Wikia

Memory Alpha

Talk:Archduk3/Archive 01

37,230pages on
this wiki

Back to page | < User talk:Archduk3

Revision as of 23:16, April 24, 2013 by Archduk3 (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Gral and Shran call a truce

Welcome!

Welcome to Memory Alpha, Archduk3! I've noticed that you've already made some contributions to our database – thanks for your edit to the Star Trek parodies and pop culture references (television) page! We all hope that you'll enjoy our activities here and decide to join our community.

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

  • How to edit a page includes a basic tutorial about how to use our special wikitext code here on Memory Alpha.
  • Naming conventions provides guidelines on how to name a new page that you may want to create.
  • The Manual of Style is an overview of the basic guidelines for how to format and style your articles.
  • Keep track of your favorite Memory Alpha articles through your very own watchlist.

One other suggestion: if you're going to make comments on talk pages or make other sorts of comments, please be sure to sign them with four tildes (~~~~) to paste in your user name and the date/time of the comment.

If you have any questions, please feel free to post them in our Ten Forward community page. Thanks, and once again, welcome to Memory Alpha! -- DarkHorizon (Talk) 14:51, May 9, 2009

The above named user is the most currently available administrator to contribute to Memory Alpha; their signature was automatically added by User:Wikia. If you have any immediate questions or concerns, you may contact that user through their talk page.

Multiple edits Edit

Please make use of the Preview button before you save your edits, so you can see what it looks like beforehand. This prevents the Recent Changes page from being clogged and reduces the database load. Thanks.--31dot 23:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My bad. Will do.Archduk3 23:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Starfleet casualties has become to big to edit in one go, doing it by section now. So sorry if my copious amount of edits to this page is getting ridiculous. Archduk3 03:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit summariesEdit

When editing... especially many pages with small edits in a short period of time, it's nice to use the "Summary" line. Put a brief mention of what you're doing. As in... "adding MU tag" or something. -- sulfur 19:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Will do. - Archduk3 19:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Data Transfers Edit

Usually when large amounts of text are moved from one page to another, the proper course of action is to request a merge that way it preserves the history of the page. An admin will probably come by and do it anyway. — Morder 23:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I created the Mirror universe casualties page to try and reduce the size of the Starfleet casualties page since it has gotten way to unwieldy for it's own good. I wasn't sure what the proper channels were to go about getting it made, so I just did it. I'm sorry if I just made some work for someone else to clean up. - Archduk3 23:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been told the same thing when I started editing a while back. :) Just comes with the territory. — Morder 23:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you're the only supplier of information for the Mirror universe casualties (according to Shran). Bravo on your dedication to the topic. :) — Morder 23:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have spent way too much time in the casualties pages lately not to be considered a coroner of sorts. :) - Archduk3 23:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Image Edit

Just to let you know the preferred format on this site is .jpg. :) (makes it easier if all images are in the same format) — Morder 23:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how to make a .jpg without a background, which is why I'm using the .png. - Archduk3 23:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no problem. That's why I specified "preferred". :) (and, no, it's not possible) — Morder 23:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Inuse Edit

In case you don't know about it you can use the template {{inuse}} on articles which you are working on which might take a while to complete. — Morder 20:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw that one, but since I'm trying to find a better way to present the information on the page, I'm not actually editing right now, the note was to explain the incomplete look. Though now that I think about it, that really is what that template is for isn't? - Archduk3 20:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, yup. It's just to warn others *not* to edit it while you're editing it. Also, don't forget to remove it when you're done. :) — Morder 20:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Starship sidebar Edit

I'm going to revert your changes made to the template as you seem to have broke it...if you're going to change things like that I would recommend that you first create a template in your own user space and test it there rather than change an established template. Also you might want to bring up your changes to the talk page first You asked for extra Images but now you're also adding an assignment patch...If you need help in creating a template in your own user space let me know and i'll help you out. — Morder (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened there. I just added the code from the Starship Class template, though I might have missed something in the copy paste. Or I can't change the Logo caption. Any ideas on how to get it working? - Archduk3 09:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Off-hand, no. But there's a great way to test it User:Archduk3/Sidebar starship. Create that page and add your code (just view an old revision to get your stuff back) then create another page like User:Archduk3/Sandbox and add the template but instead of {{Sidebar starship...}} use this {{User:Archduk3/Sidebar starship...}} and you'll be able to test your changes as much as you want until you get it perfect :) — Morder (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. - Archduk3 09:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, it works now, but the Category got removed in there somewhere, even though the code for the category is still in there. Now how do I delete the sidebar page I made? - Archduk3 10:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Of Sidebars and Actors Edit

Hey there. As I remarked in my edit summary on Nella Daren, please don't remove notes stating "X was played by Y" when you add a sidebar. The sidebar is meant to summarise/supplement information in the article, not replace it. Thanks, – Cleanse 04:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. - Archduk3 06:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Remus Edit

Thanks, I didn't see the additional note. — Morder (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you give me a link to the discussion on that, I'm going to leave a note on the talk page about it, since I thought it was odd that there was nothing there. - Archduk3 21:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's already on the talk page.Morder (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I lied...hold on :) — Morder (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"shockwave could have been in a different orbital plane than remus was in at the time - speculation anyway" - that was the reason, which is true. If you want to add it to the talk page - you can use the Praxis explosion as an example. Quite simply, we don't know the shape of the shockwave of the exploded star and therefore it's possible that Remus wasn't destroyed and speculation either way - so, if we don't know - we leave it blank :) — Morder (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

2390s Starfleet insignia Edit

You mention yourself as having made this image. I was wondering if you could share a "raw" format image (PSD, whatever you used) in the hopes of fixing it up a little, since there's some really ugly aliasing, particularly noticeable on the bottom diagonal edges of the gold quadrilaterals and on the top edges of the delta. JavenGant 00:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been working on that, the background is cleaned up, but the delta could still use some work, if you have a way for me to get you the file, since the photobucket dislikes .psd - Archduk3 00:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

My e-mail address begins twwinwood, and I'm on Gmail, so you should be able to finish it off. JavenGant 03:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Edit

I just came back to finish. :) — Morder (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No prob, you admins seem to be busier than normal recently, so the rest of us should pick up some of that slack. - Archduk3:talk 01:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Martok Link Edit

Why'd you delete the expanded universe links that I introduced? RicoRichmond 10:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

See Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Template:Stexpanded. The admin resolution isn't that far off. - Archduk3:talk 10:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

VandalismEdit

Don't hide from the truth. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.181.198.188 (talk • contribs).

Edit template Edit

I think it needs to be taken one step further than providing a general template for any and every edit. — Morder (talk) 06:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

And yes, I'm working on something similar. — Morder (talk) 06:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm just bored and ignoring my to do list. I do enjoy making these things though. - Archduk3:talk 06:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm bored as well. I have important projects to finish but I'm being distracted by this site. :) — Morder (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are way better then mine, the names are a bit long though. - Archduk3:talk 11:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I figured we needed one tailored for each common faux pas. With regards to the name I discussed it with others but they're descriptive enough to be at least a bit memorable for those of us that need to use them. Though if you have a better name, please, let me know... :) — Morder (talk) 11:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would just drop the edithint part, I don't think any other templates are using any of those names. - Archduk3:talk 11:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
...or shorten it to EH-(name) or just E-(name). Just typing out loud. - Archduk3:talk 11:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Might be a good idea. Could you bring it up on Forum:New Edit hints? :) Also suggest any new templates I missed. — Morder (talk) 11:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Edits Edit

Congrats. I noticed you updated your user page. Not sure if you know so I'll throw it out. Your current edit count: 51,695 (You can put this on your userpage instead) :) — Morder (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


Categories Edit

You should add a sortkey to those cats you just added. the cat [[Category:Memory Alpha maintenance templates]] on {{Pna-cite}} would become [[Category:Memory Alpha maintenance templates|pna-cite]] that way they're ordered alphabetically. :) — Morder (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how to do that, or that it could even be done. - Archduk3:talk 22:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That's why I provided an example. I've italicized the addition - though if you want I can take care of it :) — Morder (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If you could, and I'll take a look at what you did. (visual learner, aka, copy/paste) - Archduk3:talk 22:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Will do. I don't like people interrupting my little projects and I didn't want to do the same to you...I'll do a few. :) — Morder (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I see what you did, though I still have no idea what it did, as I only see one category listed at the bottom of the page, or where there two before? - Archduk3:talk 22:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Just got it. - Archduk3:talk 22:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it just sorts them on the category page. That way they're sorted by name instead of all together under the T's :) — Morder (talk)

