Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek/Archive 1

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

message: What's the correct spelling? -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of the second film was Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.--StAkAr Karnak 02:59, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kahn or Khan? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: The closest thing I can find as of this moment is :Image:Starfleet command emblem.jpg. --AllyUnion (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe this image? :Image:St combadge.gif --AllyUnion (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had (Link removed due to blacklisting by Wikipedia) 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)
replies: text:  The problem is that we can't necessarily upload that to the Wikipedia 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)
thread_title:  New Star Trek branded articles proposed template 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Focus for the project 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Renaming Enterprise episode articles 

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: This is a long-shot, but how about the Data (Star Trek) article? :) E Pluribus Anthony 10:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Memoryalpha template 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inclusion of non-canon material 

message: 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)
thread_title: References

message: 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)
replies: text: The above change has now been carried out and completed. --TheParanoidOne 20:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ST-stub and ST-ep-stub 

message: As per the Wikipedia: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)
thread_title:  Moving of TOS episode articles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Lcars]] 

message: The template  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)
thread_title:  Infobox nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title: Star Trek XI article

message: I'd apriciate any help avalible. That particular article is mostly complete but artiles explaining individual ranks needs work. --Cool CatTalk|@ 23:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Starfleet ranks and insignia]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Thoughts, please 

message: 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)
replies: text: Added merge request Dan, the CowMan 00:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Teraknor]] page. 

message: Hi all. We need to start putting  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  tag there. --Fang Aili  說嗎? 17:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Try all ship classes. ;) --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject ST and ST portal exposure 

message: 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  說嗎? 17:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Data (Star Trek)|Data]] a Good Article?

message: 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. -Mask  03:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly just have at it.  What kind of stuff are you interested in, out of curiosity? Cburnett 03:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. -Mask  17:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: 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 [WP:WSS/P|stub types proposal page]].  Alai 00:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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  說嗎? 03:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|StarTrek-ep-stub}} 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Portal Content 

message: Founded:          	circa 900 A.D.
Chancellor:       	Martok (2375)
Capital:          	First City, Qo'noS
Official language:	Klingon (sometimes called Klingonese), (see: universal translator)
Currency:         	darsek
                  	
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)
thread_title:  Planetary nation infoboxes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pathfinder 

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

message: 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.—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 20:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Virtually every fan film article (including New Voyages) has been nominated for deletion as well. 23skidoo 21:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia articles.--Kirok of L'Stok 04:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have you checked your articles lately? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia's be bold guideline) pending the addition of a proper image. 23skidoo 16:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia) 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)
thread_title: Wikiproject banner image

message: 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)
thread_title:  Trek fandom 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Star Trek actors subcategories 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Technobabble 

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

message: 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 Wikipedia 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)
thread_title:  Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0 

message: 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)
replies: text: Good PROD nomination. Definitely a case of NOR and POV violation, not to mention the fact Wikipedia isn't a place to post essays of this type. 23skidoo 23:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Trek essay 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Combined efforts?

message: 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 (VOY) 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Copyvio alert 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ship names 

message: 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)
replies: text: It actually isn't a formal deletion request, but it does seem that there are some folks who still feel Wikipedia 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)
thread_title:  Spoiler tags up for deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Character template 

message: I have created a new user template that should replace the other 6 that are currently available. Please see  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.—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 20:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New user template by series 

message: Hi everyone.  I have nominated several unused renderings of Star Trek-like ships on IFD. Please see Wikipedia: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 .  (The copyright notices should probably be removed one way or the other.)  BigDT 05:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rendered starships on IFD 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Federation flagship 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "In A Mirror, Darkly" title origin? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Merging Helena and Sergei Rozhenko

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Memory Alpha]]