Previous archived discussions: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012.
Abrams directing Star Wars
Why is this information relevant for a wikia on star trek? Nothing against Star Wars, I like it a lot, but it is a totally different franchise and it seems kind of unrelated to announce Star Wars news here. if we had published every one of JJ Abrams' new productions and projects on MA it would make sense, but since we dont do that, why does Star Wars stand out? This information is totally unrelated to Star Trek. Distantlycharmed (talk) 01:10, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
- It's not "totally unrelated" since Abrams works on Star Trek. It would be just as notable if Gene Roddenberry or Rick Berman had worked on Star Wars while they were working on Star Trek. Notable Trek staff working on other notable projects(Star Wars or not) is worth mentioning. This is being mentioned on Trekmovie.com, among other places. Now, certainly not every project Abrams works on is notable (like that short lived Undercovers series he did) but Star Wars certainly is. 31dot (talk) 02:32, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
Episode/Movie Chronology
I think that in the side bar for productions that have the Production chronology, I think that there should have the Chronological order in universe. Matt Seay (talk) 03:08, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
2013
could someone correct the date of Michael Ansara's death?24.92.210.244 23:49, August 2, 2013 (UTC)
- Um, he died July 31st. What's the problem? The page has that date on it. -- sulfur (talk) 01:36, August 3, 2013 (UTC)
Umm, at the time of my post, it read 2 August 2014. Thanks24.92.210.244 02:03, August 3, 2013 (UTC)
Today's changes
I've removed the STID box, since the film has now been released in every country, and in most of them for awhile now. I've also moved the languages panel to below the header since where it was tended to result in it being one the same "screen" with the small version in the related wikis panel. I'm open to suggestions on where else we could put this, or if we should remove it and expand the small version in related to replace it. - Archduk3 17:45, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
- Esthetically I don't think it looks good having the language panel below the header. Functionally it gives easy access to the language sets having them higher up on the page than before. I would suggest placing them in a box underneath the box "Browse points of interests". --BorgKnight (talk) 23:55, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
Or in other words, exactly where they were. - Archduk3 00:06, September 9, 2013 (UTC)
- I thought they were only on the bottom. But yes I think they would better there. Where they are now they are too prominent. A sites languages are never in the center of a site, always kept to the side, top or bottom. If that was where they were before I think they are better off there. I think a two column order would be good with the flags beside each language name. --BorgKnight (talk) 01:35, September 9, 2013 (UTC)
Everything in Past Tense?
I've noticed some major articles like Earth and Human to all now be written in the past tense. Is this proper Manual of Style? Doesn't read too well - make's it sound like Earth is destroyed and humans are extinct. -FleetCaptain (talk) 08:20, October 7, 2013 (UTC)
- Though this should be discussed at the Reference Desk as it doesn't seem to concern changing the Main Page- yes, that is the correct tense per the Manual of Style. The past tense allows for a consistent viewpoint across the many eras seen in Star Trek. 31dot (talk) 09:05, October 7, 2013 (UTC)