I'll finish the rest that were in Maintenance, though when I was done, I was going to suggest a new category or two to fit the rest, if needed. - Archduk3:talk 22:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that ship name format templates are "maintenance" templates. Maintenance suggests that something needs to be done as a result. Might be an idea to sit down and think about how to categorize them rather than arbitrarily adding everything. -- sulfur 15:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Also note that by adding a second <noinclude> section to the end of those ship name templates, you actually broke them. All. I've reverted all of them for the time being. Go with the practice that a template can only have one noinclude section on it. -- sulfur 15:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I really only have four choices, with a fifth suggested, to sort them, and the maintenance cat fit it best, if you have a better cat idea for this type of template, add it to Memory Alpha:Category suggestions. I'll make sure there is only one noinclude section in the future. - Archduk3:talk 15:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Just because category options are limited, doesn't mean that we have to put all of the templates into a category, especially if they don't fit too well. Regardless, a new sub-category might be something like "format templates." Or something to that effect. They could include any template that is used to make text formatting on a page simpler. -- sulfur 16:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll use the basic template cat until a sub cat can be decided on. If you're going to add docs to the templates that broke, I can add the cat to the doc without risking the template. - Archduk3:talk 16:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
And by adding it to the /doc page, the doc is in the category, but not the template. You did realize that, right?  :) -- sulfur 12:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Yea, the whole point in adding the categories is so it's easier to find them, and thus make it easier to use them in articles. There are already a few templates that only have the doc categorized, since there is a warning on some not to add a cat. :) - Archduk3:talk 13:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Just because there already are some doesn't mean it makes sense, though. :) When putting the category on the /doc page, use "includeonly" instead of "noinclude", like in this example: [1]. -- Cid Highwind 16:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Will do. - Archduk3:talk 16:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Starfleet casualties Edit

Hey. Could you please fix my last edit to the page. I don't know where the problem is. Thanks. – Tom 23:35, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

Seems like it was already done, feel free to mess around with the tables on my subpage. - Archduk3:talk 12:16, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

PNAs Edit

Regarding Boq'ta, when you add a general PNA to a page it is usually a good idea to leave a note on the talk page explaining how the article can be improved. This helps later contributors in fixing the article. Thanks! – Cleanse 23:41, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I was going to watch the episode and fix it after, thinking the note on the edit would do until then, and things kinda snowballed on me after that. Watching the episode now, so I should have it fixed soon. - Archduk3:talk 12:16, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

Disambig stuffEdit

Putting the name inside () on articles is only done when there is a disambiguation required. "Discovery" has none needed, so should not have been moved to "its proper name". -- sulfur 18:20, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

All the other pages were were using the same format, so I changed it without thinking too much about it, my bad. - Archduk3:talk 18:24, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

Edit HintsEdit

When using them, use: {{SUBST:TheEditHint}}. That way, the text will be placed on the page, not the template. :) -- sulfur 03:00, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

K. - Archduk3:talk 03:12, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

Chakotay Edit

  • Although Chakotay was invariably referred to as "commander" during the run of this series, he wore what otherwise figures to be the provisional rank insignia of a lieutenant commander (two solid stripes, one hollow stripe). He is, however, listed as "Commander Chakotay" on the opening credits on every episode of the first three seasons, bar "Caretaker", where no character's rank is given except Janeway.

Simply put the provisional rank of lieutenant commander is an assumption. — Morder (talk) 05:25, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

I know, I read the whole thing on the page before making that change. It seems clear that he is a Lt. Cmdr in the first episode at the very least, so the article was correct before the change. - Archduk3:talk 05:36, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

But he was never called anything but Commander which still makes it an assumption that the pin make him a Lieutenant. (I really hate this whole issue...wish star trek would just make it finalized) :) — Morder (talk) 05:39, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean...I was trying to find a way to note the change in the background when you changed it back. I think it is clear he was given a rank of Lt. Cmdr in the first episode, as he was replacing a Lt. Cmdr. Some time between episode one and whatever episode was the one with the LCARS shot in it, he was bumped up to Cmdr...which could have been episode two for all we know. So I was going to add to the note before more madness broke out...sadly it seems I'm already infected. - Archduk3:talk 05:46, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

MB vs. MA Edit

I just read your post on this page and though I'd clarify something since I used to think that MB should cover novels and what-not while MA stuck with only canon materials. But. Only the in-universe articles come from canon. We are also the wiki for licensed materials such as comics, novels and games however, material from those sources are not allowed in in-universe articles. — Morder (talk) 22:11, October 3, 2009 (UTC)

That makes far more sence now. - Archduk3:talk 14:31, October 4, 2009 (UTC)

BorgEdit

The {{delete}} template is only used for clear violations such as copyvio or vandalism or anything similar. Though I know you thought it was a personal image it was an attempt by that user to provide a proper symbol for the borg. :) — Morder (talk) 02:00, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

After digging around I see what you mean. We should keep both, the new one for the Borg proper, renaming the file of course, and the old one for Lore's Borg. - Archduk3:talk

Agreed. Don't worry about it. I've made the mistake several times in my time here :) — Morder (talk) 02:32, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

I can upload the flag version again under a new file name, and I'll try and keep my stampedes through china shops to a minimum. :) - Archduk3:talk 02:37, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Delete Edit

If you can - please don't delete the actual content when adding the {{delete}} template. This allows us to still see the content there without having to view the history and make an immediate decision whether or not it qualifies for deletion :) — Morder (talk) 03:57, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Will do next time. - Archduk3:talk 03:57, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Picard Revert Edit

Sorry I didn't notice you did it right after I posted it (thought it was much later). Anyway I wasn't blaming you about the standard because not very many people know but, at least when it comes to my undos like that I tend to put them on the talk page for all to see and I try not to do anything if it's something I shouldn't do :) We'll see how this all turns out but I know we've had the discussion before with an anon and it was decided then and I doubt that anything will change with those users but who knows? That's what makes wiki's interesting in that they can change...I may not like it but if it does change everyone's mind then that's just the way it is. I just hope it doesn't! :) — Morder (talk) 07:46, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

oh and have fun on your holiday. — Morder (talk) 07:47, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) - Archduk3:talk 07:42, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

Production notes Edit

Thanks for pointing that production notes are valid for dates to me because I had actually forgotten about it. Just to clarify my position: I have no problem with the dates I only have a problem with speculation used to arrive at a date. Also, original research is the same thing as speculation but entirely basing it on canon facts and using those facts to come to a conclusion. The conclusion is still speculative as someone else could come to a different conclusion based on those same facts. So essentially original research is speculation but more refined :) — Morder (talk) 22:39, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

We should have an addition added to the canon policy defining if, and what, research, if any, can be used; so as to avoid confusion later, and give us something to point to, since there doesn't seems to be anything specific on it now. I only say this since I know basic math is accepted, but pretty much everything past that isn't. As for the dates, I really want all user speculation removed from the system, since this is causing all of us way more trouble than it should be worth. Hopefully we can nail down the canon dates pretty quickly, since I'm sure there aren't all that many, and fill in the rest as needed with background info that can be cited, so if someone down the line has an issue with it, we can point then to the proper place to raise hell. Once that's done, we can all go back to arguing about sensible things, like when did Picard really lose his hair? :) - Archduk3:talk 22:59, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Casualties Edit

Just out of curiosity and I haven't really checked. Are you only putting casualties of war or just any death? When I hear the word casualty I think someone was killed for a reason rather than someone who just died of old age or natural causes. — Morder (talk) 07:30, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

I'm listing casualties as defined at casualty report (KIA, MIA, and WIA). I don't think there are any "natural" deaths on the lists right now, since most of those are just assumed to have happened, and are never really talk about in canon. Though to be honest, I never really thought about it, or checked. The only guide right now is that members of Starfleet are never "considered" to be truly out of the service. - Archduk3:talk 07:38, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Just curious - I saw Antos and really thought he just died of natural causes from a plasma explosion. I don't recall that he was targeted with the explosion or anything so I just figured he wasn't really a casualty in that regard though I guess it doesn't really matter :) — Morder (talk) 07:47, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Orphaning images Edit

Regarding your changes to Excelsior class: If you remove or orphan an image from an article, such as in this case File:USS Excelsior, aft.jpg, please be sure you do something with it, reuse it or post it for deletion so that it just doesn't float off into some state of limbo on the unused image list. Thanks. --Alan 14:02, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

I was going to use it in the article, I just needed to know if the MSDs I link to on the talk page were canon or not before. I see you added it pretty much where I was going to anyways, though I'll make a point to move them in the future instead of remove and forget because of shinny objects. - [Edited] Archduk3:talk 19:31, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletions Edit

I'm always tempted to delete things that are blatantly non-canon, but immediate deletions have to meet this criteria, and just being non-canon doesn't count, for better or worse.--31dot 23:48, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at #2 when I put that up, but it does seem like there could even be a merge with the game article now. I changed my vote on the deletion page as well. - Archduk3:talk 23:52, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Re: USS Farragut (alternate reality) Edit

Sorry about that. Didn't know. --WTRiker 05:11, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

