Wikia

Memory Alpha

Talk:Operation Retrieve star chart locations

36,850pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Starbase 24 chart articles Edit

Initial discussion, moved here from User talk:Airtram3

I assume that you have a clearer image of the chart or some other source for your information, as the image of that chart here is illegible. If you could state where you got that information or post a clearer image that would be helpful.--31dot 22:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the Star Trek forum flare.solareclipse.net about the Operation Retrieve chart. A friend of the guy who bought the charts provided images, and the information is from that chart. I am able to read most of the names. However, there are three or four names I can't make out. And, one other thing, I don't wish to get into a discussion about including these celestial locations when this site is also including many of the ships which weren't legible either. (A number of them in fact would be considered soft canon (i.e. Helin, John Muir, Kongo} as the source for them hasn't been identified yet in the filmed material.) I figure if they are included here, why not these locations? If I come home off rude, I apologize. I just wish to head off any debate before it begins. – Airtram3 22:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I was not criticizing your information, I was merely asking where you got it. I'm not sure how but that information should probably be worked into the articles somehow.--31dot 22:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC) I'm also wondering if it would be better to have a single article for this information (or maybe one for planets and one for stars) as few people would know of the names of these celestial objects in order to search for them, and all the articles say the exact same scant information (X existed). I'm not sure though.--31dot 23:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. With no other information than "it exists", it might actually be more informative (and potentially less work later) if we had one article about this star chart, containing a list of all stars on that chart, and then redirects to that page from every star name. Also, as has been discussed elsewhere - if we use such "second-hand" information, we really need to make sure it stays accessible, even when the external resource goes away. We've had that problem already in the past, and should try to avoid it when possible. -- Cid Highwind 12:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as we have an owner of the original source (the printed set piece) providing the images, what are our options for including an image here so that we can create all these as these articles and have that view of the original as our source. -- Captain MKB 15:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, regarding the creation of individual pages, my main objection to that is not that we don't have an image on-site, but that all ~50 articles would basically contain no useful information other than what is provided on this page right now. Other than to increase our page count by 50, would it really be more useful to have this information spread to those pages, than to keep everything here while allowing redirects to be created?
Still, it would be useful to have those images on the page - if no one objects, I'm going to contact the uploader there. -- Cid Highwind 15:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I disagree with you on that -- the articles would, like the many others of their type that exist, define a unique subject, help provide category linkages between other like articles, as well as linking to the behind-the-scenes source, creating a larger degree of overall awareness of the particular source. That is, as long as the articles were complete did contain all of these necessary links. -- Captain MKB 16:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Redirects can be categorized since quite some time, so that shouldn't be the sole argument for an article split. I know that other articles are standalones because of categorization, but their creation predates that feature in most cases. Similarly, if redirects exist and all link to this page, then one behind-the-scenes link on this page would serve the same purpose, wouldn't it? -- Cid Highwind 16:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe so. These would be articles defining ships, planets, and a number of starfleet personnel -- each with plenty of attributes inferred from the mention including locations, dates of existence, and behind-the-scenes origins of their names. This has been done before to create short but informational articles on stars like Tsugh Khaidnn and Alfin-Bernard from a similar background source -- and I suggest that we continue on the basis of that precedent, as those articles work just fine in the overall scheme of things. -- Captain MKB 17:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion after page creation Edit

This is nice - however, I doubt the line on the chart has been identified as being the Federation-Klingon border. Or has it? If not, the "placement information" ("inside" vs. "outside" of circle) should probably be kept for convenience, but be noted using more neutral terms. -- Cid Highwind 21:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Airtram claimed to have images from the chart from its current owner- if he could link to them or upload them(barring any copyvio issues) that might clear things up. Otherwise, yes, we should be more neutral.--31dot 21:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think all of this is still using the images linked here as a reference, and not any better images that were specifically provided. This is the one used here, and the line is not identified in any way on that chart. Perhaps it was identified in dialogue - but if not, it needs to go. -- Cid Highwind 06:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, we shouldn't assume any particular line is any particular thing.
Any reason why names here are not linked? These all seem like valid article material, similar to the chart in Yesterday's Enterprise. -- Captain MKB 15:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

See the discussion above, which I just moved here. -- Cid Highwind 15:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal Edit

Talk:Gravesworld (Klingon)

As I recall, Gravesworld in Schizoid Man wasn't specifically mentioned to be named after Ira Graves. Also, even if it was, Graves was never given an age, he might have easily been in his thirties in ST VI, considering how old McCoy lived, and the planet might have been only temporarely taken over by the Klingons at this point. The name doesn't sound like anything the klingons would name a planet. My opinion is that this article should be deleted and we should interpet this not to be a different planet, and add the data to the Gravesworld article with a note like this:

In 2293, Gravesworld was a part of the Klingon Empire. (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country)
Gravesworld was shown on a star chart in relation of Starbase 24 and Rura Penthe.

--Pseudohuman 10:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's less speculative to assume it's the one planet. But I'm making this a merge suggestion - preserve the history and all that.– Cleanse 10:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Article merge, including history merge - yes, definitely. However, as has been discussed on Talk:Operation Retrieve star chart locations, it isn't really clear at the moment whether that line on the chart is supposed to be the border. So, only the bginfo should be added to Gravesworld, but not the fact that this planet is located in Klingon territory. -- Cid Highwind 13:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cid. If the info about Klingon territory is removed from this, then it, and the Federation territory info, should be removed from all articles added by Airtram3 regarding these planets/systems. --Pseudohuman 15:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Myers vs Meyers Edit

Talk:Alpha Meyers

Possibly the title is misspelled? I'm not sure, bot maybe the page needs to be moved. --Plasmarelais 15:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, thanks. :) -- Cid Highwind 16:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thin line is the border? Edit

This page claims that the thin line is the border of federation and klingon space, and it is true that there is a starfleet starbase and ships on one side and rura penthe and two other klingon bases on the other, but there appears to be no indication that the line is meant to be the border. In fact many of the star/planet names would indicate they are Federation locations that are depicted on the other side from the starbase side. I would think it is there for just as likely that the line marks the area governed from the starbase for example. or some other galactic area indicator. in any case it is speculation to claim it is the border in my opinion. --Pseudohuman (talk) 20:55, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki