If you'd like to learn more about working with the nuts and bolts of Memory Alpha, I have a few links that you might want to check out:
- Our policies and guidelines provides links to inform you on what is appropriate for Memory Alpha and what is not. Particular items of note are the content and resource policies, the editing guidelines, our point of view, copyrights and guidelines for proper etiquette.
- How to edit a page includes a basic tutorial about how to use our special wikitext code here on Memory Alpha.
- Naming conventions provides guidelines on how to name a new page that you may want to create.
- The Manual of Style is an overview of the basic guidelines for how to format and style your articles.
- How to write a great article is a list of suggestions that can help you put together an article that might end up on our Featured Articles list someday.
- See the user projects page for current projects of our archivists, or help us to reduce the number of stubs.
- Look up past changes you have made in your contributions log.
- Keep track of your favorite Memory Alpha articles through your very own watchlist.
- Create your own user page and be contacted on this page, your talk page.
One other suggestion: if you're going to make comments on talk pages or make other sorts of comments, please be sure to sign them with four tildes (~~~~) to paste in your user name and the date/time of the comment.
I realize I introduced you to the whole "not canon, but permitted resource" bit, but that was basically to tell you that the stuff you were adding was not "apocrypha", because you have had an apparent aversion to asking questions, or communicating in general. The fact that the rest of the references on this site are included in the background section linking to such references, already, it really is not a requirement to include said bit on every page that such a reference is made. In some cases it comes across redundant, as one should, theoretically, be able to click on the page for the ST:Chronology, Encyclopedia or any other Tech Manual to discover what type of reference it is. Anyway, just a thought. :) --Alan 02:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Mark XXV torpedoEdit
- That was a schematic used by the impostors, created from information obtained from the memory core of the Delta Flyer. It was used along with the Phaser Cannon as a "supposed weapon of the Voyager". It's not really credible as such considering it contradicts dialogue from other episodes. --Pseudohuman 15:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Ancient Humanoid Edit
Well, that was a major screw up on my part. %-) Sorry about the fruitless debate then. If you haven't already, look at the talk page. I made the change to the article that you suggested, but feel free to modify it further. – Cleanse 13:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
May I politely suggest that you refrain from changing other articles to remove retcons at this time? There is not yet a consensus to do so. Our decision on USS Melbourne may mean that we do this, but we certainly should discuss this in the forums (and reach consensus) before we make sweeping changes to the database. Regards, Cleanse 04:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, Memory Alpha policy has been not to treat things as retcons, but to include BOTH versions. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Better yet, see :What Memory Alpha is not. You don't have to know the secret Forum page to learn this policy. TribbleFurSuit 17:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Right. Damn, I seem to have a problem with my self =D Where others see a nit, I see just a fact among others. But I can see the line now. If its a dialogue or graphics thing ignore it, if it's an episode premis thing then not. Right. --Pseudohuman 17:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I know you were trying to go along with the consensus RE: production inconsistencies. Good job - at least you're not trying to reconcile all those details into some imagined self-consistent canon, treating every single new episode featuring travel at stated warp factors and distances as retcons. What makes your contribution a nitpick is that the point had already been made. It just isn't necessary to catalogue every time the same inconsistency occurs on-screen. The nitpick in that case is in the attitude, not in the "rule" you rhetorically contrived. Though, if you ask me, the item itself is a nitpick, no matter how few or many instances are listed to make the point. In that case, it's a nitpick just because that's what we here call it when someone points out "LØØK th3Y fµ¢#3d ¡† √P!". Again, nothing like your "line" which you say you can see now. TribbleFurSuit 19:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Blind as a Aenar Edit
No clue how I screwed that up. Sorry --Morder 05:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Past Tense Edit
My picture Edit
Please see the talk page about my user image... File talk:Cyorxamp.jpg
"Top Secret classification in the ST universe" Touche Edit
Pseudohuman, Touche, I did not think of that, however, that was the only instance that I remember of it occuring, but, as you pointed out it does exsist. Also, the captain already has level 10 security clearance, which seems to be required to be stated as part of the authorization code input sequence. And at that, wouldn't a voiceprint verification be performed anyways? But in that case one could argue that since an authorization code in the style Janeway used in "omega directive" is so far, unique it could be classified as top secret. JeffreyAlpha172 23:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Melbourne problems Edit
As soon as possible, please guide yourself to the Melbourne talk page. We are having yet another problem, and your help is needed.
Ambassador/Ensign_Q 17:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a hotmail or any other email you use for messaging?
Ambassador/Ensign_Q 13:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- I try my best not to make these things too personal, so I stay clear of mailing and chatting with other users. --Pseudohuman 14:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, ok. Ambassador/Ensign_Q 14:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you agree with my viewpoint? Edit
Since I've been posting a lot in the forum:retcon, I was wondering whether agreed with what I'm saying there, or not. If not, then I shall desist immediately. Ambassador/Ensign_Q 16:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. I think many contributors dont see how badly our articles fanedit the canon when we are arranging it in the way that we force it into an in-universe database that must be absolutely free of contradiction. It's defininetly something that should be relaxed so the articles would appear more objective to readers than what they are right now. It is almost relative to fan fiction for us to unnecessarely "weigh canon" in this way. I think it's mostly due to the inability to think beyond the box of how things are now. As long as we have the mandate of absolutely no contradictions, we have to pick and choose. If we let it go, we don't have to. It's as simple as that. --Pseudohuman 18:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Very well. I posted one more entry, before reading this message. Thank you for response.
