User talk:Harry Doddema/Archive

This is the archive of my talk page -- Harry 11:52, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Species Page Titles
Harry, I really think that we need to rethink our policy concerning the names of species. I know how the Encyclopedia used to do things, but IMO the way we handle wiki links when we're typing articles makes me think that we need to stick to using the singular forms for everything. This is because Iconians is a heck of a lot easier to type than Iconian. See what I mean? ;-) -- MinutiaeMan 09:22, 16 Jan 2004 (PST)


 * I see what you mean. I have to admit that the Wikipedia also uses the singular (see Vulcans)... But that's exactly one of the problematic cases. Do we have one article on the planet Vulcan *and* the Vulcan race? Or do we need pages like "Vulcan (planet)"? -- Harry 09:59, 16 Jan 2004 (PST)

Vulcan (planet), definitely. It's the most straightforward way to go about it. We can keep the species article on the same page, and just put an italicized one-line disambiguation notice at the top pointing people to the planet's page.

Part of the justification for this is that it's not always necessary to have Vulcan/Vulcans pointing to different things -- after all, "Klingon" is not the name of the Klingon homeworld. And it's "Cardassia," not "Cardassian" for their homeworld, too. -- MinutiaeMan 12:47, 16 Jan 2004 (PST)

Oh, alright then :) Do we need a species template? -- Harry 13:25, 16 Jan 2004 (PST)

I don't think so. There's not really enough standardized information to format a page that way -- the most I can see is homeworld and political affiliation (if any). That would just be part of the normal text anyway, so there's no point. IMO, anyway. -- MinutiaeMan 14:07, 16 Jan 2004 (PST)

re:Custom styles
It's been a while, but I don't think I had to change any preferences... Try moving your CSS to "monobook.css" (all lowercase), perhaps? -- Cid Highwind 14:16, 2004 Dec 29 (CET)
 * Ah. That did the trick. Thanks! -- Harry 14:20, 29 Dec 2004 (CET)

disambiguation capitalizations
Are you sure we should decapitalize Worf (colonel)? Every other rank or title disambig on this site generally uses the capitalized version, so deleting Worf (Colonel) may cause some disruption, as users used to the general convention here used would still link to it. Besides, "Colonel Worf", or "Worf, Colonel" are proper nouns (a rank is a proper noun and capitalized when it is notated as an official title, just as "Mister" or another title would be), so there's really no cause to decapitalize what probably accounts for dozens of MA's articles. This would involve a lot of edits for a fairly minor quibble. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 23:49, 1 Jan 2005 (CET)


 * This anti-capitalization thing I have in my head is playing with me again. But I believe the 'official' rule is that ranks/titles are capitalized if actually used as the title (so Colonel Worf, or 'Worf, Colonel' indeed), but not if used as the noun describing the 'concept' of that rank (if that makes any sense at all). Hence the decapped 'colonel'. The title of the article reads something like "The Worf that was a colonel" as opposed to simply "Colonel Worf". The parenthesized word in this way is not intended as the actual title of Worf, but rather the noun representing the rank. I have a headache now. Explaining esotheric stuff like this in a foreign language is really difficult :) -- Harry 23:59, 1 Jan 2005 (CET)


 * Well, I'm not sure deleting the redirect is a good idea, as there are probably approaching hundreds of articles with capitalized, parenthesized ranks, and as i stated, users are likely to use that form for some time, regardless of how many we go back and alter, until a new style takes hold. Just wondering if you thought it would be worth the effort, because I'm not sure i want to take that on, personally. Either explanation of the reason for capitalization is valid - You're correct that the lowercase is acceptable, but I'm correct in stating that the noun as used to refer to a specific person is capitalized, and sticking to that for the parenthesized form would cause a lot less headaches in the long run. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 00:29, 2 Jan 2005 (CET)


 * Are there that many disambiguation article titles based on rank? Because if there are, then we probable should keep both versions, and redirect one to the other. -- Harry 16:35, 2 Jan 2005 (CET)


 * The list goes on. Each disambig probably has anywhere from a couple to a dozen links pointing to it:


 * http://www.memory-alpha.org/index.php/Special:Search?search=%22%28Captain%29%22&go=Go
 * http://www.memory-alpha.org/index.php/Special:Search?search=%22%28Commander%29%22&go=Go
 * http://www.memory-alpha.org/index.php/Special:Search?search=%22%28Lieutenant%29%22&go=Go
 * http://www.memory-alpha.org/index.php/Special:Search?search=%22%28Ensign%29%22&go=Go
 * http://www.memory-alpha.org/index.php/Special:Search?search=%22%28Chief%29%22&go=Go
 * http://www.memory-alpha.org/index.php/Special:Search?search=%22%28Crewman%29%22&go=Go
 * http://www.memory-alpha.org/index.php/Special:Search?search=%22%28Admiral%29%22&go=Go
 * http://www.memory-alpha.org/index.php/Special:Search?search=%22%28Colonel%29%22&go=Go


 * Ah. I did not realise that. I could only think of Worf and Colonel Green. Although I don't like overused caps, I realise it's a rather drastic change at this point. I'll move Worf back. -- Harry 16:46, 2 Jan 2005 (CET)

Andorian
Hi. I listed Andorian on Memory Alpha:Featured article removal candidates. Since you suggested something similar on Talk:Andorian, could you support that suggestion? -- Cid Highwind 16:47, 2005 Jan 3 (CET)

I'm back!
Hi everyone. I'm trying to get back into Memory Alpha, as I've not been involved with the project for most of this year. It's been a busy time, and I just couldn't find the time to spend on MA. Did I miss any spectacular things? Since I gather that Dan is also less active these days, I was wondering who is currently mostly involved with the admin stuff?

I'm hoping I can be a bit more involved again. I'm happy to see MA is still going strong, and it seems to be running quite smoothly. -- Harry 11:56, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * Welcome back! Ottens 11:59, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Harry, and welcome back! :) MA is running smoothly most of the time, thanks to several new contributors, some new admins and the "old crew". I did some of the bureaucrat work while you were gone. ;) We've got some vandals knocking on our doors in the last weeks, but nothing to worry about. -- Cid Highwind 22:34, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no idea who you are, but welcome back, anyway! :) See you... out there! --From Andoria with Love 00:07, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello! I kind of founded this thing together with Dan :P. Please don't come after me with that chainsaw! -- Harry 13:12, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, wow... I can't believe I didn't realize that. I bow down to the wisdom of the Founders! Please forgive this ignorant Vorta, I am your humble servant! Oh, sorry, wrong Jeffrey Combs character... :P Anyways, in all serious, you rock! Once again, welcome back and thank you very much for co-founding Memory Alpha! This place is GREAT! (Thank Dan for me, too, will you? ) And as for the chainsaw, I wouldn't do that, especially not to one of the founders of this great Wiki. Besides, I got rid of that old thing in favor of a Klingon Bat'leth. ;) See you... out there! --From Andoria with Love 15:49, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way, I don't know if you could tell, but I just woke up and have not eaten breakfast yet. :þ --From Andoria with Love 15:59, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

POV input
(I'm sending the same text to all the admins that are currently active, so I apologize for cut and paste):

I've been having a conversation with a new user on (my talk page regarding how to write an article on M/A in the proper point of view, that is from within the Trek universe (in the case of objects, people, places, ships, etc) rather than from the outside looking in.

My understanding of this website, from day one, has been that it is the internet version of the Star Trek Encyclopedia, and have never had any difficulty understanding it any other way. This user thinks otherwise. I'm to the point in the conversation, and I'm surprised no other admins have thrown their hats into the ring yet, that I would like to ask for a little assistance, as I believe we shouldn't have to have any "policy" (per se) on such a straight forward and frankly "common sense" issue, either by starting a separate talk page or to Ten Forward. Whichever the case, and no matter how many articles we have written in the point of view which I am defending (that being roughly 10000) this user does not seem to understand, and we do not seem to have any page (aside from a subpage Cid had in his archive that I found) that I could use as an example (btw, the user in question more or less snubbed off Cids page anyway). So please, anyone else willing to assist would be much appreciated. I can't seem to better defend a point, a method and a style that is so "ingrained" into my brain/our brains as "normal" any other way than I have, as being right, without getting out a big stick -- and thus far this user has been an exception, as I have had experiences with countless other newbies and they seems to catch on to our style, well except one other, rather quickly.

Anyway, I should also note, that I am aware of this users attitude and previous conflicts with adminstrators from other message boards (from my old Starship Modding days) and am somewhat in a position of a conflict of interest -- because frankly I believe this individual would rather go out in a blaze of glory than work our well established conformity.

If you need an example of the work in question, just compare the perspectives of the original contributions of the user to the draft rewrites I made in the respective histories. Thanks so much! --Alan del Beccio 18:49, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. I have added the new policies. Go to that article's talk if you have anything to add. -- Harry 22:09, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * No, thank you for the fast response! --Alan del Beccio

Bot flag
Hi Harry, could you set the bot flag for User:HighwindBot, which is the account I created for the bot I'm (hopefully) going to use in the future? Thanks, Cid Highwind
 * I think I just made him a bot. If it doesn't work, please say so. -- Harry 10:09, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi, could you please set a bot flag for User:Morn in the French and Swedish versions? I also noticed the interwiki links are not working in French and to the French version -- Kobi - (   ) 10:22, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't seem to have enough rights in MA/sv and MA/fr to change anything. I can make admins in sv, but I have no rights at all on fr. Please ask their sysops. -- Harry  t 10:42, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you will do so -- Kobi - (   ) 13:37, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Shran's administratorisshipinessess
Shran seems to have passed his nomination for administratorship by well over a month now, and if you could give sysop rights that would be helpful for the reasons Shran himself has pointed out on the page.--Tim Thomason 10:15, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Disregard that, Cid Highwind gave him "sysop" rights at 11:14 UTC.--Tim Thomason 11:58, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

CCL 2.5
Hi Harry! You left a messege here. I wonder if we can upgrade that easy from 2.0 to 2.5 since it should be some kind of compatible to the former license. Is it intended to re-license old content to 2.5? 15:29, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no change to the intent of the license (the human-readable form of the license stays exactly the same). It's just some of the legalese that has been changed. Specifically, the new license text specifies the manner in which to attribute content to Memory Alpha in a stricter manner. -- Harry  Talk 15:41, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

PS: There is no german version of the Legal Code (yet). See and. Although - there is a typo in 2.0 anyway. In the end, we should keep Memory Alpha homogeneous in terms of copyright to exchange between languages without problems. 15:51, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * He Harry, laat Wikicities maar weten dat MA NL wel de licensie wil upgraden, denk niet dat iemand er bezwaar tegen zal hebben. Bedankt voor heads up! -- