If the 2 sites merge. both will be near completed. I think the administators of this Wikiproject should seirously consider this proposal. Tobyk777 04:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

There are plenty of editors that don't want the level of "fandom" on MA to be on WP so it will never merge that way. I don't want ST content gone from WP to merge with MA. So I don't see merging happening either way. Cburnett 04:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Cburnett. Plus, I'm not even clear whatcha mean by "merge" -- just a massive copy and paste from MA to Wiki? Vice versa? Eh. And, as a teacher who's at this ungodly hour right now working on a mini-lesson on how to conduct good online research, I'll point out that having multiple sources of information with different sets of eyes looking at the material is a good thing. (Granted, Star Trek stuff isn't something along the lines of, say, genetic disease or global warmiing with wildly different viewpoints.) --EEMeltonIV 04:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

And to fulfill my role as "annoying" ;^) I will point out the Memory Alpha is an "in the universe" site and Misplaced Pages demands an "out of the universe" style. So "copy/paste" or mirroring MA articles to Wiki will not do (although a lot of the Wiki articles appear to have been created just that way). They need to be completely re-written to change their "tense" and emphasis.

Episode infoboxes

I created an infobox on the Spock's Brain and was hoping for a standard that could be applied to all Star Trek episode pages. Thoughts?--StAkAr Karnak 02:22, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm very impressed. Could we perhaps combine the "Previous episode | Link to episode list | Next Episode" thing that's used on TNG pages? Acegikmo1 00:36, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I encourage tweaking of this format. That said, I'd like to get the format set here (or some other appropriate place) before it is used on a wide scale.

Lastly, I'd like to suggest that pages be linked & listed in chronological order instead or airdate order. It was very frustrating to watch the TOS DVDs in order and have to keep swapping discs.--StAkAr Karnak 02:06, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've added an episode navigation row to the end. Of course, the whole thing should be a template, with 10 parameters. Dbenbenn 00:21, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dbenbenn just contacted me about emplementing infoboxes. I can do it rather quickly, however, I only would do it for TNG (maybe TOS if you really ask me nice) and the box as is won't do. It doesn't mention the season that the epsisode was in and I think the season number would be useful to people who are not trek inclined. The box also doesn't have a spot for the writer of screen play (aka Teleplay). I will add it to my newly done The Battle and work off that as the constant form for all other episode summaries. I also think the bottom switching between episodes should be a separate thing, see the above The Battle. --metta, The Sunborn ☥ 11:26, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You may want to use the template I introduced. --Cool Cat 06:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Template:Star Trek:Episode Infobox

Kahn or Khan?

What's the correct spelling? -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The name of the second film was Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.--StAkAr Karnak 02:59, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Memory Alpha

I don't know whether you guys have already seen Memory Alpha, but it seams to me that adding the same info twice to two different wiki's is a bit superfluous. -- Redge(Talk) 16:19, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See Memory Alpha. Unfortunately, because Misplaced Pages uses the GFDL and the GFDL is currently not compatible with anything else, we can't share content between the two sites. Some subjects are covered in much greater detail on one site than the other, and other subjects are covered better on the opposite site. It's a bit of a mess. When I read a Misplaced Pages article where there is substantial content in the corresponding article at Memory Alpha, I often use the {{memoryalpha}} or {{memoryalpha article}} templates to add a link from here to there under external links. ~leif ☺ _HELO 23:15, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out that whatever you author you can put on both sites. Neither the CC nor GFDL are exclusive licenses and so what you author for one site is still free for you to relicense on the other site. I've done it for Shadows of P'Jem (Enterprise episode) and http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/index.php/Shadows_of_P'Jem. Cburnett 21:18, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

simple idea, just have similar articles link to each other. could even incorperate this into the infoboxs. would require co-operation with the memory alpha guys, but ist that what the spirt of start trek is all about? 3:59 29 may 2006

Rationale for what's canon?

Although it is touched upon in the article, I wonder if there shouldn't be a more detailed introduction explaining why some things are canon and some things aren't, even if it slightly duplicates information later in the article. I've found myself in a few minor "revert skirmishes" with folks who are either unaware or unwilling to accept that a novel or TAS isn't canon (for example, recent edits to the Captain Kirk article regarding whether he was the second captain, after Pike, or the third, after April). I've taken to including a link to this page in the Edit Summaries, but I think having a strong introduction explaining the difference between canon and non-canon might be helpful. Thoughts? 23skidoo 16:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A work is canon if it is declared as such by an Official source. Paramount has the final say on the 'real' Star Trek universe. We might reason that canon material is much more likely to be referred to in new episodes than fanon, which holds no 'official' weight.

I'd say that semi-canon material holds some weight, because some of it has crept into canon over the years.

I was just watching an interview with Nichelle Nichols on the Season 2 DVDs where she explicitly says that she and Gene Roddenberry agreed that Uhura's first name is "Nyota". Has this ever been said/seen onscreen? No, but out of respect for the creator of the franchise and the actor who played the character in question, I tend to accept that particular tidbit as fact.

The same might be said for behind-the-scenes aliens in the films. With all the time the art department poured into their creations, if they came up with names and backstories, they should at least be considered.

Defining canonicity might go smoother if we could include quotes from Official sources.

--StAkAr Karnak 00:22, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jerry Goldsmith

Just want to let you know that the Jerry Goldsmith needs some improvement. -- AllyUnion (talk) 20:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Character infoboxes

Template:ST Character Just found this box on Dukat's page. Thought it might be a nice thing to adopt for other characters. Does it need tweaking first? I think it might be too wide and the area with the character's name is too dark.--StAkAr Karnak 05:27, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think should be temlated as well... --Cool Cat 06:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The color on the namebox indicates affiliation so it's different for separate characters. This infobox has already been adopted for the following characters:

• The Doctor (Star Trek)
• Worf
• Kathryn Janeway
• Tom Paris
• Q (Star Trek)
• Beverly Crusher
• Leonard McCoy
• Deanna Troi
• Geordi La Forge
• Hoshi Sato
• James T. Kirk
• Jean-Luc Picard
• Data (Star Trek)
• William Riker
• Mr. Spock
• Reginald Barclay
• Seven of Nine
• Jonathan Archer
• Uhura
• Pavel Chekov
• Benjamin Sisko
• Weyoun
• Dukat
• Noonien Soong
• T'Pol
• Kira Nerys
• Hikaru Sulu
• Crewman Daniels
• Montgomery Scott
• Trip Tucker
• Lore (Star Trek)
• Seska
• Shran
• Arik Soong

Similar infoboxes are in use for Star Wars, Harry Potter and M*A*S*H characters.

Can someone update this? --Cool Cat 16:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Naming convention

I'd like to see a naming convention adopted. Such as:

• Episode names: "TITLE (TLA episode)" where TLA is:
  • "TOS" for The Original Series
  • "TAS" for The Animated Series
  • "P2" for Phase II, but I don't expect each episode to get its own article since it was never produced...
  • "TNG" for The Next Generation
  • "DS9" for Deep Space Nine
  • "VOY" for Voyager
  • "ENT" for Enterprise
• Any other article disambiguated with "TITLE (Star Trek)"

Comments? Cburnett 00:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nearly two days later and no comments, so I moved all the ST:ENT episodes to "TITLE (ENT episode)". I removed all double redirects and will remove redirect usage later tonight after my meetings. Cburnett 21:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, *you're* the one... You neglected to search for and fix all *links* to those episodes, with the result that they've all broken. Oddly, I'd thought it was more recently than a month and a half back; apparently I'd been busier than I thought. I concur with your suggested convention... but let's be clean about it?
--67.79.128.240 03:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining by "they've all broken"? Some examples would do fine. Cburnett 20:47, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

The TOS, TAS, TNG and DS9 abbreviations are fine as each letter stands for something. However, VOY and ENT do not stand for anything, so they should be expanded to Voyager and Enterprise respecively, for example Caretaker (Voyager episode). It both reads a lot better and makes more sense than Caretaker (VOY episode), especially to non-Star Trek fans. You will notice that on List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes, all episode links point to ... (Voyager episode). I would like to see the same for Enterprise, i.e. ... (Enterprise episode). It will require some effort as there are a lot of links to update, but I do think it is worth it. Of course, they don't all have to be done at once. I think it would be best to do one episode at a time, using move to retain the page's history then fixing all redirects. I have started the ball rolling by doing Broken Bow (Enterprise episode), which I would expect had the most links to fix, being the pilot. Marky1981 09:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Episode naming conventions have been updated as follows:

• Voyager epsiodes are now "TITLE (Voyager episode)"
• Enterprise episodes are now "TITLE (Enterprise episode)"

where TITLE is the episode name! TNG and DS9 ones remain unchanged. Marky1981 23:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought it had already been decided that the article titles would only have "(TNG episode)" and so on if there was a chance of confusion with something else. There's never going to be an article on an "Encounter at Farpoint" that's unrelated to the episode. The disambiguation is only necessary when the title in question is ambiguous. -Branddobbe 18:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

And this "(TLA episode)" is necessary because...? --Memory 23:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Why not? Any convention is necessary for organisation and consistency. Previously, many of the articles might have had any of "...(Star Trek)", "...(TOS episode)", variation, or nothing ... particularly odd in cases of disambiguation (e.g., Obsession (disambiguation)) or for many articles that have yet to be created in this non-ST wiki. This may be fine at Memory Alpha, devoted to ST, but not here. With all the original episodes, this is something I recently rectified, redirects currently notwithstanding. Frankly, whether "...(ENT episode)" or "...(Enterprise episode)" is the standard – I prefer the former, but Wikipedians have chosen the latter – only one should be upheld in Wp. E Pluribus Anthony 02:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but one of the principles of WP is "keep it simple", and that is not really the case here. As for disambig. it's the proper way but if there are no other articles with this name it makes the whole linking unnecessary complicated. Furthermore a lot of the now moved pages are linked at via the redirect - what happens if someone really makes this a disambig-page? Do you have a bot to change this? --Memory 22:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I beg to differ about KISS here: there are dual issues of simplicity and organisation/consistency that (by not doing anything) actually complicates the issue. With a hodgepodge, Wikipedians do not know what standard to conform to when editing or adding articles: I found this out when editing numerous articles, only to be stumped by not knowing what ep title ref to enter. Similarly, many articles for the newer series have yet to be created. And note that I just moved the TOS episodes (which were inconsistently named, disambig or not) to conform with the conventions already in place (and not wholly by my hand) for TNG, DS9, and (much of) VOY, and ENT ... so it's nothing new.