- As a sidenote, it is ironic how a site as biased as Ex Astris Scientia depicts the neutral viewpoint of having neither TOS or TOS-R more canon than the other, while a supposed "neutral, impartial, and unbiased" Wiki instantly takes a side. Funny that. Ambassador/Ensign_Q 18:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Feedback needed Edit
In response to your "laziness" statement - I have no clue where in the movie you would even see that or if it actually exists. You're talking about a movie that is quite long with a scene that probably only took 2 seconds. So I will continue to remove anything that is not stated as fact and not backed up with a valid citation. You cited it but didn't state it as fact so please write them correctly or I will remove them. In addition it would be helpful, in the future, to post a screen capture of your information and post it here so that others can validate such a statement - that image can be used on other pages and not merely to validate data. (There's a lot of items posted on this site that could use that type of help) Finally, you shouldn't add anything that is unclear or unknown anything posted in that manner is removed by several people and not just me. We are here to document facts that are known and not show what is unknown. — Morder (talk) 00:14, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
- Point taken, in any event, the proper action for you is not to first delete statements from articles, but to first ask for a more detailed reference in the talk page, if none is given then consider removing the statement. Many contributors know the films and episodes extremely well and are happy to point out the scenes. At least that's what I would do... :) Also, sometimes all it takes is to format a relevant statement to a new tone to make it suitable for an MA article. --Pseudohuman 16:04, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
Please don't state something as vandalism when a user has offered a good faith edit to an article. In his view it's a good edit. Labeling something vandalism should be constrained to obvious vandalism such as removal of an entire page or adding vulgarities and so forth. Just for the future. Thanks :) — Morder (talk) 08:59, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
I did a proper merge for T'Pau type if you wish to merge a page just go ahead and put a merge notice rather than just copy/paste text as the method linked outlines that we also merge user contributions to make sure everyone gets credit for their contributions. — Morder (talk) 10:36, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
- "If, after seven to ten days, there's consensus, perform the merge by copying all information from that page to the new one. Note the source page of the new information in the edit summary, and leave a note about the performed merge on the talk page."
- You barely gave it 24 hours.... --Alan 17:36, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
Soliton wave shipEdit
As an aside, it was linked from a couple of places as "soliton wave test ship" rather than "soliton wave rider". It's best to make sure that all of the links are the same or at least go to the same place. Just FYI. -- sulfur 20:26, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. "Soliton wave rider" is the correct name as it comes from the lcars. It was called "test ship" in the dialogue due to it's role in the experiment. --Pseudohuman 20:30, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest that when the actual article is created, a redirect from "soliton wave test ship". Also, "soliton" was not capitalized in the script. Finally... "it's" only ever means "it is" or "it has". "its" means "belonging to it". :) -- sulfur 20:32, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
Greetings from Pori Spaceport. Edit
Greetings pseuduhuman, and hyvvöö päivöö. Thanx for corrections on latest submission, however i must insist adding some sort of speed information to the borg transwarp conduits. As its essential piece of borg technology, and explains how voyager was able to travel thousands of lightyears in instant, its not only nickpick info, its cruisial data on several different sections. Not only it informs that it is WAY faster than warping, or slipstream warping, its plot developement info also. --JHawx 23:02, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
Tried adding following to humans discussion, but getting failed all the time Edit
What makes humans different
- I just figured out that naming is intypical to the universe on humans. Other species is referred by their originating planetary systems (eq, acamarian, lives at acamaria III). Now humans are called "human" or "Terrans", but accordingly to the logic of intergalaxial naming, humans should be then called "Solarians". Oh, and btw: humans are also being called "Pinkskins, hue-mans" and so on... Maybe its nothing special, and maybe writers were just a little lazy on naming issues, dont know, but its kinda funny. --JHawx 15:59, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
this gives only following error Unexpected non-MediaWiki exception encountered, of type "StompException" exception 'StompException' with message 'Could not connect to 10.8.2.221:61613 (10/10)' in /usr/wikia/source/releases_201002.4/lib/Stomp.php:169 Anything you can do about it??? Kiitti/THX --JHawx 16:07, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
- Pseudohuman's not a wiki staff guy, he can't really help you with that. That error is an internal system error. Looks like it's sorted itself out now too. -- sulfur 16:17, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
Images for deletionEdit
When adding a deletion notice, make sure that you also add it to the page linked from there, with a brief blurb as to why. -- sulfur 10:20, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
Hi, when removing sizable chunks of text from bg notes it's generally recommended that you archive it on the talk page, ideally with a short justification as to why it was removed.
