From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 May 5, 2005 archive start 1.1 Next Gen Pages 1.2 TNG Episode List 1.3 Replicator stuff 1.4 Star Trek Nav Box 1.5 TRA 1.6 ST Overviews 1.7 ST:VOY 2 May 5, 2005 archive end 3 June 17, 2005 archive start 3.1 Image correction: Enterprise 3.2 Small Pictures 3.3 Starship Enterprise article 3.4 Help! Push Star Trek to FA status 3.5 Enterprise episode links 4 June 17, 2005 archive end 5 July 17, 2005 archive start 5.1 STNG Images 5.2 Memory Alpha link 5.3 Delete STNG pages 6 July 17, 2005 archive end 7 May 13, 2006 archive start 7.1 Star Trek survey 7.2 Star Trek convention 7.3 Kira Nerys 8 May 13, 2006 archive end 9 January 14, 2007 archive start 9.1 Where No Man Has Gone Before (TOS episode) 10 January 14, 2007 archive end

[edit] May 5, 2005 archive start

[edit] Next Gen Pages

Please stop putting text blocks in the Next Gen Episode Pages. Im actually trying to get rid of them. they're ugly, they're lame, and they screw up the page. Besides, they repeat what I already put in at the top, why insert double information? Cyberia23 03:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Then by all means don't make your time wasted and plaster that you're getting rid of it. In fact, I found no discussion of it. The point of using infoboxes is to standardize the basic, common information. That information is barely standardized across the pages...that's why I did it. Cburnett 04:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're probably not gonna like me but sorry dude, you don't know what kind of personal vendetta I have about the use of info boxes. Yeah some, when done right, look okay, but honestly I think they are archaic HTML tables from 1995. Yours pushed the image way down, and screwed up the main text on the page. They never appear right in certain kinds of browsers, especially Mozilla, and thats why I hate them. Nothing personal against you, I just despise them and seeing them mess up pages I spend time working on really irks the crap out of me.

If you think you can come up with one that at least incorporates the image within it, prefeably at the top, instead of shifting it down and so the whole thing sits nicely below the Spoiler Line, that would probably work out a lot better, although I don't think thats possible since I've tried to work this out before with other text block designers. Cyberia23 04:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a table is the only thing HTML provides.

I reentered the table on Encounter at Farpoint with some style changes and image inclusion. Please continue discussion here or on Template talk:ST episode. Either way, please don't delete the table until we can have some discussion. Cburnett 05:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well... not trying to nitpick, it looks somewhat better. Can you get the "caption" below the image to appear? it sort of explained what was going on in the scene. Also consider episodes that I didn't put images into, you'll see blank "image" tags with nothing there. I could try and find some for those, but most I had found wern't very interesting.

I still feel text tables shouldn't used. I was never planning on listing all the full actor credits anyway, too many names to deal with. I didn't for any of the TOS episodes. I just include "creative credits" the writers and director. Additional info like stardate, episode and production number are in the subheader. If a reader wanted more info on a particilar character, they could always click character's link and get more about them.

Well, I dunno man. I just hate tables. But I don't want to argue and fight about them, so it's your call. I'm gonna finish what I started, put up the synopsies up my way. I won't add a table on my own, but if you want a table you can add it yourself. If you do, I won't delete it. I'd rather not see them personally. I'm more concerned about eveything being uniform and tidy, that seems awfully big around here anyway. Text tables just look gaudy to me and sometimes my browser displays overlapping text right through a table. I don't know why, it does it on certain pages, works fine on others. Cyberia23 10:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I moved the series text to above the image and added the caption. See The Battle for a use where there is no image. Please nit-pick away; I'd like to find a style that's aesthetically more pleasing. Cburnett 17:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thats cool. I guess I'll live ;) Cyberia23 21:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TNG Episode List

Good work on your TNG episode list, I suppose you noticed I filled in all the episode overviews. Are you going to do one for The TOS list? I've redone all the synopsises for those episodes already. I'm working on the TNG ones now of course, but it's a slow process since I have other things to get done to. Cyberia23 22:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I finished expanding the overviews of ST:ENT episodes and changed the ST:TOS list to a table. Cburnett 07:24, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Replicator stuff

Hi. Thanks for your message. I'll take it one point at a time:

1. About the expression "in the fictional universe". I used to think that that was unnecessary too, but whenever I wrote something about Star Trek, someone would soon come by and add this expression. I too enquired as to why that was necessary, and it was explained that, as an encyclopedia, when dealing with the realm of the imaginary, we must make an express remark to that effect. In that line of thinking, simply saying "in Star Trek" would be insufficient. I've come to agree with that, for just because you and I know that when saying "Star Trek" we're referring to an imaginary world, it doesn't mean that this will be crystal clear to everyone who happens to visit the articles. You will find that, ideally, any article that deals with similar stuff will open with something like it ("in the fictional.."; "in the tv show.."; but the word "fictional" is preferred).
2. About the capitalization of the name, I'm not sure. First, because the original show was not called "The Original Series", but rather just "Star Trek", this subtitle was added decades later, to better identify it amidst the other shows, which all carry subtitles. Furthermore, the expression was used in the context as a description, not as a proper name (since "Star Trek" was indeed the original series). It would be like calling TNG "the second series" in a sentence. This wouldn't be capitalized.
3. About the red link. I agree that red links are not "evil per se" (but many, many people here would disagree), but neither do they contribute to the reader's understanding of the theme, since they link nowhere. If we actually had an article on the episode in question, it would undoubtedly be better to link it, but since we don't, it's far more productive to link an article that we do have, a list of episodes (they are indeed linked in many articles, you are mistaken about this aspect), which let's the reader know a few more details about the episode at hand that are not given in the Replicator article (since it would be off topic). And in any case, there's a red link to the episode in the List of episodes article, so anyone who follows that would find the link to create the article just the same.
4. About the "formula" thing, I don't see that the word is abused in the paragraph. It appears twice in the text and once as part of an example. Peer review had not indicated that as a problem, since, again, it does not appear excessive. But I wouldn't devote too much effort to that paragraph just yet. Other aspects of it are currently in discussion, and that may lead to a substantial change in it (it's about the theory described, not the text per se). So we could spend some time discussing the language, only to have it all obliterated some time later.

Well, I guess that's all. I hope that I've covered all the bases. Regards, Redux 13:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ok:

1. I'll go with that
2. Except it's become known as ST: The Original Series and named that way for precisely the way you're using it: it *is* the original series (as opposed to second, third, etc. series). So the descriptive use (the series that is the original) and the accepted name are one in the same. There's no reason to reference it descriptively.
3. If that article is created then the link will point to the wrong place and no one would know. I'm > < close to creating it just to "win" this point because I think it's extremely bad practice.
4. Whatever then. I think it's "bad English" since it's overly specific. How else is it going to arrange molecules if not to the formula at hand? It would be like replacing all uses of "it" in my previous sentences with "replicator" even though it's wholly unnecessary.

Cburnett 17:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. So, the points still standing:
2. As I said, I'm not sure. Your point seems valid enough. Besides, it's such a minor change that, unless it was some huge faux pas, it would not be worth an extensive debate about whether to capitalize the "o" and the "s". Let's go ahead and capitalize it then.
3. Well, I said that if we had an specific article, it would be the natural choice. Since we don't, linking the episode list is the best we can offer the reader, since he/she would at least find out that it's the 4th episode of the 2nd season and get a synopsis of it (as opposed to a red link that adds nothing to the knowledge of that episode). But I disagree that no one would know if the specific article had been created, after all the episode list is a compendium of links to episodes (most of them red at the moment), so if the article was ever created, it would show as a blue link to it, so people would know that the article exists – and if that person is a diligent Wikipedian, he/she would go back to the replicator article and fix the link so it will point to the more specific article. In fact, if you did create that article (but didn't change the link), I'd correct it myself as soon as I found out about the specific article (we can always link the episode list in the "see also" section). But if you do get to it, be prepared for the usual "it's excessive to have individual articles for every episode of a tv show" lecture from other users.
4. As I said, it's not worth getting too much into this paragraph for now, since it could be changed or even deleted soon – although the people who brought up the problems are taking an awful long time to reply in the discussion page. I'm starting to think that they lost interest and may not be returning to follow up on the issue.
Regards, Redux 20:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reply: 2) Changed 3) Article created, link changed. 4) Mkay Cburnett 20:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi. All settled then. You will notice, however, that I've removed from the replicator article the detail about T'Pol and her previous encounter with a replicator. I did it because it's off topic for that article, meaning it's too much detail about a ENT episode for the more general replicator article. Even more importantly, it doesn't add anything new to what had been stated before, since T'Pol's anecdote would still have happened in the 22nd century (as she is in her early 60s, and since the show takes place in the 2050's, she would have been born in the late 21st century, and thus her "interstellar career" would have taken place entirely in the 22nd century), wich still places the retconned replicator appearence in the 22nd century. Not to mention that the T'Pol story was mentioned in "Dead Stop" just the same – notice that the precise circumstances of the appearence of the replicator are not given in the article, since that would be off topic, as it would be to mention all those details about T'Pol's seeing a replicator. In that article, it suffices to say that it was retconned to the 22nd century, since that is the goal of that passage. I do believe that this detail would be suited for the specific article that you have created though. I will leave that at your discretion. Regards, Redux 13:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek Nav Box

I put the nav box at the bottom of the page of Conspiracy becuase I had done that to all the other episodes I revised and added too. Is that a problem? It's not a big deal to me, but thats how I did it for the other episodes. Things should be kept uniform. Cyberia23 19:51, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The only problem is consistency. We should find some kind of compromise and/or style consistency. See any ST:ENT episode. We seem to each have our own consistency. Cburnett 19:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think most of the trek pages were a mess. None of them were the same. Some had nothing but a crappy image of the VHS box, those have to go. Everyone has different opinions of what should be here. Like I said, I could care less where the nav box goes. I prefer the bottom just above the category box (which defaults to the bottom of the page anyway. I don't like the tables on the side. I already debated with someone on that, but I told him if he wanted them, then it was up to hiom to add them to the pages. I wasn't going to deal with them. So far he only did Encounter at Farpoint and then stopped. Cyberia23 20:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who? Look up #Next Gen Pages. :) I'm still here and intend on doing it.

Really, Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek needs revival and a standard form with conventions made. Feel free to fire off "the perfect episdoe layout" there and we can go from there. It seems pretty much dead. Cburnett 20:57, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Oh that was you? Oops. I have a hard time keeping track of people around here, sorry. Cyberia23 15:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TRA

Towers is not short for Towers Residence Association. It is not short for anything. Towers Residence Association is merely the name for that residence group, it is a name of the residence association (that is the student government like the Towers senate) applied to the four buildings. Similar to UDA and RCA. Does that mean Union Dr. is short for Union Drive Association? No. The street was there first.

My edit was technically correct and yours was technically wrong. If you dispute that then contact me, do not revert my edit and make a sarcastic comment. It undermines the collaborative nature of the Wikipedia. People are not content to contribute if they are going to be "bossed around." We are all equals here and should act as such.

Furthermore, come this May the Towers Residence Association will no longer exist as the buildings will be unoccupied and/or gone, so perhaps we should remove this reference entirely. Adm58 04:48, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

First, you can calm down there, chief. "Um, what else is there in TRA except the towers?" was a comment out of confusion, but like I've said many times here....take it as you see fit. That said, you can cram the "we are all equals here" until you remove your negative assumptions off my talk page about my edits and your assumed negative collaboration on my part.

Second, your edit was "The towers are part of the Towers Residence Association" ergo my "what else is there in TRA except the towers?" summary. If anything TRA is a part of towers being that it's the student body composed of the people that live there. You've got it backwards and that makes you technically wrong.

Now that the finger pointing is dispensed. Thirdly, exactly where/when/how was "Towers" derived? Towers is not part of TRA and not named after the TRA. Rethinking it, "Towers" and, ergo, "TRA" was derived from the buildings being tower-like. But I wasn't here decades ago to know exactly how "Towers" was coined. Do you?

Finally, Towers should definitely remain on the page and the TRA should stay. What needs to be changed is the understanding of the etymology of "Towers".

Now, accept my apologies for you misinterpreting my edit summary and my crassness in this reply. I don't care for accusatorial mini-tirads on my talk page, presumably, as much as you like being reverted with, um what was it, "sarcastic comment"s. So perhaps we can ignore all that and find a better way to write about the towers. Or would you rather continue on with finger pointing and quasi-insults, which would be rather amusing since it was you that called for collaboration here. :) Cburnett 05:14, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Okay. As I may have misinterpreted you, I think you also misinterpreted me.

Regardless of all that, we should recognize that TRA is not a physical locality nor the actual buildings, it is the association of those who live in the buildings. Particularly, student government. It is an indefinite thing anyways, as evidenced when in 2002 Helser Hall attempted to leave the UDA and form its own association. After this academic year TRA will no longer exist, you will have UDA, RCA, and Buchanan Hall which I do not believe falls under any residence association. Shouldn't we remove the TRA reference since it no longer applies? If not, why do we not have similar mentions of UDA and RCA? The term "towers" is the best description since it refers to the buildings themselves rather than the "society/government" that surrounds them. Adm58 08:01, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Edit: I just noticed your recent edit to the towers section. I appriciate it and think it is an improvement. I personally might tweak it a little more, but I will refrain unless you give me the okay to do so. Again, apologies for any negativity that may have surfaced on my part. I think the ISU notables page is a great thing and I just like to see things as precise as possible. Adm58 08:08, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

By all means, go ahead. Cburnett 17:58, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ST Overviews

I know your probably getting sick of me, but I changed some of your overviews. I wouldn't mention too much detail in them, like you been doing. It's cheesy and too wordy for a single sentence. Cyberia23 19:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well then. We seem to have come to a huge disagreement here. Most of the overviews you've been reducing are not overviews of the episode....only one part of it. None of the detail I add is specifically spoilers.

The end point is to be able to also find an episode given a small bit of the story. Cutting out pertinent details removes this ability. Stop making the summaries your personal pet project and deleting my contributions (images included). Cburnett 22:07, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

You're a jackass, and what your doing is changing shit that don't need to be changed. You might not agree with everything I do, but whatever. In wikipedia anyone can edit anything, so thats what I'm doing. Editing. AKA Damage Control. We can play the revert game. I have time. We can go back and fourth. Besides, I don't take commands from you. Who made you the boss? What are you gonna do? Get me kicked off Wiki for editing? Oh dear, what will I do? I don't know if i could live. Cyberia23 08:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see, so you've called me a jackass and call my edits "damage control" for no good reason and threatening to revert anything I do. I never claimed to be your boss, only that you're being extremely one-sided in what is sufficient. Cburnett 14:19, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

You know what I hate? I hate seeing things abandoned and done half-assed. I been a Wiki member for about a year, and I came here and found a bunch of Star Trek stuff here, but nothing was organized. It was a haphazard mess of pages each with it's particular style and format. So I thought, "why not make them better, add some uniformity, and include as much as I can". I began that, and finished the Original Series, and moved onto Next Gen. Now I meet you. All of a sudden it's a turf war. I start something and people have to take an interest all of sudden and "help out", and to do that you need a set of rules and guidelines or else shit gets fucked up like it has been. A war starts, people get pissed off and leave, and once again shit gets abandoned and left half-assed. I've seen it done many times on other websites, and of course in real life. I'm a musician on the side, I can;t tell you how many bands I've been in that have collapsed becuase the members can't agree. So now I do shit myself. I'd rather do it alone anyway, cause I hate dealing with people.

You come in start adding things throwing off what I did. That was annoying, but yes, this is an open community and people can come in and do shit like that. However, you started something you never finished. I thought you were going to add tables to all the synopsis pages. You did "Farpoint" and a few more. Yeah I deleted them, but you said "let's talk" and get a community opinion. Well no one said anything, cause no one cares. So it's between me and you. The only chat I get is complaints by people like Kappa and chicken-shit anon users from Memory Alpha of why we're wasting time even doing this here and it should be deleted. Despite their attempts the admins allow us to continue, but as I said it's just you and me and we seem to disagree of what goes here. Nothing will get done.

I'd like to have simplicity and unifomity. Sorry that my style. I gave in to your table ideas, but where are they? You seemed to have abandoned that. You said you'd get to it, but I haven't seen it. You instead tackled the Next Gen listing page, which I said was a good idea, I liked how it looks with the pics and all. Then I said I have images upto half of season 3 already available. Now you started a rat race and began posting your own. None of yours are the same size as the ones I put in, so when it comes time to add the synopsis page the pic will be too big. Now I have to fuck around with pixel size and have a stupid "thumbnail" icon next to it. All your doing is making more work for me. Handsdown your the table master, but I think they're a waste of time and I hate editing them. You accidently delete the wrong thing and it screws everything up.

Anyway, do what you want since nothing will turn out how I planned it, and I don't want to war with people anymore. It's no longer worth my time. So have fun with your edits tables and whatever else. It's yours, enjoy it. However, I'll place a $1000 bet I come here in 6 months and see the same shit unfinished and abandoned like everything else, or the "deletion army" finally gets their way and it all gets taken down. Cyberia23 16:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's amusing is that you've gone from deleting my edits for "damage control" (who exactly is bossing whom around when you threaten to invoke a revert war because "you have time"?) to essentially "fuck this, fuck you, fuck off" (but at least said in a more civil tone).

