I have removed the non-cannon discussion of this character in the books. Only cannon material belongs in this wiki. --StoryMaster 04:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Unless it is referenced in a separate section made especially for non-canon information, otherwise known as apocrypha. Additionally, if you remove large chunks of text from articles, archive them on the talk page. In this case it is not necessary, as this text is placed legitimately in the article. Also, StoryMaster, if you don't understand something, ask before assuming, or refer to our policy pages: Canon Policy/Non-Canon Resources. --Alan del Beccio 04:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I keep getting in trouble for my edits. I have had other threads where i was told explicitly that ONLY on screen is cannon, AND, this wiki is ONLY FOR CANNON. Yet, here i am told books are ok. Yet, when i tried to add a book it got deleted. I know you are all angry at me ,but truely, i am trying to get involved here. I just keep getting mixed messages!StoryMaster 04:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- For the upteenth time, you have links to the policies on your user talk page. You have links to them here. READ THE LINK! I have even provided you on your user talk page with a list of people to ask questions to. We have done about 100 times more to try to help you than any of us required when we were new, and about 100 times more help than we have had to provide to anyone else. Follow the links in your welcome message. There are links in your welcome message, please read them. Those links in your welcome message, read them, they are policies. I really don't know how many more ways I can re-iterate this to you. Please, please tell me what it is you aren't understanding. Otherwise I am at a loss. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Additionally, please read the links in your welcome message. Oh, and too, it is canon, not CANNON...a CANNON is a big gun. Totally different. --Alan del Beccio 04:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
"Macet also wears a different style uniform than most Cardassians seen in Star Trek, including those from flashback sequences to the 2350s."
What uniforms in the 2350's was this writer speaking of? I found no record of them in the Cardassian uniform article. Any chance for a citation? If said uniforms did exist it'd be great to have them added to the Cardassian uniform article. --BloodMalice 11:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
He's wearing what we call "Type C" on that page. The fact that his uniform his different is also obvious from the screenshot we have of Macet.– Cleanse 11:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Right, I kind of get what you're saying now.
- As Cardassian uniform says under "Type B" - "This type of uniform has been in use since the 2350s." Clearly Macet's uniform ("Type C") is different to this.– Cleanse 11:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but I'm specifically noting this line "including those from flashback sequences". There's no citation so I have no idea what this was in reference to specifically. Did this author perhaps mean the same uniforms seen in (DS9: "Things Past")? --BloodMalice 11:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, yes...that's why "Things Past" is cited for the statement on Cardassian uniform that the "Type B" uniforms went back to the 2350s...– Cleanse 11:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
No, no. I'm talking about the author that wrote the passage on the Macet page, not the uniforms page. There's a citation on the uniforms page but not the Macet page. I was wondering whether a citation should be placed for that passage regarding the information being discussed. Although perhaps merely adding a link to the Cardassian uniform page should suffice to know what the author is talking about, which I've added in. Thoughts? --BloodMalice 12:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Er, I answered your question. :-) You stated you had no idea what episodes "including those from flashback sequences" was referring to. I said that your guess that it was referring to "Things Past" was correct, and this was already cited on Cardassian uniform.
- In any case, I clarified the statement a little and added a citation. Hopefully this will avoid confusion in the future. :-)– Cleanse 12:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Definitely. Thanks. It's good that you took out the speculation. That passage was choke full of it and wasn't helping any. --BloodMalice 12:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)