(and on a related subject, I've just removed a note you've written on European Alliance, but it's not really gone, I copied it to Europe, which I think is a far more suitable place for the info). -- Capricorn 14:37, June 12, 2011 (UTC)
Again, could you do this please? -- Capricorn 23:45, February 29, 2012 (UTC)
Hi there Pseudohuman. When adding references to books such as the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual, could you please add page numbers (and the edition, when like the Tech manual there are multiple editions)? This is part of an effort to make references more precise and easier to verify. For more information, see Memory Alpha: Cite your sources#Secondary sources. Thanks. –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 07:28, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
"Inter Arma..." FA Nomination Edit
Hello Pseudohuman, I was hoping you might be able to spare a few minutes to read through "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges" and perhaps consider voting for it as an FA? Regardless, any comments you may have on the article would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. :) --| TrekFan Open a channel 22:01, August 20, 2011 (UTC)
Nice edits! There is a small problem. We don't know that the Bonaventure was the ONLY human ship in the Delta triangle. It was likely the only one that Starfleet knew to have been lost there, but the members of the Elysian council never said that it was in fact the only one. Also the yellow ship has a totally alien design.... I really don't think it was built by humans. Also I don't remember if they ever said that Lara was aboard one of the ships we saw in the picture. Or that she was anything more than a passenger.--Marhawkman 15:47, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
New T'Khut image Edit
- a screencap from the net. -Pseudohuman 18:52, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
I suspected as much. Could you be more specific about the source, though? --Defiant 19:08, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
- the screencap was here.  is there a problem with it? -Pseudohuman 19:15, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
Not really, other than the naming issue; I just thought a screencap from Star Trek: The Motion Picture - The Director's Edition (or, even better, from Star Trek: The Motion Picture (Blu-ray)) might render a higher quality image. Also, there's black borders at the sides of this version of the image that'd need to be removed. --Defiant 19:28, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
- Updated with high def screencap from trek core. --Pseudohuman 19:43, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
Cool! I really like it. :) --Defiant 19:56, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
Hello there. I wish to invite you to contribute and/or vote in this discussion on a new way of electing and retaining admins on Memory Alpha. Should you not wish to vote, your thoughts and opinions on this matter would be greatly appreciated in the "discussion" section. Kind regards, TrekFan. --| TrekFan Open a channel 11:36, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
I like that change. :)--Marhawkman 21:23, September 17, 2011 (UTC)
Please join discussion about image policy Edit
we're currently discussing some specifics of our image use policy MA:IMAGE. In case you haven't seen it already, the ongoing discussion is located at Memory Alpha talk:Image use policy#redux. I would like to invite you to that discussion specifically, because a past image deletion discussion that you started (for File:Warp field.png) has been brought up in the discussion, and there has been some controversy regarding your exact reasoning for that deletion. Basically: did you bring it up because it was a "self-created" image per se, or because it depicted things that are "not canon"? Perhaps you could clear that up, so that we can end that sub-discussion - and, of course, any other comment you want to make regarding future dealings with images would be welcome, too. Thanks. :) -- Cid Highwind 12:35, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
Can you take a look at this article for the reconfirmation? At least one more support vote is needed on this one due to its history, though any vote would be welcome. - Archduk3 23:04, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
I've uploaded this image to illustrate the "Unnamed Romulans" article and have an image of the Romulan sentors. Your recently uploaded image missed about half of the senators. If you want a different image for the star chart, please upload one. Thanks. Tom (talk) 15:10, August 12, 2012 (UTC)
The information in Eden was taken from the transcript. I am very careful about what I put in.
- Sevrin: The planet Eden.
- Kirk: That planet, it is a myth.
- Chekov: I am not. These tapes contain star charts and we project the orbits of the various planets here. By mathematical process, we determine whether or not they are affect by other bodies not yet charted.
- We don’t know if there is animal life on the planet. It may be hostile to humanoid life-forms, but animal life may have adapted to the plants acidity and was able to eat the planets. There are places on our planet where similar conditions do exist, where humans couldn't exist, but planets and animals do.Throwback (talk) 17:28, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
Tau Alpha C Edit
Tau Alpha C was never identified as a planet in the canon. The dialogue was vague. In sense one, in "In the Flesh", Captain Kathryn Janeway stated, "I'm from Earth". However, in sense two, in "Cogenitor", Captain Jonathan Archer and Drennik had this conversation,
- Drennik: Captain Drennik. Where have you traveled from?
- Archer: The Sol system. And you?
- Drennik: We come from a system called Vissia, more then twenty five light-years from here. We saw you arrive yesterday. I assume you're here to study the hypergiant.
I opted for the more conservative approach, that Tau Alpha C was a star. It could be also the name of a planet, Sahndare (sun)-Sahndara (planet). I checked Startrek.com to see what they said on the matter. They identified Tau Alpha C as a system. . And that is why I wrote the article in the way I did.
I count the statement by Dr. Crusher as a mistake. Instead of nitpicking the statement, I have included her statement in the background notes. Her usage was closer to sense two, that the Traveler was from a system.Throwback (talk) 18:31, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
Fixing Articles Edit
Locations - Guiding Philosophy Edit
- 1. Production Viewpoint
According to this map [][[] that was created for Star Trek: Insurrection, the Federation, as represented here by Sol, was bordered by the Cardassian Union on the west, the Ferengi Alliance to the northwest, and the Klingons and the Romulans on the east. It shows that Sol was on the border between the Alpha and Beta Quadrants. This understanding of galactic locations was carried over to the reference book, Star Trek: Star Charts, that was written by a person who was close to the art and production departments.
- 2. Changes to Production Viewpoint
According to dialog, the Romulan and Klingon empires were located in the Alpha Quadrant. This would necessitate moving the border line to the east of these empires. I know that you believe in reconciling contradictions. I disagree with this stance. I was taught that if b is newer and that it contradicts a, that b should be considered as true and a as false.
- 3. Locating Places in the Alpha Quadrant
I locate places based on the production viewpoint and changes to the production viewpoint. For instance, Cestus III. We learned from one episode that Bajor, located near the Cardassian empire, was at one end of the Federation and Cestus III was located at the other end. The Klingons and Romulans were located at the other end. In the book mentioned above, Cestus III was located near the Klingon empire.