I have no intention of driving you away nor do I intend on being a jackass nor being your boss. This entire discussion/pissing contest/flaming/whatever-you-want-to-call-it started because we have different definitions of "overview". Mine is not leaving out major plot details, but you apparently want a brief one-liner soundbite at the maximum. Except you're flat-out refusing to consider anything but what you write and you've made it explicitly clear you'd kick in the revert machine into high gear to keep your way. Crickey, you aren't even willing to consider discussion on the overviews: just reverting to keep your way.

This is not a turf war, this is you getting irate over not having your way. I only joined in on TNG because I happen to like the show and saw there was interest in fleshing out all the articles. I'm also helping edit the probability distributions because there's interest there as well. There's some degree of "fun" in editing a topic with others.

Regarding images. You can scale images without having to edit them. It's a very basic wiki feature:

• 
• 
• 
• 

So you'll have to excuse me when I say that's a BS excuse to upload new pictures and cry it's making too much work for you. Just wait until you run out of images and I'll have to supply the rest, but I suppose that'll be "too much work" for you as well? Come on, you're being unreasonable with this.

Regarding your "plans" to articles. At the bottom of the edit page you'll see:

If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.

So if you can't tolerate others editing articles you've written and "planned" then perhaps you should leave WP since you failed to read what I quoted above. Sheesh, and my overview edits are a far cry from merciless editting.

Regarding the infoboxes. If you desire to remove them, go ahead, but I'll put them back when the rest of the articles are done. It'll be much easier to edit them all in one fell swoop than adding them along the way...and god forbid I, or anyone else for that matter, actually write a synopsis on an article and really screw up your plan.

So, in short: are you going to continue to be "it's my way or the highway" and revert anything that impedes your "plan" as damage in addition to calling fellow wikipedians as jackasses for good-faith editing and never even attempting to discuss compromises? If you want to continue as a loner, then you came to the wrong place.

But you know what I hate? I hate wasting my time bickering and arguing about the inconsequential instead of editing articles and collaborating. But I go with it and consider it a "hazard" to the territory of wikipedia. The real question is can you go with there being more than one editor for articles you edit? It certainly doesn't look like it. Cburnett 20:50, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Well like I said, you wanna work on them, go ahead. I won't stop you. I prefer doing it myself, and since that apparently won't happen, it's no longer enjoyable for me. So, I'm done. Cyberia23 21:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

M-kay, so me adding a few details to overviews to cover the gapping holes in the plot, adding infoboxes, and tabulating tabular data is too much for you.

Basically what you've said in this discussion is you refuse to collaborate with others on a web site that thrives on collaboration and when others attempt to collaborate, you get combative, insulting, and quick-triggered to keep it your way. What exactly were you expecting at wikipedia? Perhaps of the thousands upon thousands of editors here, that you'd be the only one interested in the most popular Star Trek series ever??? I know next to nothing about you personally, but I refuse to believe you're that unintelligent. Cburnett 21:34, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very well aware of what Wikipedia is about. You walked in, however, being ignorant to what was already in place and how it's arranged and organized, and then try to outpace me at every turn. You might think thats selfish egotistical rhetoric on my part, but whatever the fuckin deal is, I DON'T CARE ANYMORE, so by all means have it your way from now on. I won't interfere in your edits, so you can stop trying to psycho-analyse me and twist my words around to make me sound like a moron. I don't mind working with people, as long as they don't have their head up their ass, and I lack the patience to wait around to see what they're doing, so you're right; I guess Wiki, or at least the Star Trek editing part of it isn't for me, which is why I said I was quitting. Cyberia23 22:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you insist: adios. Cburnett 00:11, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

That's too bad. I appreciate the heads up... further discussion will be @ the article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ST:VOY

I wasn't the one that removed (VOY) from all the ep links. Would you have rather I left all 55 alone that were pointing at non-ST related articles such as Phage and Tattoo? And I really appreciate your linking what you wanted me to refer to. It's always so helpful when people...oh, wait, you couldn't be bothered to take the extra 30 seconds. Nevermind. Niteowlneils 04:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek#See also -> Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek boy that was hard to find. For someone with over 15,000 edits I didn't see it necessary to hold your hand for you.

Now that the cat-fight is over (unless you'd rather continue what you started): no, I didn't think they should have stayed links to the wrong articles. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean I can't inform you of what they should be, does it? Do you need to re-read WP:FAITH or what? What's with the sour attitude? Cburnett 04:48, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] May 5, 2005 archive end

[edit] June 17, 2005 archive start

[edit] Image correction: Enterprise

Hi. I made a correction to the location of the image you had for episode 117 (Fusion) in the List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes article. The one you had was actually a shot from 115 (Shadows of P'Jem). I thought I'd mention this because the image is actually called ep117 and this might cause some confusion when more images are added. You may want to rename it. (I note on the image page that you do have the episode name correct, so the numbers just got mixed up). 23skidoo 02:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've put the image up for speedy delete, reuploaded it under the correct name (Image:Enterprise ep115 screenshot.jpg), and change the links to it. Cburnett 02:35, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Small Pictures

About the mini-pictures, I must admit they were too small, can we do a background image in the table ok a whole new table? ---- Astroweb (sig added by Cburnett)

Might be worth bumping the size up to 100px or something add expanding the table to include a mini-synopsis. Something to justify the extra vertical space needed for the picture. Cburnett 03:11, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I took the liberty of making them 75px though I had to widen the text boxes to keep the titles on one line. I agree adding a mini-synopsis would be a good idea. 23skidoo 16:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Starship Enterprise article

Canon is clashing with non-canon at the Starship Enterprise article. A couple of anons are trying to insert non-canon speculation as to the nature of the Enterprises F, G, H, I and J-- apparently they've even created articles for the F to I vessels which I imagine aren't long for this world if anyone decides to do a VfD. I can't do another revert without violating the Three-Revert Rule (I reverted two edits at once just now so technically I'm at my limit now). As a soon-to-be-admin ;-) could you take a look and perhaps offer your opinion on the matter? I'm going by the guidelines set out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek for the most part on this, but I get the feeling the anon's aren't bothering to go look for themselves. Thanks! PS. Please reply on my Talk page - thanks! 23skidoo 16:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did the articles about the H and I because F and G were already there or something like that (for continuity), but if you feel that they really should not exist I will not oppose too, but there is no indication that the J did not in fact exist, where would Daniels come from? --Astrowob 01:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help! Push Star Trek to FA status

Hi, I noticed your name on Talk:Star Trek. I believe that the article requires a major overhaul. Furthermore, I wish to push it to FA status. Please help me with other editors in rewriting the article. -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enterprise episode links

Sorry about that. Just from an editing standpoint I think multiple links look clunky and make things hard to read, so if I were in charge I'd change that rule. But if it's allowed, then fair enough. I was about to do revisions for S3 and S4 so at the same time I'll do another pass to make sure all the links are restored besides those you've already redone. You might want to put an editing note above each season to prevent others with the same idea from removing the links again later. On a related note I added lists of what I thought were key episodes for the T'Pol and Trip/T'Pol arcs on the Story Arcs page. Maybe you can take a look and see if I missed any. I don't think we need to mention every episode in which T/T'P chat or T'Pol does something strange, but that was my first stab at listing episodes in which IMO something signifcant happens. I'm going to try an Archer list later. I just finished watching season 1 on DVD and added a couple more arcs and episodes to the overall list as well. 23skidoo 15:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And I'd fight ya tooth-and-nail for keeping it. :)

Yeah, I saw your character arc edits but haven't had a chance to thoroughly check it. Cburnett 15:48, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] June 17, 2005 archive end

[edit] July 17, 2005 archive start

[edit] STNG Images

Obviously you're busier than me nowadays; I'd be happy to finish adding images to the STNG list. How were you acquiring them predominantly? What size should I aim for? etc etc. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:46, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

It's finals week right now. Then I have to move to a new apartment. Then finish my thesis. Ugh! :)

I've been just taking a screenshot and doing some basic enhancing (some slight unsharpening mostly) and usually end up with 512x384 image. I do no rescaling and make no target size (I think GIMP defaults to 75% quality...whatever that really means).

By all means, knock yourself out. :) Cburnett 05:50, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

I realized I won't be able to do the images. I got Lower Decks from a Divx download, but I'm lacking the appropriate source material. I looked around the net a bit, but its all crap! :'D Sorry. I'll try to supplement anything else I can. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think Image:ST-TNG The Masterpiece Society.jpg is from the Conundrum. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are correct...and I deleted it. Should I replace the current Conundrum with it? Cburnett 01:57, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Tough call, although your image is certainly more unique to the episode I like the subversive quality mine has with the guy in the background. Perhaps yours is better to keep spoilage low, although I'd like my image to remain for the article.

Also I just added the Distant Origins image, I followed your suggestion and have used the sharpen more function on Paint Shop Pro 5.03. I generally avoid sharpening because it makes the image look weird close up, but I realize it does improve the image for how it will be used in Wikipedia. Give me feedback on the sharpening since I intend to use that from now on, at least for TV captures... and I'll likely redo my previous images. (I know the faces are a little dark on Distant Origins, but it was tough lighting and I can't figure out how to brighten just shadows, perhaps I should install Paint Shop Pro 7 or 8, but their bloatware compared to 5 :-). - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I hate to discourage you from helping but I uploaded my version of Distant Origin at Image:ST-VOY Distant Origin.jpg. Perhaps that will give you something more direct to compare with but yours is too bright and too grainy. Having taken all these captures, I've noticed that the majority of Star Trek is shot in darker conditions so I don't think it's necessary to make it as bright as you did.

It's been a *long* time since I've used PSP, but I don't recall if it has a sharpen with an "amount" slider. If you could adjust it down then the image won't be near as grainy. Cburnett 16:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Well I can use sharpen instead of sharpen more, but the grainyness is probably from poor source :'( ... your image is cleaner, but goddam that's dark. I've brightned it, hopefully not too much. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Memory Alpha link

Thanks for handling this issue. I was offline for a couple days so I wasn't able to followup on my earlier stated concerns about this link (as noted at the WikiProject: Star Trek page and on "Memory"'s talk page). I had a feeling something didn't feel right about it. Cheers! 23skidoo 00:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delete STNG pages

Please make sure The Chase (TNG) and Schisms (Star trek) are deleted; as they are now deprecated pages. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And Sub Rosa (Star Trek episode) - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I had been thinking of just waiting until ST:TNG is done and just make a big WP:RFD list. Cburnett 03:06, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] July 17, 2005 archive end

[edit] May 13, 2006 archive start

[edit] Star Trek survey

Hello. You seem to be interested in Star Trek material. Please see my Wikipedia:Non-canon Star Trek survey. Thanks. — JIP | Talk 09:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek convention

I was quite clear in my editing note. Yes: your belated addendum is incompatible with the convention already established and discussed months ago on the WikiProject talk page (and in December, after your ref), also noted here as a to-do. Moreover, I'm unsure what recent moves were meant to accomplish and moved said articles back. In effect, the addendum obviates the convention: there'd be little use in having the convention in the first place or in moving any number of articles previously (e.g., TOS episodes) to conform to it. Beyond this, you have more explaining to do than me, methinks, and I'm unsure what else I can say regarding this. Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess this doesn't belong on our talk pages. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek#Naming Convention III. I find it mildly amusing that my own work is being used against my actions. :) I created both the naming convention and the to do list you linked. And I did do my explaining and perhaps you'll understand why I started moving pages once you understand why the convention was created in the first place. Cburnett 01:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That's OK. I understand and appreciate the input. I fully understand why the conventions were created and, with personal experience regarding this issue, see little reason to obviate your prior sage counsel. I'll comment there. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kira Nerys

Hi. You might want to keep an eye on the Kira Nerys article. User:Cool Cat, for some reason, decided to move the article to Nerys Kira. Aside from the dozens of redirects that caused, I see no reason for the article to be moved so the name conforms with Western standard, especially since we have plenty of Japanese biography articles that don't. I checked Ro Laren and so far this hasn't happened there. I have both articles on my watchlist and have asked Cool Cat to explain the rationale on the Kira Nerys talk page. If you choose to reply, please do so on my talk page. Cheers. 23skidoo 02:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up, you're invited to my talk page to see Cool Cat's further rationale regarding the naming situation. I wonder how many hundreds of wikilinks would have to be changed if all the Bajoran names were changed to conform with Western standard? 23skidoo 20:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] May 13, 2006 archive end

[edit] January 14, 2007 archive start

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

Hello. I am soliciting comments on the article about Where No Man Has Gone Before (TOS episode). Have put on peer review as well, planning eventually to try to get it up to FA status. Any thoughts? Thanks, Morwen - Talk 10:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] January 14, 2007 archive end