I noticed you removed some TAS info here and there as 'non-canon'. But MA *does* consider TAS to be canon. Or euhm.. I thought so. Browsing through the docs, it seems we haven't actually made that decision yet. Well.. ehm.. if you can just pause for a moment with deleting TAS stuff, I'll open up a topic on the Message Board to discuss it. Because I personally feel very strongly that TAS should be included. -- Harry 03:16, 27 Dec 2003 (PST)
- That's fine. It's just with all the information floating around about canon, I was sticking to the letter. And, with hitting 'Random page' (which is what I was doing last night), I wasn't coming up with references all the time, just here and there. You can revert the changes I made, if you haven't already done so. -- DarkHorizon 12:33, 27 Dec 2003 (PST)
Star Charts (anon)
Hum, I've received your message DarkHorizon... The Star Charts book from G. Mandel is one of my most important source book for Star Trek files. But should I consider everything writting in this book as non-canon ? I don't think thant G. Mandel has created all these informations ! And please excuse me for my grammar, but as you have certainly guess, english is not my mother-language... From user 18.104.22.168
- It holds a similar status to the technical manuals - many consider them to be near-canon, but they are mostly made up by the authors. So, no, Greg Mandel did not create all the data for the Star Charts, but a vast majority of it does not come from the televised episodes, which are the basis of canon, and therefore what goes into Memory Alpha. If it hasn't been said or referenced in an episode or movie, it isn't canon -- DarkHorizon 16:19, 4 Jan 2004 (PST)
- Just as a small reminder, discussions about canon, the Star Trek: Star Charts or other things should probably take place on the discussion pages for these articles. I already started a discussion about your additions to the Terra Nova article, for example.
- Re:Star Charts - Mandel did indeed invent much of the information in that book. That doesn't mean that it is bad, of course, just that this information is not canon. -- Cid Highwind 10:25, 4 Jan 2004 (PST)
Hey DarkHorizon, after some discussion between Harry and I, we've decided that it's getting to the time when we need to add some more sysops to the ranks at Memory Alpha. Based on your excellent and enthusiastic contributions so far, you've been chosen as one of them. Congratulations!
There really isn't too much precedent to build on at this point, but I think you know the general purpose of a sysop at MA -- taking care of vandalism (which I noticed you did earlier today), handling protected pages, and other similar tasks. Also, as time goes on, I think that the sysops will have a somewhat larger say in policies that are made (or changed) at MA.
One friendly word of advice, though -- don't let this promotion go to your head too much! :-) As I understand the system at Wikipedia (which we're trying to emulate), a sysop is more a trusted member with somewhat expanded powers rather than someone with specific authority (unlike, say, being a moderator on a message board). If you've got any questions, don't hesitate to contact me! -- Dan Carlson 14:27, 3 Feb 2004 (PST)
- Thank you, Dan. I happily accept. -- DarkHorizon 16:00, 3 Feb 2004 (PST)
Dark Horizon, Thanks for the welcome. It will take me a few days to get up to speed on everything you asked me to read. But I did go over what counts as cannon and what doesn't. My edit to the Sovereign was based on info provided to me by Rick Sternbach, so would hope that would count as cannon! User:Gluemyster
- Unfortunately, it doesn't in the sense of canon being 'what appears on screen', which is in essence the policy we follow here at MA. The exact policy is still under discussion. It would be more accurate to put that information in Background information, as you have now done, for which I thank you. Oh, and just an FYI, it's canon, not cannon. -- DarkHorizon 06:24, 5 Feb 2004 (PST)
Dark Horizon, "What is "canon" exactly? There exist different definitions of what can be regarded as canon. I always try to stick to the following, most common definition. Technically, canon is what TPTB pay attention to in the making of new Star Trek episodes. Everything that was shown in a previous episode has to be canon in this respect. After all, if someone/something can be seen on screen, it should not be allowed to deny their/its existence. Official publications by the Okudas, Rick Sternbach, Herman Zimmerman, Doug Drexler or other people directly involved in the production process may be as good as canon, since this is where the writers and producers look up the facts. Even if these books are supplemented with some information like dates or starship specs not mentioned in the show, this might be important to limit the room for speculation."
This sounds to me like we are counting the TM's and other work by people that work on the show as cannon. Can you please clarify this for me? As far as seen-on-screen=cannon goes, the term Explorer was never stated on screen in any epesiode or film, yet it appears under starship classification? Gluemyster
- You might want to check out Memory Alpha:Canon policy as to what can be considered a valid resource to use in articles. Note that it says may be as good as canon, but they are not canon in the definition laid out by Paramount. We cannot treat them as canon, but we can consider them valid resources for inclusion in articles (although the exact validity is still under debate).