I don't see this as speculating. I see this as adhering close to what was seen and heard in the episodes. I don't how much of this you will understand. I feel that you take changes to the pages as an insult to yourself. This worries me deeply. I see editing as a fun exercise. I don't have the passion that you apparently do. I would have liked to work with you so that the edits are less speculating, in your opinion, and are more based in fact. For me, the opinion of the production department, amended by the dialog, as fact. They place Federation homeworlds and colonies as being in the Alpha Quadrant. If I am speculating, then they are speculating. Upon further consideration, I don't think we can work together and resolve our differences. It's sad, but true. Goodbye, Throwback (talk) 03:45, November 1, 2012 (UTC)
How to place locations in Alpha Quadrant without saying directly Edit
In the background notes, I am saying this about locations of star systems, stars, and planets, unless they are directly stated to be in the Alpha Quadrant or the Beta Quadrant or another quadrant. "Presumably, <name> was located in the Alpha Quadrant." The definition of presume is, " To take for granted as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary."  This is based on my understanding of what the people who worked behind the scenes believed, that the territory of the Federation was sandwiched between the Cardassians/Ferengi/Talarians/Tholians on one end and the Klingon/Romulans on the other end. If you have a problem with this, please let me know.Throwback (talk) 12:19, November 6, 2012 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no evidence to support your speculations. All canon evidence supports that ships can easily pass into neutral territory, beyond those powers and travel and explore all around the quadrants and always have. For example the star chart in "The Chase". Space isn't 2-dimensional, even if some charts make it look like that. We know from "The Trouble with Tribbles" that Cardassia and the Klingon border was about a 100 light years away from each other and from First Contact that Federation is spread across 8000 light years supporting the line from "The Neutral Zone" that the Federation had expanded "everywhere". All I am saying is that we do not know how it is, we dont know how fed space is divided, so we should not fill in the blanks. That seems to be something you like to do, so i suggest you go off and write fan fiction about it somewhere else... I will try to find the time to delete all your speculations from the articles, but you seem to have more time on your hands than me at the moment, so I cant keep up with the pace you are ruining the pages. I sincerely hope you would stop. :/ --Pseudohuman (talk) 22:35, November 6, 2012 (UTC)
Fixing the Website Edit
I have done damage to this wikia. I am able to admit this. I suffer from a mental disability, and I have attempted to flee from it by working on this wikia. For my health, I have requested that 31dot banned me permanently from this website. I don't trust myself to fix the pages I have damaged; I may go outside that mandate. I started at "The Man Trap" and ended I believe with "The Child". I think you are capable of fixing those pages. 31dot has already started.Throwback (talk) 03:58, November 9, 2012 (UTC)
TNG-R making TNG non-canon?Edit
Cold Front item Edit
The Melbourne again Edit
When adding links to articles, please be sure that you're linking to the page you intend to link to. For example "Mercury" is not the planet... "Mercury (planet)" is. Just FYI. :) -- sulfur (talk) 12:13, July 29, 2013 (UTC)
Your split suggestion Edit
Just a small heads up: if you still want to work on the split you suggested on Talk:Constitution class_model#Split, now would be a good time to get back to that discussion. The discussion seems to have run its course, mostly, so perhaps you could now work on a pair of temp articles to let us see where exactly the split line would be. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 11:46, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
STID images Edit
- From the digital copy released on August 20. yes. I'm not uploading any more, best to wait for the bluray for best quality. --Pseudohuman (talk) 22:15, August 23, 2013 (UTC)
Klingon Empire in the Alpha Quadrant Edit
- Moved to Talk:Qo'noS.
Ships at space dock Edit
Before I entered into this whole mess, I think I created a whole another mess. When I was looking at the Spacedock Manifest, I noticed what I think are three new ship designs. I now think I was mistaken. I think two of the ships, based on other interfaces, are actually Connies. Could you check that? If I made a mistake, could you please fix it? Thanks. I think the ships in question are the AF and VH-5. (Why couldn't they name these ships? Why give them these strange letter and number combinations?) As for Cid Highwind's suggestion, I don't intend to add further to this discussion. I feel I am drowning.Throwback (talk) 11:26, September 19, 2013 (UTC)
- I'll look into this. --Pseudohuman (talk) 21:56, September 19, 2013 (UTC)
Need help with the Starfleet Headquarters page Edit
According to what we see in ST:ID, Starfleet Headquarters was located in a location where the Golden Gate Bridge was visible from ground level. However, a directory for that same headquarters shows that it is on 2nd Street.
Here is the location of 2nd Street in San Francisco.
Although knowing this helps me to understand the flight plan of the Vengeance, it leaves me with a dilemma. Any tips on how to revise the article so that it doesn't come off as a nitpick? Throwback (talk) 01:35, September 20, 2013 (UTC)
First off, when you remove a sizable chunk of text, it's a good idea to place it on the talk page, idealy with a short justification of why it was removed, for transparency reasons.
Secondly, while the note was indeed unwieldy, the reason it remained there so long was because it was really needed to address the fact that the whole basis for saying that there's a a species called "Cygnian"s is a bit icky. Their existence is based on the existence of an article called A Survey on Cygnian Respiratory Diseases, but as the note pointed out, that could mean any number of things, up until diseases of members of Zobral's species living in the Cygniai Expanse. I dunno, maybe the article needs to be brought up for a merge. If not there ought to be some kind of note pointing out the ambiguity, and I've tried to come up with something more compact in the past but that's where it ended up -- Capricorn (talk) 08:03, September 30, 2013 (UTC)
Photon Torpedoes and the Kelvin Edit
I just wanted to thank you for the correction on photon torpedoes and the Kelvin. At first, I saw that the paragraph referred to the New Trek and assumed the distinction between realities should be made, hence the change. It took me a second after seeing the undo before smacking my forehead and realizing where I screwed up. I blame the (lack of) coffee. Medrewnotyou (talk) 16:41, October 22, 2013 (UTC)
Hey. I don't know if you know about the "preview" button when editing an article. You can easily use this button to see the article as it appears on MA. This prevents from editing an article seven times in a few minutes. Tom (talk) 22:06, February 9, 2014 (UTC)
Warp Factor Edit
The content of the chart-line I added is already in the article in text form in the Star Trek Voyager section, paragraph 3.
Also, the text I put in the Star Trek Voyager section about the result of the established speed is already told in the chart (warp seep 9.9 line), so my text tells nothing new, especially not nitpicking, BUT tells an important practical result of the datas for comparsion-purpose, to reveal a goof/mistake of the creators of the series.
- Please note that a) I've protected the page due to this edit war, and b) the sentence you added is clearly nitpicking as you're trying to point out a goof/mistake of the creators. That's what a nitpick is. -- sulfur (talk) 12:56, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
a) You are supporting destructive behaviour by removing my edit and blocking the page that way. b) What I did was to insert a data belonging to a chart, what is already on the page in textual form, and explained the meaning of another data/datas in written form. This is the opposite of nitpicking. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk).