It happens, NBD. :) - Archduk3:talk 05:12, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

I like tables too Edit

but the tables pictured in NX-01's mess hall are circular. Do they have rectangular ones too or did they at another time? I thought they were rectangular too until I looked at the picture so I didn't make any change. Setacourse 19:21, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain they had both mixed in there somehow, but I could be wrong, I defiantly remember the circular ones, but I am pretty certain I saw tables of other shapes to. --Terran Officer 22:40, November 26, 2009 (UTC)
I could swear the ones I've seen the most are rectangular; I'll need to watch some more episodes to be sure. - Archduk3:talk 01:15, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
I just going to say that I blame the cranberries. - Archduk3:talk 01:30, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

FYI Edit

I thought you would like to know I created your suggested category The Dixon Hill Series, since it was your idea. :) I think I got most of the important things added to the category, but if you know of any that I missed feel free to add them.--31dot 22:58, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. :) - Archduk3:talk 23:35, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Edit

Thanks! I noticed it but I wasnt too sure because I've had....bwuh..troubles in the past with fickle Preview buttons :P I'll make use of it more in the future. The preceding unsigned comment was added by PrfctDrk (talk • contribs).

Not a problem, just remember to actually save (and sign). Nothing is worse than having to write something twice...not that I've had to do that...more than twice. :) - Archduk3:talk 07:51, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Image captions Edit

Strange about the image captions not showing up but it's a problem elsewhere. I'll see what I can find. — Morder (talk) 00:50, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Guess we go to each other's talk page at the same time. I'm looking now. — Morder (talk) 00:52, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was wrong. The Sidebar image template wasn't written that way yet it includes the option for a caption. I have no clue why it was done that way. I might look into it some other time but I've restored your edit. Sorry about that. — Morder (talk) 00:57, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

NBD. :) That is weird though. - Archduk3:talk 01:18, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Regarding uploading pictures Edit

I don't know much about uploading pictures, I found a way to take a screencap of Janeway but would it be legal to upload it since I got it from a Voy episode? PS I've never seen this picture of her before its a closeup of Kate Mulgrew in Homestead 7x23...

-- PrfctDrk 01:05, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

The first thing, PrfctDrk, would be to make sure the image doesn't already exist or a better one doesn't exist. Read MA:IMAGE for information regarding copyright and uploading. — Morder (talk) 01:07, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
Pretty much what Morder said. - Archduk3:talk 01:19, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I should just stick to perusing around the board instead of trying to halp lol :-/ -- PrfctDrk 01:41, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we said that, just read MA:IMAGE. If you have any specific questions, ask. - Archduk3:talk 05:25, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Ever wonder? Edit

Ever wonder about space in Star Trek? How they always go in a horizontal plane, travelling from point A to point B, when you think about it, space is infinitely up down and to all sides, how come theres no mention of anything above or below Earth or the travels that say Voyager took or the few Enterprise's? -- PrfctDrk 22:35, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

The galaxy itself isn't though. I'm pretty sure in VOY they showed the ship had traveled along the Z axis on maps in stellar cartographer. As for why it's never really shown is simple, generally a shot showing a ship not "level" is used to show something is wrong. For all we know the ships are "upside down" most of the time. - Archduk3:talk 00:57, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Archduke Edit

In case this isn't you I thought I'd let you know. We do have a policy against similar usernames and this one is as close as you could probably get. (especially since it's redirecting here which would fall under impersonation) — Morder (talk) 18:22, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, but it is me. I saw a post in Shran's archives that made me think it would be a good idea to block anyone else from using it, even legitimately, just in case. - Archduk3:talk 18:31, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

47 Edit

(Moving from Shran's talk) He just mentioned that there are some that people don't find and specifically referenced LCARS displays and stuff like numbers on ships. — Morder (talk) 23:03, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. Didn't see this till after I posted on Shran's talk. Basically, I'd support bringing it back in some form. Setacourse 23:14, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] - So...he is saying that any that are found are correct, in a round about way. Yeah, that's going to be impossible to cite. I was going to suggest a project page for this, as a way to compile a list to show to Star Trek staff members at a later date for conformation, but now I'm convinced that they would just say yes to any that are found, no matter how twisted the logic. That being said, the references page exists/existed in a gray area of MA policy, and I doubt it's going to every stop being brought up (if only by having people keep adding references). Oh well, it was worth a shot... :)
...and it seems there is at least some support for this. - Archduk3:talk 23:23, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