I'm rectifying the redirects (within Wp, with the Memory Alpha articles, etc.) as I come across them and encourage others to do so ... pesky, I know. If only both wikis could be configured so that a user here could edit the MA ST article, and v.v. To facilitate matters, perhaps a similar tagging system {{}} used to link to Memory Alpha articles or for country data would do so here for ep names? There's no bot as of yet, but we can still address the challenges as they arise. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 23:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hm. Memory Alpha is only affected in context of the MA links which have to be changed after the move. I don't think that this "convention" (necessary because...?) makes sense for the WP (a precedent for this anywhere here?). Most eps have titles that will never collide with any other article. So this convention seems to be just redundant. Why not cancel? --Memory 19:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Why? I beg to differ for reasons already stated. Before my arrival, standards were devised and implemented for the naming of Star Trek articles in Wp (for various reasons); my recent actions merely brought the TOS episodes in line with the others. What Memory Alpha does is irrelevant in this generic wiki. And who's to determine if an article title may or may not collide with a non-fictional term: e.g., "Ex post facto"? And how about caps in titles, which are often neither here nor there? A simple solution: forego any ambiguity and name them all in a similar fashion and based on canon or semi-canon sources ... as per the guidelines arrived at. Given the number and variety of ST eps, I'm unsure if there are similar precedents in Wp (and perhaps the current instance can be precedent-setting) ... but nothing stated in this recent discussion has compelled me to forego the convention and guidelines. Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony 23:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've finally finished moving all "... (ENT episode)" articles to "... (Enterprise episode)", and fixed all the (non-user page) links! Glad that's over with! Marky1981 20:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Here, here! As you can see, I moved all the TOS articles recently – the prior confused state was problematic – and you can also see that an MA pusher (methinks) desired that state despite everything therein. The (TOS) moves have produced many redirects (which I see you've been rectifying, M81), but I'm sure we can work through those. Ah well, onto other matters ... thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 20:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Style/format

In articles, initial in-text references to episodes should appear wikified as follows: (TLA: "Title") — e.g., (TNG: "Datalore")

Good idea in principle, so if there is an article discussing episodes from multiple series, the TLA tells the reader which series it is. I would like to make a couple of suggestions though, to be consistent with List of Star Trek characters:

• Put the episode title first as the episode in question is more important than the series, with the TLA in brackets afterwards, e.g. Datalore (TNG)
• Keep the TLA format for movies for consistency and better lining up if they are in columns: TMP, WOK, SFS, TVH, TFF, TUC, GEN, FCT, INS, NEM. I would ditch the alternative (i.e. ST I, ST II, ..., ST X) as it may cause confusion - unless we are making a point about the order of movies.

Marky1981 10:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

This is related to prior comments by B and M1981, et al.

Greetings! I hope you're well. I believe there are two points that require clarity:

• article names for episodes: the current proposal/agreement is acceptable (unwikified, etc.); no argument here! IMHO, the series should always be indicated, since there is always a possibility of ambiguity or confusion with a ST or non-ST reference and – as well – for consistency.
• in-text references to episodes, films, etc.: I found that there isn't any apparent consistency in Wp for in-text references in articles for episodes, movies, et al.

I'd prefer to keep the series TLA/E first in-text, since this allows for multiple listings of episdoes on related topics and allows a reader to frame things in a proper context, where appropriate; otherwise (if after), a reference may be replete with commas and be ambiguous.

e.g., Borg: (TNG: "Q Who?, "The Best of Both Worlds", et al.; VOY: "Unity", "Scorpion"; ST:FC)

I'd go with your suggestion about the TLA/Es and alt numbers (emphasis on TLAs): Europeans may be more familiar with the numbers. As well, they should all ideally be

ST:TOS > ST:N(EM)

OR

TOS > N(EM)

Which? Remember: what will be clear to visitors?

A 'bipolar' suggestion: I prefer the latter for eps, but the former for movies (as in above Borg example). Why? Well, the ep TLAs are initialisms; the movie TLAs are initialisms or abbreviations (e.g., Nemesis). All should be three (consistent) characters or more for clarity, in any event.

• Lastly, similarly, I propose general references to the francise/universe should merely appear Star Trek, not Star Trek; the latter may cause confusion to novices, et al. who think that it refers to the original series specifically. Italics should be reserved for series names and movies. (Perhaps this can be a precedent for other franchises in Wp (e.g., Star Wars), too?)

Comments? Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 19:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I still would prefer to see the in-text episode name TLAs in parentheses after the episode name, as it is the episode name that is the most important, not the series. I would say "Q first appears in Encounter at Farpoint (TNG)." is easier to read and flows better than "Q first appears in TNG: Encounter at Farpoint." The latter puts too much emphasis on the TNG! How to use the TLAs depends on the context. E.g.

• When talking about a particular series, miss them out, e.g. "In Star Trek: The Next Generation, Q appears in Encounter at Farpoint, Hide and Q, ... and All Good Things...."
• When mentioning multiple series, the TLAs may be necessary, e.g. "Q has appeared in episodes of different series, e.g. Encounter at Farpoint (TNG), Q-Less (DS9) and Death Wish (VOY)."
• However, if we have a list of episodes, some of which are from the same series (in a row, not broken up by article text), group them by series and separate with semicolons, e.g. "Q has appeared in many episodes: Encounter at Farpoint, Hide and Q, ..., All Good Things... (TNG); Q-Less (DS9); Death Wish, The Q and the Grey and Q2 (VOY)."

Marky1981 23:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey there! Thanks for the feedback. I hear you; however, I feel the series is often more important than the episodes and it is indeed a matter of context; what's good for the goose may not be for the gander. To that end ...

How about this (and hopefully we're not splitting too many hairs):

• when listing episodes (in parentheses): TLA/Es precede the episode name (as I suggest):

e.g., – The Borg are demonstrably relentless (TNG: "Q Who?, "The Best of Both Worlds", et al.; VOY: "Unity", "Scorpion"; ST:FC).

• when describing episodes (in text): TLA/Es follow the episode, or are substituted by text appropriately (as you suggest):

e.g., – Q has appeared in many episodes in various series: for example, "Encounter at Farpoint", " Hide and Q", ..., "All Good Things..." (TNG); "Q-Less" (DS9); "Death Wish", "The Q and the Grey" and "Q2" (VOY).

This should work.

As well, series/movies (and their TLA/Es) should be italicised, while episode titles should always appear within "quotation marks".

Additional thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony 01:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! What do others feel? (P.S. What does the E mean in TLA/Es?!) Marky1981 09:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Great! Oh: TLA/E stands for three-letter abbreviation/extended, since some of them can be more than three letters (e.g., TWOK (or ST2:TWOK or ST II)). E Pluribus Anthony 09:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Things to do as a project

Just thought I'd list some things that I think could be done. Feel free to add/edit/whatever. Cburnett 04:37, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

List:

• Screenshots and plot overviews for:
  • List of Star Trek: TNG episodes
  • List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes
  • List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes
  • List of Star Trek: TOS episodes
  • List of Star Trek: DS9 episodes
• Rename episodes to use the "TITLE (TLA episode)" convention (see project page)
• Fleshing out stub articles: Category:Star Trek stubs
• Creating new episode stubs: Category:Star Trek episode stubs
• Episodes should have the summary box (see Broken Bow (Enterprise episode))
• Fleshing out existing episode stub articles: Category:Star Trek episode stubs
• List of Star Trek races is incomplete
• Chronological list of Star Trek stories could use some major work
• Characters:
  • Apply table #1 (see under section A) at List of Star Trek characters to whole article
  • Not all characters (Category:Star Trek characters) have the character box (see above)
• Insignias
  • I (Cool Cat ) already helped creating Ranks and insignia of Starfleet
  • Comperative Ranks and Insignia of Star Trek
  • Notify me in my talk page. Or in the articles.

Comparative Ranks and Insignia of Star Trek

Everyone, as much as I appreciate the work of Coolcat, I would like to bring up the article Comparative Ranks and Insignia of Star Trek. On first glance, it looks pretty neat, but I fear it borders heavily on the rule of "No original research". I say this since *most* of the ranks listed on that page (in particular Klingon, Gorn, and Cardassian rank) are pure fan conjecture and have never been mentioned in any offical Star Trek publication and have never appeared in a live action production. Indeed, the Klingon ranks appearing in films and TV are actually always spoken of in English (Commander, General, etc) and I cant think of one time an actor has actually spoken of military ranks in Klingon.

My whole point is that as much work as Coolcat did, it looks like the user simply created a fan page with hypothetical Star Trek ranks. There are no sources listed in the article and, to be honest, the images are very suspect and might have been copied off of various Star Trek fan club webpages leaving the door open to copyvio problems (but I wont go there).

I ask for opinions. If this article is not based on any source documentation then a VFD tag is warranted. Hate to a be a jerk, but thats just the way it would have to be. -Husnock 03:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that most Klingon ranks are not mentioned, some can be verified by using translations into Klingon. For example, the translation of "Captain" into Klingon is HoD. For that purpose, The Klingon Dictionary could be referenced.

I agree that the Gorn ranks are pure conjecture, as well as the Cardassian ranks. The Bajoran and Romulan ranks are tentative at best—at the very least, sources should be provided. Ben Babcock 04:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The creator of the article in question pretty much admited on my talk page that the information for this article was copied off a webpage at . I looked at this page and it is a pure fan site, unconnected the producers of the Star Trek series. With that said, the entire article is pretty much conjecture and should be deleted. I will not put up the VFD tag until getting more comments. -Husnock 05:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The page is necesary. You are welcome to correct inacuracies. You are likely to have better sources than I do. --Cool Cat 05:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

We can keep the confirmed ranks... the ones we have seen... -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

New Star Trek/Memory Alpha "template"

I have an issue with the new Memory Alpha template that is starting to turn up at the head of certain articles, such as Gorn. Aside from the fact it looks like a call for deletion at first glance I wonder if this thing is gonna turn up at the top of every Trek article now. Personally I like having a one-stop shop for these articles. I have no interest in dealing with another website -- otherwise I wouldn't be adding anything to Misplaced Pages. I considered reverting the addition but figured there is probably a rule against it. Thoughts? I don't recall seeing any call for consensus on having this added to these articles. 23skidoo 04:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

First of all, it's not a real template like the MA template, it's only a suggestion for contributors that not every little fact from the ST universe has to get an own article here if we have a specialized Wiki for this (the Memory Alpha). So I adapted the German WP template, also as hint on the fictional character of the content. I don't want to expand it on all Trek articles, only on the smaller ones (like Trilithium) that contain terms which have no "mainstream character" like Borg, James T. Kirk (or, as comparison to other franchises, R2D2 or Saruman, which are well known outside of the fan world) and so on. This shall also prevent contributors from creating small Trek articles which could easily come into a deletion discussion as "superfluous" or "too specific" - what makes the work of the contributors futile (that can't happen at the MA). (see also: Talk) --Memory 20:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I also disagree with the template at the top. I don't care if MA is an open wiki, it's advertisement. I know there's a debate on TFD for the memory alpha template and I don't want to rehash it here. Putting a link to another site at the top of articles is link spamming.

I'm not entirely aware of the WP vs. MA history, but it will always be a struggle of where to post content with incompatible licenses (so no copy/pasting back and forth). Until something can be managed, I can't see that MA should be treated any differently than another fan site. IMDB-link like links in external links is fine. Putting a box at the top of articles is not fine, which is why I deleted it from Gorn. Cburnett 21:17, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

You're mixing some things up. MA is noncommercial (IMDB is not) and a Wiki like Misplaced Pages itself. The licenses aren't really incompatible, if you are the author of an article here, you can add it to the MA, there is no problem (also the other way round). And the box is not only for linking to the MA, it's also a hint on the character of the content. --Memory 21:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how I'm messing any terms up. I said MA is open. Is it not? Can anyone edit it? Yup. It's open. Not to be rude, but please read what I write before replying.

The licenses ARE incompatible. Author A can submit to WP & MA, but author B cannot submit author A's without A's express consent (thus multi-licensing his works). They are incompatible.

Nobody related it to the "B's" here... --Memory 18:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What? Multiple authors is going to be the standard case. It will be a rare instance that author A will post their contributions to both sites. As it stands, I can't take *any* of your contributions on WP (or MA) and post it on MA (or WP) without your permission. Cburnett 04:55, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

You still don't understand it: the addressed people are contributors of possible new articles. --Memory 23:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You still don't understand it: more articles are edited than created. Cburnett 15:27, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Fine, but that's not what the discussion is about. --Memory 18:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then WTF is your point? *you* started this tangent on licenses so don't blame *me* for correcting *you*. *sigh* Cburnett 06:38, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

As I said, putting a box at the top of articles is link spamming. MA deserves no such special attention. Not even other wiki projects have such special attention: the links reside in the external links section. Cburnett 06:50, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

It's not for more attention to the MA, it's for less attention to the WP (in this special case, other Wiki projects are not involved in this special subject matter). --Memory 18:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You aren't making much of a point here. It's still link spamming by putting MA at the top of articles. Regardless of where you are shifting attention, you are putting more on MA than it deserves. Cburnett 04:55, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

How do you decide how much it deserves? --Memory 23:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Link under external links. (period) As far as I'm concerned, MA deserves nothing more than a link until I can copy *any* content from WP or MA and paste it on MA or WP. Cburnett 15:27, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

(Responding to Memory's comments). Be that as it may, I still believe that a consensus should be reached before arbitrarily adding something like this to the articles. (And aside from obvious topics like Kirk, who is to decide what qualifies as "too superfluous" or "too specific" anyway?). I suggest starting a poll here, since WikiProject Star Trek is intended to be a place to reach consensus on how articles on Trek could be handled in WP. In the meantime, I don't have a problem with an External Link being added (not "Further Reading" or "See Also" as there may be additional external links for any given article). I wouldn't even complain if a banner of sorts were added at the bottom of the article (so long as it did not constitute link spamming). But the current banner simply calls too much attention to itself. 23skidoo 01:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The bottom is fine too, I just adapted the placement of the German WP version (see link above). In this language edition - btw - all articles about Trek species are collected in one article, because of reasons like those I explained. (see also: Talk) --Memory 23:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed on the link spamming and putting MA links under "External links". In other words: keep the previous status quo. Cburnett 04:55, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Canon and deleted scenes

Does anyone know what the official canon status is of the various deleted scenes that have been released? In Nemesis, for example, a deleted scene introduced a new first officer for the NCC-1701-D - a somewhat significant moment. A deleted scene from Shuttlepod One established that Trip taught Archer how to dive (although I believe this was mentioned again in a S4 episode). I know some deleted scenes have not been officially released yet, such as the Wrath of Khan sequence that reveals Saavik is half-Romulan, and thus those may or may not be canon as a result of this lack of official sanction. But for scenes released officially (as is the case with the Enterprise scenes, and the deleted scenes for both Insurrection and Nemesis), are they canon or not? 23skidoo 04:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would call them canon because Paramount created them and released them. I've never heard of a show or movie being edited to control canon, but out of concern for running time, viewer interest, etc. Unless it's blatantly obvious the deleted scenes go against canon, I'd say to consider them canon...though it may be prudent to say "In a deleted scene, ..." Cburnett 15:44, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

My only worry is this. In the theatrical release of Nemesis it is quite heavily suggested that Data is intended to be the new first officer; Picard glances at Data and says, "you all know my first officer... he's a tyrannical martinet who will never, ever allow me to go on away missions." Data responds that that is official policy. This conflicts with the deleted scene; they contradict canon. Perhaps it is worth incorporating fanon and deleted scenes and having some kind of universal flag for them... Matthew Platts 01:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you referring to the deleted scene in which Stephen Culp's character becomes FO? That occurred after Data's death so presumably Picard ordered a replacement. I don't know about a deleted scene that contracts anything of that nature (please let me know if I'm wrong). But on that subject, I guess there's another example. Is it canon that Culp's character (whose name escapes me) is canonically the new first officer, or because the scene is deleted does that open the door for a theoretical future film or TV series to say otherwise? Maybe it has to be approached on a case-by-case basis. If a deleted scene from TOS were ever located in which it was stated that, say, Spock's parents were, say, Stuvak and Betty Grayson, it would have to be dismissed as non-canon since so many contradictions now exist that say otherwise. Alternately, a deleted scene establishing that McCoy hates broccoli is harmless enough to be considered canon since it's not something anyone likely contradicted later. There's nothing in canon to contradict Saavik being half-Romulan, for example. 23skidoo 02:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Naming Conventions II

I think we need to re-evaulate the naming conventions for Star Trek episodes. Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation states, "Do not disambiguate, or add a link to a disambiguation page, if there is no risk of confusion." I do not think it is necessary to add the (XXX episode) after every episode title when there is no risk of confusion. For example, there is absolutely no reason why "Elementary, Dear Data" is located at Elementary, Dear Data (TNG episode) instead of just "Elementary, Dear Data" because there is absolutely no risk of confusion. To come in line with Misplaced Pages conventions and to simply make it easier for users (what else could one possibly be looking for when typing in "Elementary, Dear Data"?), I think we should remove the (XXX episode) from all titles for which there is no "risk of confusion". Thus, Elementary, Dear Data (TNG episode) would move to "Elementary, Dear Data" but "The Best of Both Worlds" would stay as The Best of Both Worlds (TNG episode).

Any thoughts?

Acegikmo1 21:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

My reasoning hasn't changed since I posed it 4 months ago. Basically, the majority of episodes do not exist and episode lists have been plagued with pointing to incorrect articles. To save from constantly having to care/worry that a link will point to the wrong article, I posed the naming convention above. This way, the probability of hitting a wrong article is extremely near zero.

The whole point was to avoid confusion because there has been precedent of confusion arising from not having "(TLA episode)" on every link.

That said. If an article for an episode exists, then I don't have a problem with moving it to remove the "(TLA episode)" provided the redirect stays put so "TITLE (TLA episode)" is still a valid link. Cburnett 03:23, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Memory Alpha link deletions

I notice that User:Spinboy is deleting all the Memory Alpha links. Does that mean a decision has been reached as to whether to remove them? 23skidoo 22:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I took it upon myself. I think it's unfair that we link to them, but they don't recipocate. I'll stop for now until y'all can agree, but I really hate it when committees take too long to decide anything. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The criterion for whether an external link, per Misplaced Pages:External links, is whether a link is "of valuable service to our readers". I think the Memory Alpha links (in general) meet that criterion. Whether the link hurts or benefits the external party isn't a criterion, not should it be. Lack of reciprocity in particular isn't a standard I've ever seen applied before (indeed, we generally rebuf offers of reciprocal linking, as a link emplaced for that reason would likely fail the "of valuable service to our readers" criterion). So, I don't agree that this is a valid reason to remove these valuable external links, and I believe they should be restored. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:26, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

If you delete the Memory Alphia links based upon this criteria, then all External links sections need to be emptied throughout Misplaced Pages. Good luck. And don't forget the IMDb links as well. Misplaced Pages is not in competition with Memory Alpha and there is no reason why these links shouldn't be included. Please review WP:POINT 23skidoo 22:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't happen to think it's a valuble service to our readers. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a valid reason for removing a given Memory Alpha link. But you removed many links in quick time, so it's difficult to believe you individually reviewed each Memory Alpha page and decided it was unsuitable. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:32, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the MA articles tend to have more info than the Misplaced Pages articles. I think they should remain.--Kross 22:34, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

We really should delete all links to the IMDB; when have they ever linked back to us? Will you take it upon yourself, Spinboy? (Though you're likely to be banned before you're 10% through). I've reverted all of the ones that weren't already fixed. --Golbez 22:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

IMDB isn't a wiki. It's quite easy for MA to link back to us. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

With respect, Spinboy, the purpose of WikiPedia is to provide information and increase understanding, not to provide institutional backscratching. M-A is under no obligation to link back to us, and deleting informative links to them appears spiteful. Please, won't somebody think of the children? - Chairboy 23:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

We clearly have a consensus that these links should remain. Please do not remove any more. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:02, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

FYI: discussion happened two months ago Talk:Star Trek#Memory Alpha confusion. Cburnett 03:12, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

So, in Spinboy's defense: discussion had taken place and there was no WP:POINT being made. What was missing was any kind of consensus to remove them; though, there were no comments replying to his position. If anything, he's guilty of being bold... Cburnett 03:26, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think it might be a better idea for Wikipedians to systematically ADD Misplaced Pages links to Memory Alpha rather than delete MA links in WP. Actually I'll go and do this now. Matthew Platts 01:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC) Oh, wait. Talk:Star Trek#Memory Alpha confusion gives a reason why this shouldn't be done. What suggestions, people? Matthew Platts 01:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

New Star Trek branded articles proposed template

v t e Star Trek
Outline Timeline Canon Lists
Television series	Broadcast The Original Series episodes The Animated Series The Next Generation episodes Deep Space Nine episodes Voyager episodes Enterprise episodes Streaming Discovery episodes Short Treks Picard Lower Decks Prodigy Strange New Worlds Starfleet Academy
Films	The Original Series The Motion Picture The Wrath of Khan The Search for Spock The Voyage Home The Final Frontier The Undiscovered Country The Next Generation Generations First Contact Insurrection Nemesis Reboot (Kelvin Timeline) Star Trek Into Darkness Beyond Television Section 31
Setting	Characters A–F G–M N–S T–Z Crossovers Concepts Games Kobayashi Maru Law Prime Directive Materials Dilithium Sexuality Stardate Locations Class M planet Galactic quadrant Mirror Universe Cultures and species Andorian Bajoran Borg Breen Cardassian Dominion Ferengi Rules of Acquisition Gorn Kazon Klingon High Council culture language grammar Maquis Orion Q Romulan Species 8472 United Federation of Planets Starfleet Academy Section 31 Tribble Vidiians Vulcan nerve pinch salute Xindi Technology Cloaking device Communicator Deflector shields Holodeck Hypospray Impulse drive Jefferies tube LCARS Medicine Replicator Spacecraft Deep Space Nine Defiant Earth Spacedock Enterprise NX-01 NCC-1701 A D E Klingon starships Shuttlecraft Voyager Transporter Tricorder Uniforms Warp drive Weapons Bat'leth
Production	List of staff Gene Roddenberry Norway Corporation Composers and music musical theme "Where no man has gone before" "Beam me up, Scotty" Redshirt Accolades (film franchise)
Unmade projects	The God Thing Planet of the Titans Phase II Star Trek 4
Spin-off fiction	Games Comics Novels Reference books Stage A Klingon Christmas Carol Klingon opera Very Short Treks
Aftershows	After Trek The Ready Room
Documentaries	Trekkies Mind Meld Trekkies 2 How William Shatner Changed the World Beyond the Final Frontier The Captains Trek Nation For the Love of Spock What We Left Behind
Cultural influence	First Contact Day Star Trek Day Kirk and Uhura's kiss Comparison to Star Wars Fandom productions Kirk/Spock Memory Alpha Shakespeare and Star Trek The Exhibition The Experience "The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise" (1976 SNL sketch) Free Enterprise (1999 film) Galaxy Quest (1999 film) "Where No Fan Has Gone Before" (2002 Futurama episode) The Orville (2017 television series) Please Stand By (2017 film) "USS Callister" (2017 Black Mirror episode)
Category

Just threw together the template you see at the right based on the "Jew" template of all things. I figure newcomers may not know where to find what they are looking for and this serves as a springboard. Would be nice if we had an appropriate image to put at the top, like the ubiquitous Starfleet chevron. Comments?--StAkAr Karnak 22:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The closest thing I can find as of this moment is Image:Starfleet command emblem.jpg. --AllyUnion (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe this image? Image:St combadge.gif --AllyUnion (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I had this symbol in mind. It seems Paramount has used it to represent Trek since the end of TNG. It was in the GENERATIONS poster and was Borgified in the FIRST CONTACT teaser trailer.--StAkAr Karnak 22:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that we can't necessarily upload that to the Misplaced Pages anymore, at least according to current policy, I believe. We'd have to use an existing image in the database. --AllyUnion (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Focus for the project

Is there any focus of the project? Maybe somehow collaboratively to make Star Trek a featured article? --AllyUnion (talk) 06:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Renaming Enterprise episode articles

A user has been changing a number of episode article namespaces from {ENT episode) to {Enterprise episode). Has a consensus been reached on doing this? As far as I know we'd agreed to use ENT for disambiguation purposes and only yesterday a user created several new article stubs using the ENT abbreviation in the namespace. 23skidoo 14:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I had left a comment here but no one had replied, so I went ahead and moved them. Currently all of Enterprise season 1 has been moved to ... (Enterprise episode) parallel to all of Voyager episodes, which are linked to ... (Voyager episode) Earlier discussion here (several month ago now) indicated that the only problem in moving them would be the effort to fix all the redirected links. As there were no other objections I was bold and moved all the articles and fixed all the redirects. (A few fixed redirects were in users' pages, I didn't realise that was against the rules to alter them and I apologise for those if anyone minded. I have occasionally had redirects fixed in my user page by other people, which I was grateful for - it saves me doing it, which is why I didn't think there was a problem there.) I would suggest updating the naming convention, rather than sticking to it for the sake of it. Either that, or revert all of Voyager's episodes too! Comments welcome. Marky1981 15:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

My bad - I didn't realize you had brought this up in another forum already. I personally have no preference one way or the other, I just want things to be consistently applied so whatever people decide on is fine by me. Cheers! 23skidoo 16:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The discussions are unfortunately spread over several talk pages so it is hard to keep up! Yes I definitely agree on things being consistent - I can be quite pedantic sometimes! I will update the naming convention, unless there are any objections? I don't mind moving the pages and fixing the links myself, but it will take a while! Marky1981 19:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Articles for the Misplaced Pages 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Misplaced Pages:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Misplaced Pages for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles on Star Trek related topics? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Walkerma 21:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

This is very interesting, and a privilege to have Star Trek articles in 1.0. I think Star Trek itself is a good solid article, which gives an overview of the whole franchise. There are many good Star Trek articles, but they are perhaps a bit too esoteric for general reading. Depending on how many you wanted to do, you could perhaps have at least one of each area (e.g. an article about a Star Trek species, one about a starship, a list of episodes, one of the major characters etc.). I know Starfleet ranks and insignia was a featured article candidate... Any others have any particular favourites? Marky1981 23:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I still believe Star Trek is written for the fan of Star Trek rather than the general reader. --AllyUnion (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a long-shot, but how about the Data (Star Trek) article? :) E Pluribus Anthony 10:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the feedback! I like the Data article (although it probably needs a References section to be A-class), and the ranks & insignia article is good too. The main Star Trek article seems to have a lot of solid content, but it seems to have a lot on "Uncertain Future of Franchise". Particularly in a printed version we'd need to organise the daughter articles of the main one (such as

Sources

Sources really need to be discussed. A great many pages on Star Trek don't even begin to list their sources. Please note Misplaced Pages official policy requires sources to be listed. See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. AlistairMcMillan 06:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Memoryalpha template

Has anyone noticed that links that use Template:Memoryalpha are all broken now that "(TNG episode)" has been appended to episode title? Any opinions on what to do about this? For an example see Cost of Living (TNG episode). AlistairMcMillan 07:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, they could have redirects, if they want to. The other option would be to subst the template, and change how the link is included on the page. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Inclusion of non-canon material

When Memory-Alpha, that is a dedicated Star Trek wiki, takes a stand on only including canon material, should we be including non-canon material? Especially when even what is described as semi-official or semi-canon isn't even consistent with itself? See Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D). AlistairMcMillan 08:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

What's good for the goose may not necessarily be good for the gander. As well, even canon can be self-contradictory. In any event, this is a matter of ongoing debate. E Pluribus Anthony 08:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

References

I most humbly propose that Star Trek articles use the ref/note style of references as demonstrated on Architecture of Windows 2000. Any thoughts? AlistairMcMillan 09:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

ST-stub and ST-ep-stub

Both of these stub templates are being discussed on WP:SFD for renamimg, and in the case of ST-ep-stub, a possible merge into StarTrek-stub since the episode stubs all end with " episode)" in their title and thus can be identified that way. The reason for renaming the stub templates is to make them conform to the general naming guidelines for stub templates. Please comment on the proposals, especially the one to merge the episode stubs with the other Star Trek stubs. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The above change has now been carried out and completed. --TheParanoidOne 20:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Moving of TOS episode articles

As per the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Star Trek#Articles convention, I am moving all Star Trek original series episode articles to locales whose names are consistent with the other series:

• e.g. — For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky (TOS episode)

Whenever there is ambiguity or inconsistency in capitalisation of words (and there's alot in the articles), I am deferring to episode entries in The Star Trek Encyclopedia for authoritative article names. (FYI: in the actual episodes, the titles were all upper case and enclosed in quotations: e.g., "FOR THE WORLD IS HOLLOW AND I HAVE TOUCHED THE SKY".)

Consequently, I prevail upon Wikipedians who are so inclined to rewikify terms (e.g., that I've missed) to the moved article names, if the redirects are somehow untenable.

Thoughts? Let me know if you've any questions, and thanks for your co-operation! E Pluribus Anthony 16:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Lcars

I am very interested in the history and (real life working) of Lcars. I have added as much as I can, and hope someone else can help out with it. Gerard Foley 17:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox nominated for deletion

The template {{United Federation of Planets infobox}} has been nominated for deletion. Members of this WikiProject might consider saying something in the TFD entry either in support of the deletion or in support of its continued existence. Regards, Courtland 00:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek XI article

I have concerns regarding the article on Star Trek XI. I've tried to revise it, but it really comes off as crystal ball as it stands now. All we know is an early draft script has been written and there are a bunch of rumors kicking around. I just reverted one edit that added it to the 2007 movie releases list, even though Paramount has yet to decide whether to even make the thing. I'm not saying the proposed film shouldn't be discussed since it has received some press, but I wonder if it isn't premature to have a full article on it yet when most of the info in the article is already in the main Star Trek article and what there is is 90% speculation? If someone were to AFD it, I don't think it would survive; IIRC a Star Trek: The Beginning article did fail an AFD (it still exists as a redirect to Star Trek XI). I have expressed my concerns on the talk page for the article, but I thought I'd gauge reaction here, too. 23skidoo 04:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Starfleet ranks and insignia

I'd apriciate any help avalible. That particular article is mostly complete but artiles explaining individual ranks needs work. --Cool Cat 23:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts, please

Hi all. Star Trek Simulation Forum is a page I ran across and put on my "vaguely do something about someday" list; it's an article on an online Star Trek RPG group, with some not-entirely-clear connection to startrek.com. Is this group notable? Is it worth an article? Could the material be folded in elsewhere?

I know little to nothing of ST fandom, but figure someone here might, and it seemed best to flag it up rather than just throw it to the wolves at WP:AFD. Shimgray | talk | 16:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Teraknor page.

Hi could somebody look at this page please. It claims to be an alternative spelling of Terok Nor (DS9 station itself) in which case it should probably become a redirect and a ref to the alt spelling made on the Deep Space Nine page. Alternatively if it isn't a real spelling (which I suspect given google hits) it should be deleted. Expert help needed. - SimonLyall 21:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Added merge request Dan, the CowMan 00:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Naming Convention III

Ok, I know I started the "Name (TLA episode)" and argued for it on several occasions. Now that the TNG, TOS, TAS, & ENT (with DS9 & VOY a good way there) lists are complete with an article per episode I don't see the need to force the dabed name.

My original rationale was that without naming them all the same it made for very curious linkings and led to a lot of incorrect links made. Now that lists are completed the need to have a know name for a non-existing article is subsiding. For any of the four completed series, you can nail the episode by using (TLA episode) without worrying about a bad link.

What my, now commented out, change to the naming convention is an effort to bring our naming convention inline with that of WP's dabbing practice. By this I mean moving articles to "Name" when "Name" doesn't exist, thus keeping the "Name (TLA episode)" redirect so that you can still nail the episode article without fear of linking incorrectly. This leads some things pointing to a redirect (but I've personally never considered that an issue).

So now that 4 of the 6 episode lists are complete the original purpose is becoming moot for several reasons:

1. the purpose was to avoid mislinking to non-existant articles
2. the purpose was not to having a consistency of article names (this was purely a by product of the previous point)
3. the number of episodes for ST is now fixed since there are no currently-filming episodes

Now that point #1 is having less and less relevance with each episode article created, I see the importance of matching WP's general naming convention as becoming more important. After all, when all episode articles are created then my original purpose for the naming convention is entirely moot.

My change to the naming convention is pretty simple:

• Follow WP's dabbing practice when no ambiguity exists (e.g., A Fistful of Datas)
• Maintain redirects from "Name (TLA episode)" to "Name" so that if you don't know the true location of the article you can still use the TLA

Comments? Cburnett 01:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess one final point. I originally, yesterday, went ahead and changed the naming convention and moved the TNG episdoes beginning with an A as a test. Cearly, User:E Pluribus Anthony didn't agree and reverted my moves (well, he missed 4 of them) and commented out my change.

However, in doing so I found at least a couple of "Name" articles that didn't exist (I don't believe A Fistful of Datas or Aquiel existed) and touched up the dab pages for when "Name" did exist. I think WP as a whole would benefit from going through every episode of checking this even this change is striked down. Following it would have the added benefit of doing these ambiguity checks and following WP's dabbing practice. Cburnett 01:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

As noted above and herein, I see little need to equivocate and forego a workable convention made by the proponent, arrived at and discussed months ago, and consistently implemented (also noted here as a to-do). In effect, the proposal obviates the convention and advocates for the prior hodge-podge of titles for what will amount to more than 600 articles: there'd be little use in having one in the first place or in moving any number of articles previously (e.g., TOS episodes, also ENT>Enterprise episodes) to conform to it – many of which were previously rendered any number of ways – only to move them back for varied reason. Apropos, I'm unsure what recent TNG moves are meant to accomplish and moved (and will move) said articles back. Lastly, an RM to a TLA-titled article was previously sanctioned (with mild rigour) when there were two articles created (one with and one without the TLA), and the above proposal would foster more such inconsistency. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

As well, the current naming convention is somewhat reinforced by efforts to ensure more consistency amongst other TV-related articles. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

My article naming philosophy has always been to be as specific as possible. So (TNG episode) should remain, and be implemented in all Episodes over time (no big rush). In the future it stands to reason much more fiction etc. will be produced, and there will be more Wikipedians to catalogue it all. We should be structuring articles with that inevitable trend in mind. Although its not necessary for some episodes; it also promotes good naming convention practices for new Wikipedians who come across these articles. Indeed redirect and dab as required... and good to hear from you Cburnett. - RoyBoy 02:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh man, don't get me going on the technical limitations of MediaWikia and wikis in general in terms of article names. :) Cburnett 02:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Name (Star Trek)

While on the subject, how about creating redirects from "Name (Star Trek)" to the episode? I just found Gambit (Star Trek) that was a dupe of Gambit (TNG episode). Cburnett 03:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for systematically scrutinising and retrofitting dabs for the TNG articles.

As for the above, perhaps we should note how many anomalies there are and – if needed – do so after the fact? So far from A to G, you've stumbled across one; given the simplicity/consistency of ] → ], I'm unsure there's a need for ] just yet. If so, for consistency, this would probably have to be done for all ST articles eventually. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

After going over each and every 169 episode articles...Gambit was the only one. I created as many redirects as I could so surely a search for an episode name will yield at least one redirect. Cburnett 05:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Great ... I don't think there's a need for the ]. Now, onto Terok Nor, that interstellar Chrysler minivan, and Akiraprise. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we should leave them as they are - i.e. "E (X episode)" where E is the episode name and X is one of {TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise} as far as I know they're all in this format now. Personally I have spent hours moving and fixing redirects to get to this format. Changing many of them back just seems an unnecessary hassle. So long as typing the name of an episode (e.g. Encounter at Farpoint) redirects to the right page, there's no problem. Marky1981 16:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Moving of Kira Nerys article

If anyone is keeping track of the character articles, I have just reverted a page move that relocated Kira Nerys to Nerys Kira. Hopefully the user who made this move didn't go around changing a bunch of wikilinks in other articles. I have invited the editor to explain his/her rationale at Talk:Kira Nerys. 23skidoo 02:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes and my move was reverted. As I explained myself in 2 other places.

• On wikipedia we follow a <First Name> <Last Name> naming convention. While this is only a guideline it is good practice.
• Major Kiras given name is Nerys. She says so after she introduces herself to Vedict Berriel as "Major Kira". The Vedict inquires her given name and she responds with "Nerys"
• All japanese names (fictional or not) on wikipedia follow <First Name> <Last Name> format (unless the person lacks a last name). In the japanese language and culture people are generaly refered by the last name. Kikuko Inoue's given name is Kikuko but she would be referanced as Mrs. Inoue or Inoue-san. Something similar is going on the Bajoran culture apperantly.
• This has nothing to do with canon. "Canon" for Japanese names is <last name> <first name> order, however all names I have seen has the <First Name> <Last Name> order.
• Kira Nerys would redirect to Nerys Kira just like Major Kira.

--Cool Cat 21:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This is getting tedious following all these conversations about the same thing. The die-hard ST site has it at memoryalpha:Kira Nerys and startrek.com has it the same. Bajoran != Japanese. "Kira Nerys" is so predominately used in all sources I find that there is no argument here. WP naming convention says to use the most common name and "Kira Nerys" is it. Cburnett 01:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

All japanese names are predominantly and most commonly used in the last name first name format. Bajorans can file a complaint to the federation concil if they dont like their naames on wikipedia. Kikuko Inoue also appears on her offical bio as Inoue Kikuko, that isnt an adequate reason for the naming. Most common is not observed for japanese names, I do not see why bajorans need to be treated diferently. --Cool Cat 16:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

BAJORANS ARE NOT JAPANESE How much more clearer can I get than that? Bajorans are fiction. They are fake. They don't exist. They cannot file a protest and there's no one to file a protest with. Your argument is about as water-tight as a false analogy. Cburnett 02:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I know bajorans are not japanese. You do not have to yell. I do not believe I am requesting something irrational. My analogy is clear, their names should be treated just like the japanese regardless of the "cannon" as thats the comon practice on wikipedia not limited to the japanese. Else we will need to rename Hoshi Sato to Sato Hoshi as well as various other japanese appearances. We don't want double standards right? --Cool Cat 16:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

WP policy says to use the naming convention typical of that person's native locale. I researched this before changing the names of Chinese people to reflect their actual names (i.e. family name first, given name second. Western media often messes this up). (I'm looking for the particular policy/guide page, but can't find it right now.) A person's Misplaced Pages entry should reflect what they actually call themselves. This applies to real and fictional people. In regards to Kira Nerys, Kira Nerys is never called Nerys Kira, ever. So the argument for keeping her article named Kira Nerys is even stronger. --Fang Aili 16:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the page I was talking about in reference to Chinese names. My argument might be weaker than I initially thought; I don't know what WP policy is in general regarding naming conventions, but common sense tells me that the most common usage should be the article's name. I have no objection to Nerys Kira redirecting to Kira Nerys, though I think it is highly unlikely anyone would search for that. (This debate is proably over, but I wanted to clarify what I posted before.) --Fang Aili 16:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

In my view common sense is first name then last name. Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (people) explains the naming convention and while it is NOT s policy/rule, it is good practice. The most common referance to her is Major (later Colonel) Kira.

Do you at least appriciate my perspective?

--Cool Cat 19:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you're arguing this. Kira is never refered to as Nerys Kira. That's not her name. --Fang Aili 20:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that her "locale" is in Bajoran space (usually), in a fictional universe known as "Star Trek." Dan, the CowMan 06:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That's right. And in that locale her name is never Nerys Kira. Fictional or not, I think we have to agree her name is Kira Nerys. --Fang Aili 13:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If you say common policy is "first name last name" then take Kira as the first name and Nerys as the last name. Therefore, with Bajoran naming conventions, the "first name" just happens to be the family name instead of the personal name, as is conventional here. It is overall a moot point and less time should be spent bickering over the minutiae. Trekkie4christ 22:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The convention should always be "first_name last_name", no matter whether the person's local convention is "family_name given_name" or "given_name family_name". Solak 02:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Starfleet ship classes

I am considering making this list a table, however am not sure what info to include. Any ideas? --Cool Cat 19:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

What did you have in mind? I think the list is better in its current form: not only does it enable wikifying (of/to sxn headers) but, in cases of detailing minor starships (for which there might be little or no information), allows for varied, summative dialectic. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

True a number of ships have little info but not knowing something is still knowing not knowing.

We know how long many ships are, their weapon compliments, how many known of these ships are known to exist, comanding officers, Era, date of construction, destruction (practicaly almost every ship were destroyed at wolf359).

--Cool Cat 20:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Actualy forget that Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Various unseen or stub Star Trek Classes. The pages are going to be merged again just days after my hours of work. --Cool Cat 02:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject ST and ST portal exposure

Hi all. We need to start putting {{StarTrekproject}} on more Star Trek talk pages. This project and the ST portal are in serious need of exposure and activity. The portal hasn't changed much in weeks (though I just changed a few things today). I'm not saying we should go out and spam ever Star Trek talk page, but if you happen to edit one, slap the {{StarTrekproject}} tag there. --Fang Aili 17:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Try all ship classes. ;) --Cool Cat 20:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Data a Good Article?

Also, I nominated Data (Star Trek) as a good article. Looking at it again though, someone could argue that it's missing a significant "Affect on real research" or somesuch section. A quick search on Amazon reveals that Data is mentioned in several serious studies of artificial intelligence. So.. if anyone knows more about this and could add it to the article, that'd be cool. :) --Fang Aili 17:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Joining

Whats the accepted way to go about joining this wikiproject? Didn't notice a list of names anywhere... Wanted to throw my hat in the ring. Mostly a TOS and DS9 fan. -M 03:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Mostly just have at it. What kind of stuff are you interested in, out of curiosity? Cburnett 03:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I just consolidated most of the minor ship classes back into the main List of Starfleet ship classes, Over the next couple days I'm going to do some summarizing of the ones large enough to retain their own articles so that their list entry is more then just a link. Add some images and get a little help from the rest of the project and I believe it could make the featured list, so thats going to be my initial project. DS9 character pages/episode pages are what I plan to work on after that. -M 17:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone object to putting a Participant list on the project page? --Fang Aili 17:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Standard episode template?