Re Cushman Edit
Since it is a single user continually removing information, I have blocked the user(as the narrowest protection possible). It would seem that this individual is bothered by the discussion of his work in the adult film industry for some reason, but until they (at least) state why, I don't see why it should be removed. 31dot (talk) 00:15, April 12, 2014 (UTC)
The Explored Galaxy comments Edit
This is in reference to the comments you made on the paragraph I had written. First of all, I don't believe in conspiracies.
To answer your questions,
- 1. Here is an article on the Galactic coordinate system. The galaxy is divided into degress of longitude, starting with 0 at the "north" and 180 at the "south". On "The Explored Galaxy" map, we have the number 341-354. These numbers correspond to degress of longitude and each have a grid line. Using the map on the wikipedia page as a guide, this would place the named locations to the "northeast" of the galactic core.
- 2. From Trekcore, here is the map I am referring to from "The Emissary": [] This map, newly made for the episode, has the degrees of longitude. We see blocks on the map which would represent areas of the galaxy explored. Sol is located in one of those blocks. Here is another view of the map. [] I would say that this map is the obverse of the map seen in the wikipedia map. It could be that one map is how one would see the galaxy from the south pole and the other from the north pole.
What I was attempting to communicate, poorly unfortunately, was that between "The Conspiracy" and "The Emissary", there was a retcon on the locations of the named places. The locations were moved from the northeast of the galactic core to the south of the core. I think that this retcon should be noted in the relevant section, and not in the pages for named locations. I will be removing the other paragraphs I have written. Thinking about it more, I don't think it's possible to identify where these locations are in what quadrant, unless there is more specific information.Throwback (talk) 20:13, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
- I hope you listen. You are making the speculative assumption that the galaxy map and it's grid has anything to do with space exploration. This fact exists only in your head. It is not part of objective reality. Real world galactic coordinate systems have nothing to do with star trek. Star Trek uses all sorts of strange and seemingly inconsistent coordinates. There is no statement from any production staff member that the few random numbers are part of a galactic cordinate system. It is just a random grid for all we know. Please create some other fansite for these speculations. Memory Alpha is not the site for them. --Pseudohuman (talk) 21:07, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
Alpha Quadrant statement Edit
On the side of "The Explored Galaxy" star chart where Romulus/Remus are located, there is Kling, which is identified as a Klingon location and, at one time, the homeworld of the Klingons. If Kling, later renamed to Qo'noS, is accepted as being in the Beta Quadrant, as per Star Trek Into Darkness, then this side of the chart can no longer be considered in any way a portion of the Alpha Quadrant. So, the statement is no longer valid. This is why I removed it.Throwback (talk) 23:44, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
- Kling isn't canonically Qo'noS or on Qo'noS. All canonical statements are valid as long as it is impossible for them to be. --Pseudohuman (talk) 00:21, June 11, 2014 (UTC)
At the time the chart was made in 1988, Kling was the home world of the Klingons. (See the background information.) The name was thought to be silly, so they changed the name to Qo'noS (Kronos). This information is from a first-hand source, so there should be no question about Kling's canonicity as the homeworld in 1988. As I have stated before, Kling was on the same side of the chart as Romulus/Remus. There has been a continous stream of two thoughts regarding the location of the Klingon homeworld. In dialog from DS9, it was located in the Alpha Quadrant. In a map created for Insurrection, the Klingon Empire was shown to be in the Beta Quadrant. Then, in the latest film, there is a table that identifies Qo'noS as a Beta Quadrant world. There is another rule, that you might not know, that I learned from the Talmud: The latest information on a fact trumps any information that came before. The most current information is that the Klingon Empire is located in the Beta Quadrant. So, the statement from "A Call to Arms" is invalidated.Throwback (talk) 00:48, June 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Canonically Kling is only a name on the chart and a word in dialogue, regardless of the behind the scenes intentions at the time. Similar case with Tholia. Behind the scenes comments are not canon in MA. Might be somewhere else, but not here. --Pseudohuman (talk) 01:00, June 11, 2014 (UTC)
You railed into me for not having a production source for another issue. I provided a source for Kling. Then I listen to you dismissing this out of hand. What!? I don't have the inclination or patience to work with people who I feel are two-faced: saying one thing in one situation and saying another thing in another situation. We agree to disagree. End of line.Throwback (talk) 01:12, June 11, 2014 (UTC)
What I know is this: The Romulan Empire is surrounded by the Klingons, the Cardassians, and the Federation. The Klingon Empire has territory in the Alpha and Beta Quadrants. This is based on information from Star Trek: Into Darkness. The Federation has territory that is under or above this empire. Gamma Hydra is seen on a starchart that shows the Neutral Zone (see The Defector). The Gamma Hydra sector consists of a segment of the Federation-Klingon border (see Star Trek II) and a segment of the Neutral Zone (see The Deadly Years). So, the question is, how much of the Romulan Empire is in the Alpha Quadrant and how much of the Romulan Empire is in the Beta Quadrant? I am not sure if we can place Romulus/Remus in the Alpha Quadrant. The new crew doing the films may decide to place the RSE into the Beta Quadrant.Throwback (talk) 01:55, June 11, 2014 (UTC)
- It simply is irrelevant. Canon currently indicates that Romulus and Remus are in the alpha quadrant and Qo'noS is in the Beta Quadrant, Kling is something somewhere possibly near the alpha/beta border based on the chart. The map is not clear as to what the exact location of the stars in it are if the map was viewed directly from above. Our policy is that we first try to accept all canon facts as if they are not in dispute before dismissing anything. --Pseudohuman (talk) 04:02, June 11, 2014 (UTC)
- It's not a matter of minimalism or maximalism or whateveralism, it's just a matter of policy. --Pseudohuman (talk) 12:45, June 11, 2014 (UTC)
According to the order of precedence, Qo'noS should remain in the Alpha Quadrant, as this fact was stated in spoken dialogue. However, that Qo'noS be placed in the Beta Quadrant was decided by an individual based on a visual source. I feel that you are a stickler for policy: how you do explain this one? (I didn't make up the order of precedence - it's there. Look for Resource policy - Valid resources.) I think I know how you will respond. If we had followed canon in regards to Qo'noS, than by precedence, this planet would be in the Alpha Quadrant, than the other facts, which were not established in dialog and which were established in a table, would be added to the planet's table. The fact that the planet was listed in the Beta Quadrant would be listed in the background notes, where policy dictates that all contradictions in facts should be placed. I checked the history of the article for Qo'noS and it was you who changed the quadrant designation. This is a clear violation of canon, as stated before. Spoken dialogue has greater priority (a word that means the same as precedence) than visual material. As a canon expert, I would expect you to know what to do in that case. First, leave the quadrant designation as is - leave Qo'noS in the Alpha Quadrant. Then, according to policy, you should have,
- In the event that two in-universe resources directly conflict with each other, either can be referenced as a valid resource, provided the other is also included in some manner in the article and the conflict noted. Explanations of the conflict and the reason for the selection of one resource over another should appear in a manner that is set off from the main text of the article, like in a background note.
Did you include a reason why you decided that visual material has more weight than spoken dialogue? When I listed Qo'noS in the Alpha Quadrant, I provided a justification for that change using source material from the canon. I didn't see your justification for the change. Can you explain yourself? Maybe, instead of responding to me, you should write a justification for why you choose to ignore the spoken evidence in the background notes.Throwback (talk) 16:46, June 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Very simple. There is not a single film or episode or star chart that directly says "Qo'noS is in the Alpha Quadrant" "Go to Qo'noS it's in the Alpha Quadrant" "Alpha Quadrant, thats where Qo'noS is". Only statements that the Empire has space in the Alpha Quadrant and Klingons are present in the Alpha Quadrant. etc. Before Into Darkness we incorrectly assumed that this meant Qo'noS to be in the Alpha Quadrant as well. It turned out we were wrong. Now we know better. --Pseudohuman (talk) 18:05, June 11, 2014 (UTC)
True, there was no statement that said Qo'noS was in the Alpha Quadrant. Then again, the same could be said for the other great galactic powers homeworlds, save for Earth. (VOY: "Live Fast and Prosper") However, the Klingons, their empire, and their technology were identified as being from the Alpha Quadrant. This was established in dialog. For instance, in DS9: "By Inferno's Light", Gowron says, This is a dark day, not only for the Klingon Empire, but for the Alpha Quadrant itself. And, in VOY: "Alliances", Tuvok says, When I was a young man, a great visionary named Spock recommended an alliance between the Federation and the Klingon empire. This produced a major dispute. The Klingons, after all, were outlaws, employing violence and brutality in order to build their empire. I myself spoke out against such a coalition. But the alliance was forged and it brought a stability to the quadrant that had not been there for two hundred years. Spock's suggestion, so controversial at first, proved to be the cornerstone of peace. One other statement from DS9: "Blaze of Glory", in which Martok says, And their Dominion allies will see that they get it. They'll launch a counterstrike against the Federation, the Klingon Empire, and the entire Alpha Quadrant. I can find many such statements linking the Klingon Empire to the Alpha Quadrant. So, no, it's not an incorrect assumption. It's a statement of fact. The Klingon Empire was a Alpha Quadrant power. An empire is built around a homworld. The issue I feel is that both DS9 and VOY were largely forgotten, and the people who created that table went to another resource. They used the information from the Star Trek MMO. I did some checking on the Beta Quadrant. In Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, we are informed that the USS Excelsior had completed a survey of gaseous planetary anomalies in that sector. When they were informed of the Khitomer Conference, they had just entered the Alpha Quadrant. The starship was traveling at impulse speed. The ship went to warp when there was a need to do so. Based on dialogue from that movie, the Klingons had a presence in the Beta Quadrant. Praxis hadn't been established yet as a moon of Qo'noS yet. (This was done in fandom.) It was a Klingon moon that had exploded. In the mid-24th century, the Federation sent the USS Olympia to explore this quadrant. So, based on the dialogue, the Klingon Empire had expanded into the Beta Quadrant by the late 23rd century and the quadrant was largely unexplored either by the Federation or the Klingons. The issue for me, now, is that you haven't responded to my earlier issue. As a contributor, you are required to explain why you prioritized visual evidence over dialog in the background notes for Qo'noS.Throwback (talk) 23:02, June 11, 2014 (UTC)
A compromise, in concordance with policy, I suggest a compromise. Qo'noS and the Klingon Empire are placed back in the Alpha Quadrant, as the information is Tier 1 ("Spoken Dialogue"). The rest of the information from Star Trek: Into Darkness is kept, as it doesn't contradict Tier 1 data. In the background note, there is information on Qo'noS being located in the Beta Quadrant as per this film. This visual material is Tier 2 ("Visual Material"). As for the statement from DS9: "Call to Arms", it is not a statement of range; it identifies three species as being native to the Alpha Quadrant. It is a stretch to apply this statement to "The Explored Galaxy" which has issues in the real world, and was superseded by another chart in TNG: "Emissary". I recognize that, or I feel that you compartmentalize what is reality and what is fiction and don't think that the real world influences people who work in Star Trek, I look at the latter chart and I can see that Michael Okuda was at least familiar with the galactic coordinate system used by astronomers. He may have been familiar with it a year earlier. The galactic coordinate system has been used at least once, in the Animated Series. Most times we hear of coordinates from at a local level, from the perspective of a starship or spacecraft.Throwback (talk) 01:10, June 12, 2014 (UTC)
- Just because Qo'noS the planet is a few sector into the Beta Quadrant, does not mean that most of the empire cannot be in the Alpha Quadrant. You are assuming there is a conflict. This is against policy. There has never been a statement in star trek that Qo'noS is in the Alpha Quadrant. There is no conflict between any visuals or any dialogue. If most of Klingons live in the Alpha Quadrant it is reasonable for people to talk about them as an Alpha Quadrant race. --Pseudohuman (talk) 01:42, June 12, 2014 (UTC)