There's only a reference that there is a list - he never once said it was correct. The proper thing to do at this point is to have the actual 47 page (as we already do) and then still only allow citable references as there's nothing to say that one person's 47 is better than another's 47 regardless of how it was found. (math or convoluted methods) — Morder (talk) 23:31, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, it's your choice to try and bring it back - but don't expect much from me unless you also require citations and there's no need to bring a list when it could exist on the 47 page itself. :) — Morder (talk) 23:49, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I want citations too, and the references should be on the 47 page proper; I just don't know of a better way to sift through all of them, or argue down the really obvious ones that are just lacking a citation, without making a list and citing what we can (a project page also has other, less obvious benefits). I'm open for ideas at this point (and I still want to know what Shran thinks of this madness). - Archduk3:talk 00:23, December 24, 2009 (UTC)
Here's the only snag in my plan (as is), File:Text msg.jpg clearly has at least three 47s in it. The stand alone one IMO shouldn't need any other citation beyond what the 47 page already says, since it is a 47 (a "blanket" citation for stand alone 47s isn't going to fly with some people, I know). The "second" 47, in the same line, is a 4_7 and could go either way depending on how you view this. The last obvious one would be the first line math 47, (1+1+1+1=4)7, which needs a citation no matter how you look at it since it involved math. Who am I going to have to send an email to get a citation on this, and wouldn't it be better to send this poor soul a whole list of suspected 47s if he/she is willing to spend their time on it? This is why I think there would need to be a project page, since I know I wouldn't want to keep getting emails asking me to verify some random 47 every time someone thinks they found one. I'll put in a formal request for this after the New Years, and let it bloom or die on the vine from there, since I'm not going to deal with it before then (and I'm not going to ask anyone else too either). - Archduk3:talk 06:55, December 24, 2009 (UTC)
Ah, you know a person who can confirm intentional 47s? Excellent! I'd think asking about just 47s sans math since I'd bet a lot of "math 47s" are unintentional, more a case of seeking patterns where none exist. Setacourse 22:08, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

Wesley picEdit

I was thinking changing File:Wesley Crusher, 2364.jpg, which you uploaded, to this, because it shows the all division colors overlapping only on the left shoulder which I'd never noticed before. Do you think that's a good idea/image and do you mind? Setacourse 22:08, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

I'm not Archduk3, but anyway: we generally try to avoid composite images as these, unless absolutely necessary - and I don't think composition is necessary, or useful, in this case. The left shoulder detail could be uploaded separately, if there's an article that needs an image of it. -- Cid Highwind 22:24, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

The purpose is to replace the first image at Starfleet uniform (2350s-2370s)#Provisional uniform. I was going to look for a plain front view, but was surprised when I saw overlapping colors only on the left shoulder. I could simply add text, but figured the collage would illustrate that text. I could also upload them separately, but reasoned one image would more concisely illustrate two sides of the uniform.

I could upload just the detail separately too, but it seems simpler to show both sides completely in a compact but complete image. Setacourse 22:40, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

Besides compositions being unwanted for a variety of reasons, there's the additional problem that this collage wouldn't really be a generic image of "Wesley Crusher, 2364" anymore, and thus would need to be moved to another title anyway. It would be much simpler to upload the uniform detail in addition to a full view - or at least upload a full view showing that detail as a replacement image... -- Cid Highwind 23:36, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

'K. I'll take that onboard and upload the uniform detail only as a separate image if I do so. Setacourse 03:21, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

Since I was watching "Santa" lose at the craps table most of this weekend, I missed this, but agree with the actions already taken, apparently. - Archduk3:talk 04:41, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Main forum? Edit

Hey Arch, is there a main forum or place for the community to chat about general Star Trek things? I've never thought about it before, I kinda browsed around a bit but I'll admit I didn't get anywhere (probably because there isnt one, doh). -- PrfctDrk 23:13, December 30, 2009 (UTC) (forgot to log on)

Chatting, no. Everything on site is for furthering the project, and "irrelevant" chats get shut down pretty quickly. There is Memory Alpha:Forums, which has the Reference Desk and Ten Forward, but like I said, they are very specific in purpose. The IRC channel would be your best bet for chatting, since that is what it is for, though to be honest, I don't use it that often, so I wouldn't know. There are a plethora of off site forums of course, so I would recommend using them, if the IRC doesn't work out, since a good chunk of Memory Alpha users must be trolling around there. (That was rather long for a post containing no really useful information.) :) - Archduk3:talk 07:23, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki