User talk:Cyberia23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is Cyberia23's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Cyberia23.

TALK ARCHIVE ONE

Contents

[edit] The 'Verse map you submitted

Do you have (or have you created any further) info on the names of the planets you picture in your graphic of the 'Verse?

If so, could you e-mail me at lynnlefey@hotmail.com, or post the information to the 'Waves in the Black' messages boards?

I appreciate your time, and the system map looks very shiny. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.241.198.254 (talk • contribs).

[edit] KITT images

Ok! But in my opinion my photos (with the red scanner switched on and the dashboard) are more interesting than the pic taken at the Universal Studios. Wikis of many countries now show my pics, even if the car is only "a someone's weekend project". Arroww 00:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the clarification. --Arroww 18:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cloud 9 disaster

I'm not sure which edit you're talking about. Can you provide a link? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colonial Defender

Hey. I've gone ahead and removed it again as while it may actually be a "Colonial Defender" it has never actually been identified on screen.. and for that matter you would expect it would do some defending at the least wouldnt you 16px‎. MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd welcome a listing on the page if it had actually been identified on-screen.. only problem is it has'nt yet and that source they cited isnt exactly reliable.. and also it hasnt been seen doing any "defending" - so I cant imagine it being in future episode.. (unless RDM does a retcon) MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
What do you think about merging Cloud Nine? Though I think Colonial One should keep an article though. MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey. Do you use IMs like MSN or AIM? Deus Sum (Matthew Fenton) (talk · contribs · count · email) 14:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I responded to this on your talk page - but you archived it & never replied. (0_0) Cyberia23 09:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
o.O - never noticed you replied - well if you want to chat (about anything..) I have aim acct: FentonMatthew MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 09:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] yes i did

the entire table was a copyvio. let's take this matter to the talk page Morwen - Talk 07:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serenity System Map Image

That's a pretty nifty piece of work =] what did you use to create it? [reply to my email address asteconnathotmaildotcom, this IP address is my work's one =] thanks ] 86.142.52.224 14:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Episode naming

Hi, Cyberia. There's actually been a lot of discussion about this subject at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) and its talk page. The consensus of most of the editors there is that articles should be disambiguated only when it's necessary — that is, when there's no other article by that name. This is why, for example, Tigh Me Up, Tigh Me Down was moved to that location from Tigh Me Up, Tigh Me Down (Battlestar Galactica) — there is no other article that could be at that page. This is in keeping with the general disambiguation guidelines at WP:D, specifically WP:D#Deciding to disambiguate, which says:

Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result? (For example, when someone looks up Joker, would they find information on a comedian? On a card? On Batman's nemesis? On the hit song or album by The Steve Miller Band?) When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page.

The argument you give (that using parenthetical phrases consistently keeps articles consistent and makes them easier to identify) has been considered in the debate at WT:TV-NC, but most editors felt that the "consistency" was a misleading virtue, since preemptive disambiguation actually makes articles less consistent with the general Wikipedia naming scheme. And the article itself should provide enough context to identify it. The category system also unites articles on a similar topic.

The Star Trek precedent is, in my opinion, a bad one; the editors at the Star Trek WikiProject have been informed of the discussion at WT:TV-NC, and it is likely that Star Trek episode articles will also be moved soon.

I admit that Resurrection Ship and Cylon resurrection ship are a slightly complicated case, but I think that since the episode is titled Resurrection Ship (with a capital "S") and the ship itself is at Cylon resurrection ship (with no capitals), it's sufficiently clear. However, if you and other BSG editors feel that it's better to have Resurrection ship as a disambiguation page, with the episode at Resurrection Ship (Battlestar Galactica episode) and the ship at Cylon resurrection ship, that would be OK too. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been considered. See the extensive discussion at WT:TV-NC and its archives, especially here. Basically, the argument is that disambiguation isn't about identifying a subject unless there are two articles that might otherwise share the same name. So it's appropriate for "The Enemy Within" to be disambiguated The Enemy Within (TOS episode), since there are other meanings of The Enemy Within (disambiguation). But there's no need for Charlie X to be disambiguated, since only the TOS episode has that name. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Josiah means "some" editors.. 50% does not equate to "most" Josiah. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] canon

Oh please - that's utterly absurd - what on earth made you think that? Please look at Talk:Galaxy class starship, where I get accused of 'blasphemy' for suggesting that non-canon starships should be allowed there. Please look at timeline of Star Trek, where I have added details of the early Spaceflight Chronology and suchforth. Please look at Other Starfleet ship classes#Federation class, which I just added yesterday. Is this the action of a canon fascist? I expect an apology.