I feel that there is a deeper debate going on here. I feel that you believe that you should have control over these pages, and will use the canon as a weapon against those who have differing opinions. You and I have argued often in the past, and we are no closer to an understanding. I firmly believe that you believe that you are more than a contributor and are an arbiter of policy. In one of the posts you wrote in response to me, you said I was ruining the articles. In my experience, when someone says that another person is ruining something, there are issues of control and there is a fight for dominance. I don't know what your issue is, but it is an issue, and it interferes with our ability to compromise. One other point, it is a common courtesy to express your sentences with an "I-statement". For example, from "You are assuming there is a conflict.", you could have said, "I feel that you assume there is a conflict, which is against policy." We could have had a constructive discussion, where I could point out what I see as the inconsistencies between the spoken dialogue and the visuals. I agree that I haven't always been consistent in using the I-statements; however, I endeavour to do the best I can. Here is an article on "I-statements": [I-Statements] I feel that when you don't use that statement, that you are attacking me directly, that you are abusive, which has the effect of making me less inclined to contribute. Maybe that is what you want.Throwback (talk) 02:33, June 12, 2014 (UTC)
- Canon is canon, policy is policy. If you want to contribute here, you have to follow the rules. I dont know what else to tell you. --Pseudohuman (talk) 12:59, June 12, 2014 (UTC)
Beta Antares - different system Edit
The article says that Beta Antares is in the Antares system. So, how is the Beta Antares system different than the Antares system? What happens to the Alpha system, happens to the Beta system, and so on. To put it another way, more locally, we have the Sol system and each of the planets has its own system. However, when we speak of the Sol system, we speak as if there is one system, when there is in reality systems within systems. Throwback (talk) 03:13, June 24, 2014 (UTC)
- Maps have the star Antares labeled, not Beta Antares. So not relevant to note in that particular article. --Pseudohuman (talk) 09:04, June 24, 2014 (UTC)
Transwarp Beaming Edit
I agree with you that the paragraph I wrote had an element of the implicit. What aliens were you thinking of when you wrote your comment? My paragraph was based on dialogue from "Assignment: Earth". We have this dialogue:
- Kirk: Kirk here. What's happening?
- Spock: It appears we have accidentally intercepted someone's transporter beam, Captain.
- Spock: The beam is originating at least one thousand light years away.
- Scott: No transporter beam can reach that far, not even in our century.
- Gary Seven: I was beaming to Earth when you intercepted me.
The audience is told that the aliens from the Assigners World has a transporter capable of transporting a person from one system to another. My point in the paragraph was to counter the criticisms that I have seen in fandom about transwarp beaming in Abrams' Star Trek. I think if I had been given the ability to rewrite the paragraph, I would have kept to what was explicitly stated. As I feel you are opposed to this, I am leaving the page alone.Throwback (talk) 01:05, June 25, 2014 (UTC)
- Kalandan transporter tech with a similar thousand light year range from "That Which Survives", Triskelion transporter tech with range to harvest their thralls from anywhere around the galaxy from "The Gamesters of Triskelion" and indeed the Assigners transporter tech from "Assignment: Earth" come to mind right now. There are probably more that I'm just forgetting from TOS alone. Transporter article is a better place to note various transporter tech with long range capabilities. Transwarp is just one of several specific subtypes of such a technology and not the proper article for adding unrelated notes. That's all. --Pseudohuman (talk) 05:08, June 25, 2014 (UTC)
Solar System Poster Edit
I am not sure if you are going to get a legible version of this poster from the episodes. I went to the forum to get screencaps for a episode in DS9 and I got nada. There is no dedicated team of screencappers. I went to an on-line source to order the poster, and I got the updated version of the poster. They changed it slightly, especially in regards to Pluto. I have deliberately left that information out. If you think the articles are wrong, I hear there is an option. Add the delete tag to the pages and modify the others. There is a list at "Cardassians". Throwback (talk) 20:29, August 4, 2014 (UTC)
Changes to Rhea Edit
I feel you are attempting to pick a point. If you are, then I feel you should be consistent. We don't have affiliation for most of the Sol system bodies. Why not remove affiliation from those that don't have affiliation data? I provided a source that shows the poster in a room. I see that you removed it without explanation. Are you looking for a picture that shows this poster more clearly? That is dependent on CBS deciding on whether or not to proceed with DS9 on blu-ray, and, so, could be at least a year from now. Are you looking for written words that confirm what you have written? I don't think you will find them from the production sources. Have you read the talk pages for the Sol system? Jorg, who is an infrequent contributor now, bought a copy of the poster in 2006, and described what was found on the poster and what was not. Until you are consistent and realistic, I see no merit in your edits and I am undoing what you did.Throwback (talk) 07:57, August 5, 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the moonsEdit
Or more specifically, regarding the issue you raised on Talk:Rhea: for whatever reason no one bothered to answer there, but somehow the issue still lives in backchannels even two days later, to the point that it has now reached my own talk page through a grievance by Throwback. May I make a suggestion? Maybe it would be a good idea to bring this to the forum, where it is more visible and maybe we could even look at how many users are for or against. I'm sympathetic to your argument, doubly so since the poster consulted is not the same as the poster filmed, but like it or not, while generally material like that is not accepted, the issue of illegible information has always been a lot more murky then one would want (as evidenced by how these pages weren't marked for deletion the moment they were created, or even by how you reacted not by putting a delete notice on it but by posting on the talk page).
ps I've also ended up trying to give Throwback some pointers on Humanese communication in said usertalk discussion, regarding some of your actions they vented about. I'm very uncomfortable interpreting other people's actions, but that's where I ended up, and I'm very sorry if I stept over some line, or misunderstand what was going on, or any of the no doubht many other things that I'm sure can go wrong when you do that. I find it harder to ignore off-message stuff then you do. -- Capricorn (talk) 02:34, August 6, 2014 (UTC)
- A Star Trek reference, I am not able to reach you nor Pseudohuman.Throwback (talk) 04:53, August 6, 2014 (UTC)
Doing what you should have done Edit
I have begun the process of placing delete tags on the offending pages. I am not attempting to reach you. I am simply informing you of what I am doing. And, when I have time, I will do the thing that you need to do - which is to be consistent. On the Sol system planets and moons, for which we have no affiliation data, I will be deleting the affiliation. You can go back to whatever hell you came from, and leave us poor wretched souls alone.Throwback (talk) 13:50, August 6, 2014 (UTC)
Removal of fan interpreation-speculation Edit
I have made major changes to the quadrant pages and to the pages for the Sol system. I believe that they will meet your approval. They have less of me, and more of you. There is none of that silly business that you call fan rationalization and interpretation-speculation, which are symptomatic of the the wild imaginings of a diseased mind and are anathema to a rational mind such as yours.Throwback (talk) 09:21, August 8, 2014 (UTC)
Custody is an acceptable term. The United States Navy has a Naval Vessel Register. "The Naval Vessel Register (NVR), official inventory of ships and service craft in custody or titled by the US Navy, traces its origin back to the 1880s.' [] America owns the ships, the Navy operates the ships. In this article, the US Navy assumed the custody of the warship America from a contracting firm that built the ship.  Custody is defined as the, "the protective care or guardianship of someone or something".Throwback (talk) 16:43, August 11, 2014 (UTC)
USS Adelphi page Edit
I appreciate your attempt at reconciling the issue I created. The issue I stirred up had its roots in the sidebar that was added to the starship pages. The sidebar stated that the owner was the UFP and the operator was Starfleet. I think you would say that this sidebar is speculative and I would have agreed. Before that sidebar, there was an older sidebar. It stated the affiliation and agency of a starship. This was probably closer to what was explicitly said in the canon. However, there was a consensus that this newer sidebar was better, which moved the relationship further from the canon. There was no confirmation of this relationship, until Star Trek: Into Darkness, where there is canon proof of this relationship. See here. 
I expect for you to say, as you did with the information from Qo'noS, that this only applies to the Enterprise. My mother is a database administrator. She creates records. Records have a set number of fields, and are used for a number of related things. A number of records is a file. So, in the Star Trek universe, there would be a file for planets and a file for Federation starships and etc.Throwback (talk) 02:38, August 12, 2014 (UTC)
The English language Edit
In our debate, which was closed by 31dot, I noted that you have a good basic understanding of the English language. Yet, I noted as well that you might be ignorant of synonyms. I think if you were better acquainted with this concept that your interpretation would be in better position. In the debate, I saw that you inadvertently gave me evidence that would bolster my interpretation. I noted that you didn't realize the connection between expand and spill over. English, though not as difficult as, say, Japanese, can be difficult for both native and non-native speakers and readers to comprehend fully. This is how I would approach the situation, that is, role playing like you. I am attempting to bring evidence that bolsters my interpretation, while weakening my opponents.
- I read a quote from a production crewmember. I think "a-ha", this will quiet him. Before I rush to the computer, I would do some research. I must be remindful that I am attempting a brilliant tactical and strategic victory over my opponent.
- I have the word spill over, also known as spillover. I would look up the word in a dictionary. There are dictionaries available on-line. One of the definitions, also known as senses, is, a thing that spreads or has spread into another area: the village was a spillover from a neighboring, larger village.
- I have that definition. Now, what does spread mean? (of people, animals, or plants) become distributed over a large or larger area: the owls have spread as far north as Yellowknife. (Words in the language usually have more than one definition. The record holder for the most definitions is set with 464. The definition that is the most common is listed first, with the less common ones further down the list.)
- I would then see if there is a synonym for that word. Remember, a synonym is defined as, a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language, for example shut is a synonym of close. What is the synonym for spread? the spread of learning: expansion, proliferation, extension, growth; dissemination, diffusion, transmission, propagation.
- What is the definition of expansion? extension of a state's territory by encroaching on that of other nations, pursued as a political strategy: German expansion in the 1930s.
- I see a connection between all these words. Do you see the connection?
Oh, dear. My opponent believes that the Romulans have expanded into the Alpha Quadrant from their traditonal 'homeland' of the Beta Quadrant. I would then not bring up what that author wrote, for I would recognize that I am helping my opponent's cause.
Take my advice I'm only try' to school ya (Smiling Faces Sometimes, The Undisputed Truth )
(I am not going to bring up on the main page of those sites any of what was discussed in the talk page. DO NOT CONSIDER THIS AS A WIN. IT IS NOT!!! I have a feeling that you and I would soon be engaged in a editorial war, which would land us both in trouble, again, with the administrators and bureacrats on this wiki. We are in enough trouble as it is.)Throwback (talk) 09:27, August 17, 2014 (UTC)
Denkir Orbital City question Edit
What was the reason for your edit there, and the removal of my note? It makes no sense to me, but I'd thought I'd ask you your logic first rather then reverting. -- Capricorn (talk) 20:13, December 29, 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for asking. Logic with editing the bgnotey "might be associated with any of several locations called Denkir" => canon "at Denkir" is precedence. Orion University is a good example of a similar situation. Plenty of Orion places it could be at, but until we have more specific information, we just assume it was at Orion. Same here. --Pseudohuman (talk) 04:21, December 30, 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, I suppose we just have differing opinions about what amounts to a reasonable or acceptable assumption. I disagree with the edit, but am unsure what further arguments to make, so it can't be helped then. -- Capricorn (talk) 14:32, December 30, 2014 (UTC)