- The policy is a little unclear, I agree, but we are in the process of refining it and moving it away from the idea of canon and non-canon in favour of saying what can and can't be used. -- DarkHorizon 23:31, 5 Feb 2004 (PST)
Then I will hold off on any major editing and writing until it is worked out. There are severel sources that I would like to use. I hope it gets worked out so we can include behind the scenes info, and a little speculation to fill in the gaps as far as the ships are concerned.Gluemyster
You're right... i'm sorry. but let it put that way: every little quarrel we might have just contributes to the quality of this web project... :-) --BlueMars 12:16, May 29, 2004 (CEST)
Imperfection casualty list
Hey Dark Mike, what's up. I noticed you added a 'West Wing' note to my Imperfection list article, T. Ziegler.. I have a larger cap of the list (I shrunk it to the version displayed at Starfleet casualties. I'm afraid, however, I have gotten a few names wrong. Since you know the context of the references, do you know what a few of the other names are? I've been trolling Voyager fan sites, but each one has a different interpretation. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 22:08, 15 Jun 2004 (CEST)
- Well, some of them are mispelled from the West Wing characters anyway, but the ones that I can see on the display are: Commander J. Bartlett (President Jed Bartlet), Lt. Cmdr L. Mc Garry (Leo McGarry), Lt J. Lyman (Josh Lyman), Lt. S. Seaborn (Sam Seaborn), Ens. Claudia J. Craig (CJ Cregg), Ens. Charles Young (Charlie Young). Hope that helps. -- Michael Warren 22:18, 15 Jun 2004 (CEST)
- Awesome! over at Voyager Roll Call, they have really off interpretations of the names like Zielen and McLaren. The two i needed to get were Seaborn and McGarry. Thanks for your help, its good to see people who are willing to work with me here. (in my insane quest for casualty reports) --Captain Mike K. Bartel 00:00, 16 Jun 2004 (CEST)
Battle of Sector 001I know this problem. It would be better, if you indicate your works in progress by impelenting
Hey Michael, I noticed that you recently commented in the nominations for administratorship discussions that you don't see the need for more administrators at the moment. Although I agree with you that there's not really a pressing need for more right now, I also think that it's i == mportant that we get the framework established for recruiting more admins now, while the issue is less urgent. In my opinion, it's always going to be better to have too many admins rather than too few -- that's one of the basic tenets of the operation of any wiki community. (I know, it took me a while to accept that myself!) So, I'd like to ask that you try not to reject anyone's nominations based solely on the apparent lack of need for more admins. Thanks! :-) -- Dan Carlson 16:03, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)
- Well, that wasn't my reason for opposing Ottens, just a side note, more than anything. -- Michael Warren 16:38, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)
Hey, we are discussing things on a few different pages now, want to move the debate to Talk:Yeager type? I'm sorry if my tone came across as hostile, I'd like to figure out which data we should keep. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 16:57, 28 Jul 2004 (CEST)
A Briefing with Neelix
Thanks for pointing that extra occurance out, I had forgotten about that. Possibly because I'm not up to season three on the DVDs yet. :-) Alex Peckover 20:56, Jul 31, 2004 (CEST)
Darwin Genetics research laboratory
Concerning the matte paintings of Darwin Station and Ohniaka III, if you took the time to read the background info on their pages, and compare the pictures you´ll see that they are as noted, different! please remove your vote for image deletion notice --Valaraukar
- Having studied the images more closely (I was about to remove the message on your page) I apologise for the error. The notice will be removed. However, I agree with Captainmike that the image size needs to be reduce significantly. 50% should be sufficient. -- Michael Warren 19:54, 4 Aug 2004 (CEST)
- Cut imagesize by 50% on both images. (uploaded large images because of the sheer detail and resolution of the images, a 200pix thumb just doesn´t give them credit) --Valaraukar
Could you tell me how you added Talk to your signature? Seems usefull, so I'd like to do the same. -- Redge 23:14, 7 Aug 2004 (CEST)
- It's fairly simple when you know how. Go to preferences, then, at the bottom, it says Your nickname (for signatures). Type in as follows: nickname(e.g. Redge)]] | [[User talk:(your username)|''Talk''. The software automatically provides the opening and closing [[ s. This can be used to create a wide variety of effects. -- Michael Warren | Talk 23:21, Aug 7, 2004 (CEST)
How very convenient. -- Redge 23:23, 7 Aug 2004 (CEST)
Hey, thanks for entering some new DidYouKnows. Just one thing: In the future, if you change them, could you add the old ones to the archive? See "MediaWiki talk:DidYouKnow". Thanks, -- Redge | Talk 19:51, 9 Aug 2004 (CEST)
Nominations for Administratorship
Could you possibly take another look at Memory Alpha:Nominations for administratorship? Even if your viewpoints haven't changed, just let us know, so the discussion can move on. It is rather at a standstill at the moment. Thank, -- Redge | Talk 19:04, 11 Aug 2004 (CEST)