All I want is that stuff, from canon and non-canon stuff should be properly sourced. Most of it isn't at the moment. Particularly bad is where we claim information has been sourced from an episode, but it actually comes from Okuda. That's great to have that information, but it should be sourced to Okuda. Morwen - Talk 07:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I am just amused that two people can interpret me wanting information to be sourced in two entirely different ways. Morwen - Talk 09:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] kudos

Thanks for updating BSG pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Santhosh (talk • contribs).

[edit] ..

She put a reference to me on her user page as well, haha. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 09:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

HEH, Yeah, Morwen... just a stupid situation there - I've tried to not let people get to me here anymore, but every once in while someone comes along and really grind my gears (as Peter from Family Guy would say) :P Cyberia23 09:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
You ever considered running for adminship? Phil Welch blocked me as well.. I had him overturned pretty quick though, hehe. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 09:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, originally I had the "This user is not an admin, and doesn't want to be" userbox tag on my user page - I took it down because I was thinking about applying. As of now though, with the Morwen fiasco recently hitting me, I think I'd rather lie low for a while and try sometime next year. Cyberia23 09:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I've emailed you your reply 16px‎. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 21:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number Eight (Galactica)

The "complex link" was to the specific subsection corresponding to the particular Number Eight copy which was the subject of the text. It seemed more useful to me than just linking to the Number Eight article itself.

Anyway on the original issue, while I'm fine with using "Sharon Valerii" for either Galactica-Sharon or Caprica-Sharon, I don't think the latter should be called "Boomer". To my knowledge, that name has always been reserved for Galactica-Sharon, and Caprica-Sharon was only called that by Helo prior to her identity being revealed. --Saforrest 03:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M.A.S.K.

Just wanted to say thank you for adding the MASK episodes synopsis. Thumbs up! Did you make them yourself, btw? Caudex Rax 00:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I just summed up the synopsis entries from TV.com. Cyberia23 01:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where No Man Has Gone Before (TOS episode)

I have reverted your changes per long-established consensus against "trivia" as undertaken by the Cleanup task force. If other Star Trek episode articles "conform" to bad habits, they need to be fixed, rather than return to bad habits. Your help in improving these articles is absolutely appreciated. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't see a difference in calling it "Trivia", "Notes", "Behind the scenes", "Misc info" or "Whatever". Since each misc entry deals with a particular subject you going to make title headers for them all? Your changes leave WNMHGB a tacky-looking hang nail compared to the rest - so YOU GUYS can go make the changes to the others since I completely disagree with it. Have fun since there are 79 more to go. Cyberia23 18:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Facts have been written out of bullet points and into prose, as they should be; details were moved into proper sections. This article now looks like the one manicured nail in the bunch. I'm sorry you feel the way you do, but this is Wikipedia, not IMDb, and we're supposed to be working together toward an encyclopedic standard. We hope to count on you and everyone who contributes. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think myself and User:RadioKirk are on the same page here (the page in question being the manual of style). If you wish for Star Trek articles to continue looking poor and unprofessional, that is of course your prerogative. The "Quick Overviews" are just plain inappropriate. Rose (Doctor Who) puts pretty much any Star Trek episode article to shame. Morwen - Talk 19:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I insultcomment on your work (which hey, I didn't know was yours at the time). There is a difference. If you don't want your work to be mercilessly edited, maybe Wikipedia isn't the right place for you? If you want to write long, excessively detailed plot summaries, likewise. Morwen - Talk 19:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

My thanks, you beat me to it. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No, actually, I would say the Trivia sections contain much which is not really trivia. Awards, production details and behind the scenes stuff, all this stuff is not trivia. The fact that the Grenubolons appeared in episode 35 with slightly different moustaches, that's trivia. Morwen - Talk 22:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey! I put this to peer review now, so let's see what we get out of it. Any help/comments welcome! I think it would be great if this could be pushed to WP:FA, it would give people an idea of what to aim it. Morwen - Talk 17:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amok Time and "every 7 years"

You're right and I should put that in. Thanks~ --Bluejay Young 00:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GNDN

Yes, indeed! Thanks for noticing.

[edit] (Tyl.)

Sending a message to the talk page and just ordered my truck for a delivery.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh.. and 1x10 translates to: Season/Series 1 Episode 10 (THoG) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Yea It would of been easier to just type it hehe thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I only really remembered it because I'd been thinking about that episode :-D thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
You might be interested to know that a user has set up a "WikiProject BSG" - I believe he is under the impression that he is in charge because he founded it, haha, has already set a few rules! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What?

It should stay as a seperate article there is no reason why it should merge other then it appears to repeat a slight amount of information from another article which in my opinion gives less credibility to the article merging. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dtocs (talk • contribs).

  • Talk:DY-100 class to merge with SS Botany Bay —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dtocs (talk • contribs) 09:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Breaks

Yea.. Well I don't find it "difficult" I guess - I could edit with it.. I just get (can't think of the word..) - I just dislike them between headers and I also believe content shouldn't be seperated from headers.. also line breaks for most users dn't actually get rendered but on some browsers it shows up as whitespace, sorry. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overview

Hi. I've been, in some articles I've been trying to turn the "overview" part into a proper sentence. I did this at "Datalore" for example, turning

"Overview: The Enterprise heads for the Omicron Theta system, home of Data, where he finds and reactivates his brother, Lore, and encounters the Crystalline Entity."

into

"The episode establishes Data's backstory, with Data finding out who created him (Dr. Noonien Soong), an evil brother, Lore, and the Crystalline Entity."

Now, it appears you then re-added this overview, immediately after my version of it. this edit

I don't quite understand this.

We can argue about what sort of information about the story should be in the lead : personally I feel it should be explain major continuity events, such as the first appearance of a species or character, a death or otherwise of a character, that sort of thing, and also what style of show it is. (for example The Measure of a Man and Dax (DS9 episode) should be saying they are in the style of a court-room drama, it should note The Trouble with Tribbles and Let He Who is Without Sin..." as comedies, and suchforth. The 'Quick overviews' here seem to be a kind of summary of the teaser-trailer : the type of blurb you would get on the back of the episode, if episodes had backs. It's not especially important to the episode what the name of the planet is, if it never occurs again. In this case the planet and the entity are mentioned again so they probably merit mentioning by name.

But what I don't understand is having the same information in a different style two paragraphs in a row.

same thing has happened here. I've turned the overview into a proper sentence and stuff, and now we've ended up with two very nearly identical paragraphs. Morwen - Talk 14:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if there is concern about spoilers, then we need to move the spoiler tags up in the middle of the lead. I don't think cast changes - like the fact that "Skin of Evil" kills of Tasha Yar - really count as spoilers - that was another thing you removed with a minor edit. As I say above, I think that intros should certainly mention cast changes, major new recurring species introduced, that sort of thing, and I'd added those to a few intros. Also, when we were objecting to "Quick Overview:" a few weeks ago, I for one wasn't objecting to the word "Quick", but to the general style of these, which I consider encyclopedic. I would challenge the use of the episode summaries at List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes They rarely specify the type of show (courtroom drama/comedy/etc), do not indicate which are the main characters the episode focuses on, and other such things. I'd argue each episode which is based around the holodeck or the Prime Directive should state that in the intro, for example. Of course, this is just my thoughts on the matter, it would be good to come to a consensus on what an excellent episode article looks like. My favourite so far is "Where No Man Has Gone Before (TOS episode)", although there are a few others. But the main thing there was asking you to please take care when doing that sort of thing - the two diffs i provided ended up making the articles look very strange. Morwen - Talk 20:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

To elaborate on this a bit more: TNG frequently used the trope that the Enterprise would be somewhere ostensibly doing something of planetary importance, whilst the A-plot was actually more personal. "Booby Trap" isn't really about a booby trap, it's about Geordi falling in love on the holodeck; the summary of "Clues" doesn't really tell you anything about the plot of the episode. Interestingly the summaries in the TNG episodes list actually seem to improve by my reckoning, as you go further down the list. Morwen - Talk 20:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

To me, it looked like you were reverting me, as minor edits, without an edit summary.
All the more reason to try to make a model article, I would have thought. We don't have any written standards for how the articles should look at the WikiProject, maybe you could suggest some? Can't recall if the Dr. Who people do. Morwen - Talk 20:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, we already have WikiProject, but it's not very active. Morwen - Talk 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
As you have no doubt spotted, I have done the move (which didnt require adminness as far as I can tell). Your edits to List of Star Trek planets remind me of the referencing problem with it that I raised on the talk page. (vis that it is citing the episodes when the names are really from backstage sources). I'm pondering about how we could proceed to fix this : maybe focusing on the 'A's first or something.
By the way, one thing I'd like to see, just to prove we can do it as a project, is bringing up an article up to featured article candidate status. I think we should focus on an episode first, preferably one with lots of backstage sources - so probably either The Cage/Where No Man Has Gone Before or possibly The Trouble with Tribbles, since it seems easier to write about works of fiction in a style accepted to FAC than it does writing about fictional entities. There don't seem to be any featured Trek articles at the moment, and the efforts I've seen to nominate them focus on minutiae that are hard to write about. Morwen - Talk 22:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:808.jpg

Hi Cyberia23, you didn't list any source info for this image, and it also looks like replaceable fair use. See {{image source}} and {{replaceable}} for info. Thanks, DVD+ R/W 06:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, we need to credit copyrighted images to their owners- so we need source info. And we can't use fair use when a free picture can easily be taken. Can you get one? DVD+ R/W 03:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kat

Aye, cheers ;-) - I was going o do it.. but I couldn't bring my self to edit out their DOG 16px‎. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Enjoy this weeks episode then :-)? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I must be the only one who enjoyed last weeks episode, heh. Yea, there was some nice shots of the ships.. I couldn't get many nice clear images though as the "camera" moved so fast and the clouds blurred things :-( - I do have a nice one of the civilian fleet/Galactica above the Algae planet though and an okay one of the 'Queen. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Trek page edits

Please read WP:MOS and WP:AVTRIV; we're not here to do things the way we "like" them—and, if you had any knowledge of my recent attempt to stop a few higher-ups from ramrodding through a new fair use policy that I feel is needlessly restrictive, you'd see my frustration, since I'm bound to both adherence and enforcement. As for fixing two articles and not the rest, I generally don't have that kind of time; I do, however, like to think I'm leading (if one can call it that) by example. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apollo

I believe he became a major when he returned to being CAG on the Bucket. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Battlestar Wiki says:

Galactica's air group runs exercises with the Viper pilots who settled on New Caprica and are thus out of shape. Starbuck deliberately breaks formation and collides with Narcho's Viper, forcing an end to the exercise and causing now-Major Lee Adama - who has resumed his post as CAG - to remove her from flight duty.

thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

An annon left an edit summary of "Rank returns to major because his command of Pegasus was a battlefield promotion, hence temporary" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikilogos

I thought you might be interested in my proposal for Wikipedia to use logo variations created by members of the wiki community to mark national and international awareness days, Remembrance Days, notable anniversaries, and observance days. Please comment on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Logo Variations and on my talk page. Thanks! FrummerThanThou 10:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi please can I ask you you to reconsider your opposition and words on the talk about the Logo Variations for special days. You took up NPOV as a factor of contention which I think is off the point. In fact the Logo Variations are intended to increase people's interest in cultural and awareness days across the board. I feel you didn't read the entire thread where the issue of the definition of special days was discussed by highly respected wickipedians. Please read the thread, please understand that according to the proposal the Logo Variations will be agreed upon in a open consensus. World Aids Day, World Cancer Day, No Smoking Day are important causes and when Google adopt their own Logo Variations for such causes, their community feel entertained and glad that the monster is still in touch with the world. Thank you for your attention. frummer 03:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/y/b/User_talk%7ECyberia23_067e.html"