Do we have a standard episode template? --Fang Aili 16:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

to do lists

I created Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Star Trek/to do and {{StarTrektasks}}, for listing open tasks on the project page. I copied the style from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wisconsin. The task list needs serious updating (I just copied it from the talk subject here). --Fang Aili 16:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

{{StarTrek-ep-stub}}

I've deleted this as a recreation of a previously SFD'd stub type. If the number of episode stubs grows to the point where a separate stub type is strongly indicated, please bring this to the ]. Alai 00:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's too bad. I had the impression there were at least a hundred episode stubs. But I guess the regular template will do. --Fang Aili 03:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Portal Content

Please nominate and comment on articles for future Star Trek Portal features at Future portal features. Thanks. Dan, the CowMan 16:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Planetary nation infoboxes

To the right is an example of the current design. How about incorporating a picture of the major species along with their emblem into the infobox? It seems strange to go to the Klingon article, for example, and have to scroll way down to find out what they look like.--StAkAr Karnak 01:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Pathfinder

Started a topic on the talk page for Pathfinder (Star Trek) then realised it may not get noticed, can someone point me to the cannon definition for this use of pathfinder as I don't recall it ever being used. 81.171.247.82 09:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Wow... I agree, that's completely new to me. As far as I know, Pathfinder is the project to bring Voyager home, and the name of a Voyager episode about said project. But I've never heard one of the prototype models being called a pathfinder... just a prototype. --Maelwys 10:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• "Pathfinder (Star Trek)" would be best suited to detailing the Voyager project (though it's debatable whether it deserves an article on Misplaced Pages). The term has never been used in the series as it's detailed in the current revision of the article. The reason it's used so frequently on starship class articles here is because of the generic way in which it can be applied. A pathfinder is the first to break new ground, so it makes sense to call the first vessel of a class the pathfinder. That being said, there is no canon precedent for this in Star Trek and if an article is deemed needed for the use of the phrase (I would say it isn't), then it would be misleading to title it "Pathfinder (Star Trek)." Such a title would be no more accurate than titling it "Pathfinder (Braveheart)" because the phrase was never used in that context within that film. This definition would be better covered under an article along the lines of "Pathfinder (definition)" and I believe such articles are placed on the wiki dictionary project. - Hayter 17:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• I don't even think it is appropriate for starship articles as the first vessel of a new class is not by necessity a groundbreaking vessel, for example I doubt that the first Nebula class ship would have been seen as breaking any new ground when it was essentially just a reconfiguration of the Galaxy class or vice versa, yes it was geared up for science missions but it was by no means the first science vessel ever and so hardly groundbreaking. I believe prototype id the most accurate designation for these vessels and that pathfinder should be replaced with prototype wherever possible. This would make for far greater clarity in starship articles. There may however be a case for using "pathfinder" for ships that were ACTUALLY groundbreaking like the Prometheus however in these cases it need not always apply to ships with the NX designation, for example where technology is retro-fitted to existing ships in order to test it, this ship would definitely be a "pathfinder" but it would neither be a prototype ship (only some technology) or the first of its class. 81.171.247.82 09:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• I agree that Pathfinder (Star Trek), if at all or not treated elsewhere, should deal with the project noted in Star Trek: Voyager. I believe, however, the term "pathfinder" is used to describe prototype starships in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual (namely regarding the Defiant). Arguably, any new class of ship would be a pathfinder and break new ground (or space?), since it represents an amalgam of significant engineering achievements previously untested and allows for shakedown. In any event: to describe an inaugural ship, "prototype" is probably more accurate and unambiguous to boot. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 09:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• So the consensus is prototype is the better phrasing at this point. Honestly I don't think one can assert the first ship of each new class would be any particular advancement because there are often several contemporary classes which share an overall design methodology but differ in design because of their intended mission speciality. For example the Constitution Class (refit), Constellation Class, Miranda Class and Soyuz Class are all obviously contemporary and share many features but also have design differences as they are meant for different roles, I don't believe it is accurate to assume that the first of each of these classes had any significant advancements over the others technologically speaking. Yet it would remain a design prototype. 81.171.247.82 08:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• It's a relative term. You might not consider a new ship class to be groundbreaking, but an opposing argument could run that it must be at least considered to be so, otherwise what's the point of this new class? Why not just build another Constitution with upgraded paint? That being said, I do think Prototype is a better term to be used, as there can be little doubt as to its meaning or application. - Hayter 09:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• This is what I am saying, there are reasons for building new types of ship other than technological advances, for example science ships needn't be as large or well armed as battleships or capital ships but they may be contemporary with and have the majority of their systems shared with the larger ships, therefore assuming that a ship is considered to be groundbreaking purely because of an NX designation is not a safe assumption, however I do acknowledge that you were agreeing on prototype being a better term and have no wish to begin an argument so I will stop here. 81.171.247.82 14:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

FLEET CAPTAIN RANK: Starfleet's Fleet Captain rank always bugged me. It was mentioned twice in TOS but never mentioned again. Only Pike & Garth ever held the rank. This leads me to believe that "Fleet Captain" may be an honorary rank given to captains who are no longer in active service. So "fleet captain" is kind of like an emeritus rank... a fleet captain holds all the dignity & powers of a captain without the responsibility or duties.

Kirk Vs. Picard

Kind of an obvious omission -- I added the Kirk Vs. Picard war into the Star Trek page. JAF1970 06:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you checked your articles lately?

I was browsing Categories for Deletion, found that a future year was up for deletion, and decided to see what was in it. Well, there was only one article, Starfleet Museum, and not only is its year category, the article is up for deletion too. Take a look around at other articles that may be in this situation.
&#151;Lady Aleena talk/contribs 20:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Virtually every fan film article (including New Voyages) has been nominated for deletion as well. 23skidoo 21:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't say which articles are still up for AfD - I've already been accused of Ballot Stuffing! - but the major Fan Production articles (including Star Trek (Fan made productions)) have survived their AfD's. Unfortunately some of the weaker members of the herd have been pulled down and despatched. One of the first things I will be doing will be to create a Notability section in all the surviving articles that spells out the reasons why they should be included since I'm pretty confident that this will happen again. Most negative votes revolved around two things; "Fancruft" and "Non-Notability", both of which are abstract concepts that cannot be quantified. However I cannot help but feel that there is a bias against fan productions in general and that Users are voting because of their like or dislike of the content (Star Trek) rather than their validity as Misplaced Pages articles.--Kirok of L'Stok 04:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject banner image

Maybe I missed something, but is there a reason why the image that's appearing on the WikiProject banner (see, for example Talk:Jolene Blalock) is of a space shuttle? 23skidoo 14:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's the Enterprise: the first space shuttle; named for Kirk's ship in honour of Star Trek; though never going into space. Driller thriller 15:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but wouldn't an image actually from Star Trek be more appropriate, such as the UFP symbol or the starship Enterprise? Yes we all know a shuttle was named after the Enterprise, but really I don't think that's a representative image for the science fiction franchise. I have removed the image from the template (under Misplaced Pages's be bold guideline) pending the addition of a proper image. 23skidoo 16:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Per the above, obviously I didn't want to leave the banner without an image, so I ported in the UFP flag png image from United Federation of Planets. This isn't necessarily the best image to use -- I'd rather use a Trek title logo or the Starfleet shield -- but it'll do for now so that the banner at least has an image attached to it. If someone wants to change it to a better picture, it's fine by me as long as it's actually from the francise. 23skidoo 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

A non fair use image should be used. Thats the only pd image I know of relating to Star Trek. I am open to suggestions. Unfortunately, copyrights have not yet been abolished... --Cat out 20:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Besides, klingons would invade if they saw UFP flag on the talk page of theirs. My phasers are at the drycleaners.... --Cat out 20:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather have no image than an image of the shuttle. Nothing against the shuttle, and I'm all for it being used in something called WikiProject:Space Shuttle, but for Star Trek it simply looks silly. I will remove the image. BTW what makes the UFP flag any more non-free than the Stargate symbol being used for the WikiProject Stargate banner (see the Blalock talk page)? Maybe we can use the self-made image of the Vulcan salute that's found on Vulcans. 23skidoo 20:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm. yes and no. Can someone create a new image for the vulcan salute? The one you point out is not the vulcan salute, but the jewish one. --Cat out 12:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The complete image is, but not if you just take one hand. Of course the creator of the image (and I believe it was created specifically for Misplaced Pages) would have to give the OK. I still think it would be fair to use something like the Starfleet shield on this as I have seen similar symbols being used to signify other projects -- see again the symbol on the Stargate SG1 banner which doesn't seem to be causing any problems. And the Doctor Who WikiProject uses an image of the TARDIS. 23skidoo 15:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Trek fandom

The "Notability Cruisade" and subsequent "AfD Wars" have also hit the many Fandom club listings associated with Trek in the last few weeks. I agree with the poster of a similar topic concerning AfD losses due to Trekkie bias.

My Question (primarily for more experienced wikipedians): Is there any hope of the rules of notability being ammended to allow inclusion of an article due to a large number of "peers" recognizing the notability of a fan based club (for our purposes- give declaired Trekkies as a group significant authority to certify validity of a club)? Many of these clubs recently deleted are known in our community, yet have difficulty meeting the tighening notability rules. Examples: Cha'ouw Empire and Maquis Forces International

Of course, does WP even want to include fandom groups? What differentiates WP Project Star Trek from Memory Alpha if we can not include significant clubs? I know WP doesn't want to be 'all inclusive' of all things, but I've run into enough nonsence and fluff in WP (that is apparently allowed) to make me wonder: Are the Inmates Running the Asylum? (Disclaimer: My thought is My impression based on what I see and NOT intended to be negative towards any specific individuals. However I will bet that others feel the same... <GRIN>) So...What can we do? --Steve 23:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek actors subcategories

I noticed that on the Category:Star Trek actors discussion page that there is some discussion regarding creating subcategories to reduce that category. It's been suggested that we create Star Trek actors categories for each tv series and film. I think that is the best idea for subcategorization. NorthernThunder 19:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Technobabble

Is anyone here interested in helping out with the article Technobabble? My understanding is that the primary (and likely original) use of the term was in science fiction, but the article is on another topic entirely right now. Perhaps someone here has sources or knowledge about the origins and primary usage of the term and can improve the article? Thanks, SCZenz 06:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Tears of the Prophets

There's a bit of discussion happening at Talk:Tears of the Prophets regarding that article's name. Other opinions are appreciated. --Fang Aili 18:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Key articles for Misplaced Pages 1.0

Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team previously contacted you to identify the quality articles in your WikiProject, and now we need a few more favors. We would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in offline releases of Misplaced Pages based on their importance, regardless of quality. So far we have a list of 5 articles, but are there any important topics not listed that we should know about? We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 1.0 (not yet open) and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please keep updating your Arts WikiProject article table for articles of high quality (B or higher). If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 01:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek essay

I recently proposed deletion of A brief analysis of Star Trek and Humanism when I came across it on new page patrol. I'm mentioning it here in case anyone wanted to salvage it or crib ideas from it. Cheers!--Kchase02 T 02:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Good PROD nomination. Definitely a case of NOR and POV violation, not to mention the fact Misplaced Pages isn't a place to post essays of this type. 23skidoo 23:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Combined efforts?

I know this project is a type of combined effort between all of us, but I think it'd be more productive if we all worked on the same type of thing at one. Like work on a specific group of articles at once until that section of the project is complete? For example we could all concentrate on one series at a time. Just an idea. --Coderster 04:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Depending on the level of interest in this project, you could start a Star Trek COTW (or COT fortnight or month as some end up being) to help do that. Personally, I think DS9's article is approaching FA status and would be a great candidate - although I'm biased as the person who added all the DVD sourcing to the article. ;) Moulder 19:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio alert

Letting people know that a large amount of copyright material from tv.com was added into the Voyager episode pages. I am currently working through them, cleaning out the copyvio material. So far, most pages I can just clear out the Notes, Trivia, and Allusions sections, and the pages are clean. The episode summaries appear to mostly be OK, as far as I can see. But on a few pages, even the episode summaries were lifted from tv.com. Cleaning out the copyvio material from these pages would leave only the info box, so I have instead tagged the pages as copy-vio.

I'm making this alert here for two purposes.

1) Requesting assistance in cleaning out the violating material. I am using to scan quickly for external sources for the material on the episode pages. WP mirrors like answers.com are obviously not violations. Any assistance in cleaning these out would be greatly appreciated.

2) For the pages that have little left after the violating material is removed, is anyone able to salvage the pages without the violating material? Learning Curve (Voyager episode) and Heroes and Demons (Voyager episode) are the ones so far. I myself watched little of Voyager, so I'm really not a good one to be salvaging these pages. - TexasAndroid 14:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I've finished the cleaning. The violations were mostly limited to the first season of Voyager, and much of the first season of TNG. I'll leave it to others to see if the two pages can be salvaged, and if anyone wants to rewrite some of the removed trivial into non-copyright violating form. Some of it is quite interesting and would be nice to have, but we just cannot have it word for word from tv.com. - TexasAndroid 16:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ship names

Would it be worth adding a bullet to the project's style manual about ship names, something to codify that the name is italicized (not in quotes), that the "USS" (or whatever other prefix) is in regular Roman type without periods, etc.? Oh, and hi everyone. --EEMeltonIV 06:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler tags up for deletion

Thought you guys might be interested in weighing in on this debate-- someone is requesting the removal of spoiler tags. -plange 01:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It actually isn't a formal deletion request, but it does seem that there are some folks who still feel Misplaced Pages needs to be exactly the same as the Brittanica of years gone by, when in fact it can't and should never be. Anyway, thanks for pointing this out. Right now the general consensus appears to be to maintain the status quo but I would recommend more folks get involved in the discussion (even if you're opposed to spoiler tags). 23skidoo 03:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Character template

Does anyone else here think the inclusion of characters' rank insignia in the template is a bit silly? I find the disparate graphics jarring, and their inclusion not nearly as useful as the actual rank text in the row above. If someone is interested in finding out what a particular rank insignia looks like, are they more likely to search for the rank itself or a character? My two strips of latinum. --EEMeltonIV 04:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

New user template by series

I have created a new user template that should replace the other 6 that are currently available. Please see {{User Star Trek series}} to see the work. This is in an effort to reduce the amount of user templates in hopes of keeping the user template deletionists from having too many complaints about the amount of them. I will be putting the 6 individual templates up for deletion, but that master template will do the same as the 6 did. Please allow this to happen.
&#151;Lady Aleena talk/contribs 20:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Rendered starships on IFD

Hi everyone. I have nominated several unused renderings of Star Trek-like ships on IFD. Please see Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion#Image:Wik_aurora1.jpg for the related discussion. At present, none of these are used. (I did not nominate the ones that are in use.) I wanted to run this by you guys here in case there was any possibility that at some point the images would be incorporated into articles. If you have no plans to use the images, but feel they are too good to throw away, you may want to consider moving them to Commons (using {{Move to Wikimedia Commons}}. (The copyright notices should probably be removed one way or the other.) BigDT 05:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Federation flagship

I notice the various Starship Enterprise articles have 'Starfleet Flagship' succession boxes. Do we have any references for these beyond (I think Tin Man establishes that the D is at that time the flagship of the Federation)? Morwen - Talk 11:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a succession box is necessary, but various incarnations of the Enterprise have been identified (or at least strongly indicated) as the flagship in Star Trek VI, Star Trek Insurrection, and numerous episodes of TNG and elsewhere. Wasn't there even an Enterprise episode that identifies the NX-01 as the Starfleet flagship? 23skidoo 13:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"In A Mirror, Darkly" title origin?

The page for In a Mirror, Darkly (Enterprise episode) says "Its title is an homage to Philip K. Dick's novel A Scanner Darkly, which itself was an allusion to 1 Corinthians chapter 13, verse 12". Is there any evidence for the PKD connection? The first clause of 1 Corinthians 13:12 is often translated "For now we see in a mirror, darkly" ; isn't it far more likely that the episode title is simply a quote of this?

Without even being familiar with the source of the quote, I had always assumed the title was either a Bible or Shakespeare quote, as Trek as done plenty of both. I would say change the Scanner Darkly reference and just go for the original, direct quote. 23skidoo 16:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the Enterprise DVD commentaries mentioned the Bible quote as the source ... I don't remember anything about a novel. I see it is already removed from the article ... which is probably a good thing. ;) BigDT 02:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Trekkie vs. Trekker

Hi. I'm the guy who jealously guards Star Trek XI from those people who keep trying to post their anti-XI petitions in the external links. I'm wondering: is there a guideline about Trekkie vs. Trekker? Which term is preferred by the WikiProject? Or does it matter?

Roddenberry himself said that the correct word IS Trekkie. NorthernThunder 08:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

A Trekkie is a fan who believes that Star Trek is real. A Trekker is a fan that realises it's just a TV show. Jamie Battenbo 15:21, 26 August 2006 (GMT)

Umm... based on what authority? By the way, that does force me to link to ds9fakereal.ytmnd.com. --BCSWowbagger 21:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Jamie, that must be it. Thank you. --EEMeltonIV 21:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

As it stands, yall, the difference between trekkies and trekkers is very simple and has almost nothing to do with the "reality" of the show. A Trekkie is a fan of the new Italic textStar TrekItalic text series (i.e. DS9, TNG, VOY, and ENT). A Trekker, on the other hand, is a fan of TOS, starring William Shatner as Captain James Tiberius Kirk. Xel Pos'tare 17:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)User:CaptainXel

Merging Helena and Sergei Rozhenko

The merger of these two articles has been pending for quite a while now. If no one objects, I will merge the content into a single article called Sergey and Helena Rozhenko in the near future. Eluchil404 00:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Memory Alpha

Memory Alpha is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 20:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Need for more rational ship names (and articles)

I was surfing through (and fixing) some Star Trek "ship" articles and I noticed problems that keep cropping up.

• Naming these articles with starfleet ship designations (NCC-#####) makes it REALLY HARD to search for and distinguish a fictional ship or topic from a real one in a Misplaced Pages search page. Unless you are a trekkie its hard to tell you are looking at something fictional from it's NCC number and/or if you are looking for a Star Trek ship its hard to tell which one it is. i.e. an article should be titled USS Voyager (Star Trek) and not USS Voyager (NCC-74656). The former name gives you an obvious clue as to what the article is about when seen on a search page. The later seems to violate Misplaced Pages's fiction guidelines as well.
• A lot of the ship articles and sub types cited within suffer from the same fiction problems. They may tell you its about a fictional universe but it fails to tell you in the first paragraph what specific fictional work (citation) its from and its plot relevance in that work. Halfblue 16:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the first point. Searching for 'USS Voyager' gives a two item disambiguation page, the second item of which is "USS Voyager (NCC-74656), a fictional starship that was the primary setting for the television series Star Trek: Voyager.". It's not hard to find the one you're looking for from that. Using the registry numbers makes each one unique. A page like "USS Intrepid (Star Trek)" covers three known ships - Constitution class Intrepid, Excelsior class Intrepid, and Intrepid class Intrepid. "USS Enterprise (Star Trek)" would be a nightmare - this would make searching harder, not easier. Using the registry numbers makes each article unique. Disambiguation pages make it easy to tell which one you're looking for, and using the registry numbers allows people who do know the field to go easily and immediately to the one they're looking for.

Regarding the check your fiction, the Wikiproject clearly needs to work harder to make the first paragraphs relevent. That can be amended with work. --Mnemeson 17:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the problem:

• If I “search” for “Voyager” using the typical tool an average user would--> Misplaced Pages’s search box, I get 9876 hits. I may or may not be looking for that ship with Janway on it. And even if I did narrow my search by adding “USS” as in “USS Intrepid”, it gives me 231 hits with 16 on the first page masquerading as what I may want. It would help the encyclopedic function of Misplaced Pages if I can cull out what I want or don’t want just by reading the titles. You have to think of the people who are not looking for USS Voyager --> that Star trek ship as well as those who are.

• Notice how the thing in (parentheses) is for the most part descriptive, a short word phrase or date that gives a quick clue to the person culling many topics with the similar names on Misplaced Pages. (NCC-74656) does not serve that function.

• The title USS Voyager (NCC-74656) is a fiction. Just as lead in paragraph for an article should not contain excessive fiction I think it is implied that the title of an article should not be a fiction. The title should be non-fictional and give you a clue as to what it is about. For example there is “Bob Russell (The West Wing)” not “Bob Russell (Vice President)”.

• Hull numbers in (parentheses) seem to be a naming convention on Misplaced Pages for real ships WP:NC-SHIP

• Hull numbers also seem to be describing the ship from an in-universe style WP:WAF which clearly states "Misplaced Pages is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an out-of-universe perspective."

In cases where more than one ship exist, say "USS Enterprise (Star Trek)", giving an NCC number is not going to help clearity for the uninformed searcher even if they are looking for a Star Trek ship since NCC numbers are very “deep in the universe”. The show its self even gives the solution. I don’t think I have ever heard a character say they served in the “NCC-1701-D”; they just say Enterprise-B, Enterprise-C, Enterprise-D. So that would be "USS Enterprise-D (Star Trek)". Another solution is "USS Enterprise – NCC-1701-D (Star Trek)" It’s not the numbers I personaly see as a problem. It is the titles that masquerade as something else to the average searcher.

Titling something USS Voyager (NCC-74656) may make sense in a Star Trek tech manual but it may not be the best thing to name it that in an encyclopedia. Halfblue 21:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I do see your points, but I'm not sure that the proposed solution helps with all of them, and I still think that in some circumstances it would make organisation harder.

• If this person changes their search to 'Voyager Star Trek' (which isn't unreasonable if you want to change the article title to 'USS Voyager (Star Trek)', there are still 1479 results. Short of creating the article to test it, I can't be sure of how the search routine would rank the newly named article, but as things stand, the top result is "Star Trek: Voyager", from which the page as it is is a single well labelled click away. If they're just searching for 'Voyager', the name change probably won't help them all that much.

• It's not the most accessable way of description, but use of the NCCs is highly descriptive (for people who already know - I'm not claiming it's directly helpful for a casual viewer). USS Intrepid (Star Trek) covers three distinct ships (actually four, I forgot the one in Enterprise, one of which has its own entry, two of which are redlinked. What happens to those? Merged into a single article? What about when more substantial things share a name? USS Defiant (Star Trek) should logically link to DS9's 'Defiant, but the original series Defiant served a major part in "The Tholian Web", and we learned even more about it in "In a Mirror, Darkly". Only the Enterprise, with the ability to go Enterprise-A (Star Trek) has an obvious solution to that. At this point, many articles would be left with the same titles.

• One of the benefits of Star Trek over The West Wing is that it's slightly harder to confuse with reality - an article of Bob Russell (Vice President) might genuinely have people wondering why they didn't hear about him in American History 101 - they're more likely to understand off the bat that warp capable starship articles are articles about works of fiction (at least, I hope so ;-))

• On the other hand, using the same convention as real ships, with the Check your fiction guidelines, I agree, is a problem. On the other hand, there are many advantages to using the numbers. If it's not too unweidly to use, say USS Enterprise NCC-1701-D (Star Trek), USS Voyager NCC-74656 (Star Trek) ? That might be a good solution... makes it clear they're about fiction whilst preserving the distinctions between ships and avoiding articles with the same titles. --Mnemeson 22:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I originally thought that Halfblue's notes on various ships' talk pages were just annoying (sorry), but after pondering 'em for a bit, I've changed my mind; both suggestions seem worthwhile. In terms of the naming convention, parenthetically adding Star Trek to the title would be in keeping with other Trek-related articles. Although there are instances of multiple vessels with the same name, most of them (and of course the ship classes) are unique. Some of the shared ship names could possibly even be condensed into a single article (just a thought). But, in general, "USS Voyager (Star Trek)" seems more apt than what we have now. I'd suggest keeping the registry number in parentheses for vessels like the Enterprises and Defiants, e.g. "USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) (Star Trek)". --EEMeltonIV 02:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Redundant lists

Do we really need multiple lists along the lines of List of Star Trek ships and List of Starfleet ship classes? These are essentially the same article simply ordered differently (and both of them needing some love), but the former list has a few Klingon and Romulan vessels at the bottom. Do people think it would be a good idea to merge these two together? --Mnemeson 16:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Move articles to match naming convention

I am working to improve Star Trek Voyager articles and have found that many of the articles do not match naming convention. For example Kathryn Janeway should be at Kathryn Janeway (Star Trek) surely. i wont change anything until told to ofcourse. --Mad onion 16:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we've got a concensus forming above - looks like Article name (Star Trek), and in cases of multiple articles with the same titles, something else that distinguishes them, e.g. USS Intrepid (NCC-1631) (Star Trek), USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) (Star Trek)... does that look right to people? That way, Appalachian would be USS Appalachian (Star Trek), Janeway would be Kathryn Janeway (Star Trek), the Intrepid class testbed would be USS Intrepid (NCC-74600) (Star Trek), etc... hehe, I just realised how much moving is gonna be in order when we decide on this ;-) --Mnemeson 16:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This sounds good to me (see two headings above). --EEMeltonIV 16:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that sounds great, well i wont do anything for now but as soon as there is a consensus i will start dealing with it for Star Trek Voyager. thats what im trying to improve for now. btw, how is a consensus reached. Im new here so any help would be appreciated. --Mad onion 17:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If there is a consensus to put "(Star Trek)" after all starship article names, I don't see why we need to put the registration number in parentheses. For example, can't we have "USS Enterprise NCC-1701-D (Star Trek)" - having two lots of parentheses looks messy and seems unnecessary. While we're talking about the move, what do you think about naming them "U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701-D (Star Trek)" rather than "USS Enterprise NCC-1701-D (Star Trek)" so they appear exactly as the names do on the ships themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marky1981 (talk • contribs)

The two parantheses, I've been thinking the same for a short while now, and I think you're right, it looks messy - USS Enterprise 1701-D (Star Trek) would be neater. Inserting the periods, I have to admit to being a lot less keen on - I honestly doubt anyone would try to access the articles by typing them in, so it would make finding the articles harder. No naval ships on Misplaced Pages that I'm aware of use the periods inside the prefixes (although I don't know if official documentation about them uses the periods in those cases). I also feel it starts to look messier again, which it would be good to move away from. --Mnemeson 19:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i think the dots would look messy. also, when i begin to move articles i will make the article with just the name a redirect. so for example i will move the article Kathryn Janeway to Kathryn Janeway (Star Trek) but will make Kathryn Janeway a redirect to the new article. --Mad onion 20:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there also some consensus that ship names that only appear once (e.g. USS Prometheus, USS Stargazer) can eschew the registry from the article title? USS Stargazer (NCC-2893) -> USS Stargazer (Star Trek)? --EEMeltonIV 20:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think so, yeah --Mnemeson 20:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As tempting as it is, there's no need to go through articles to append (Star Trek) to links to ship names -- the redirects will take care of it (and I think I got all, or at least the fast majority, of double redirects yesterday). Add "(Star Trek)" if making other edits, although even then it's not essential. --EEMeltonIV 16:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Prometheus Registry

The USS Prometheus (NX-59650) article addresses this to some level (and there is debate on the talk page, but unfortunately there's no consistenty as to which should be used. The Prometheus articles themselves (ship and class) use NX-59650, but other articles linking to it refer to her as NX-74913. Actually, the Prometheus class article uses both registries - 59650 at the top, and 74913 at the bottom, with no comment on the conflict. 59650 was only used on the external hull, while 74913 was used on all displays, etc, but the external hull is vastly more visible. Although I think 74913 is more likely to be right, I don't mind which we settle on it, but it would probably be good if we could settle on one, instead of the current very confusing situation --Mnemeson 16:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Should there be a title for the plot summary in each episode?

This is something that seems to be different depending on what Star Trek you look at. for example Encounter at Farpoint (TNG episode) doesnt have any title and simply breaks the plot up with the spoiler line. while voyager episodes have a title like Faces (Voyager episode) in this example "Story line" is used but it seems to change depending on what you look at. is there any kind of guideline I can follow so all episodes are the same? i really dont mid what we use, but i think there sohlud be an agreement on what to do here. --Mad onion 17:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally think Flashback (Voyager episode) is a good example of how to organise episode summaries -

Title, position in series

Summary of any notable non-spoiler points

'Plot'

Summary of teaser

Spoiler notice

Summary of rest of episode

I do agree we should standardise this - at the moment, it's all very haphazard. I wanted to get a load of Voyager episode summaries done this summer, but time unexpectedly closed up.--Mnemeson 18:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

oh well is good to know there is someone else who is working on voyager. i am going through all episodes that currently exist and making alterations to try and standardize them and i have done a few plot summaries but they do take a while. but yes we do need standardization I dont know how to go about acheiving this though. --Mad onion 20:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek article

I just majorly changed the main Star Trek article. I'm wondering what people think, and what else needs to be done before nominated for FAC (since I tried a Peer Review and no one commented, I thought this might be a better forum). Newnam 21:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

{{Infobox Fictional Spacecraft}}

If anyone is willing; They could help me update the ships to use this new infobox. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 11:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Renamed to "Infobox Fictional Spacecraft" per the category. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 11:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Out-of-universe perspective cleanup needed

Here is what I am seeing in a lot (most?) Star Trek articles on Misplaced Pages:

• the birth and death dates of fictional characters.
• plot synopsis framed as biography.
• performance statistics or characteristics for fictional vehicles and devices.
• an exposition framed as the history of fictional locations or organizations.
• fictional background information on alien creatures presented as real-world science or anthropology.

Whats wrong with that? Misplaced Pages considers that specificaly non-encyclopedic. It is all laid out in WP:WAF. I see some cleanup where citations have been added to in-univeres articles but that seems to fall way short of Misplaced Pages guidelines. If you write an "in-univeres" article with citations or add citations to an "in-univeres" article you have --->an "in-univeres" article with added citations. Although using a prose style like that can sometimes be acceptable Misplaced Pages asks that it be used in small sections and maybe not at all since an out-of-universe perspective "will make make it more accessible to those unfamiliar" with the work in question (Exceptions).

annoying ;^)Halfblue 03:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Related poll

Hi all, I have a question about article naming at the Lost articles, which it looks like you have already discussed, so I could use some opinions. At the Lost episode article, Talk:Fire + Water there is a discussion about whether to move it to Fire + Water (Lost). This would make it consistent with the other article titles at Category:Lost episodes. However, some people argue that appending the series title is an unnecessary disambiguation. The Star Trek precedent is repeatedly being cited, so if there's anyone here who would like to offer an opinion, your presence would be much appreciated at Talk:Fire + Water, thanks. --Elonka 19:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

A bit funny..

Anyone realise that Image:IKS_Vor'cha.jpg is actually the toy version of the Vor'cha? Soemone needs to take a proper image from an episode, or if i have time then i will. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Starfleet ship classes AfD

Hey all. FYI, List of Starfleet ship classes is up for deletion. --Fang Aili 13:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)of

The Ashes of Eden

The Ashes of Eden article is currently filled with empty placeholders. Can anyone clean this article up and fill in the relevant information? shotwell 03:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Stardate or calendar date?

Hey. Many Trek articles are inconsistent as to whether they use stardates or calendar dates. Calendar dates seem to be more accessible to the casual reader; stardates aren't particularly informative for those same casual readers. For we be including stardates at all? Would anyone like to nod their way that, at the very least, we should put the more-accessible calendar dates before, if at all, mentioning stardates? I point you toward the Jean-Luc Picard article as an example -- lots of stardates put before calendar dates, but really if want to put things in temporal context, even compared to other Trek stuff, the actual year is far more useful to me than #####.#. So . . . . ? --EEMeltonIV 03:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek: Reborn

Could someone from the STWP have a look at Star Trek: Reborn ? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. What is a "virtual internet series" anyway ? Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The "virtual series" are just people writing stories in a series like format (20 eps. etc) - There are tons of them, that is no more notable then the rest, AfD it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - it's writing fan fiction in script format and imagining people in the parts - nn, afd tag added. Discussion is here --Mnemeson 13:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Episode "The High Ground" needs some attention

Eh, Hi, I'm not sure if this is the correct place to put this, but I hope that there will be some Trek experts here who will know the details of the TNG episode "The High Ground (TNG episode)". Like I said in the talk page there, I think this episode article needs to be brought up to standard, especially as it is a quite notable episode (being (AFAIK) the only one that was ever banned). I can't really write allot about it myself as I only ever saw it once, so I'm hoping someone here will be able to expand it. Thanks.--Hibernian 17:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

starship articles.

All ship articles where disambiguated with (Star Trek) on the end some time ago -- this really isnt necessary for a fair few of them and hence they need de-ambiguating. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
• User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
• User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
• User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 13:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)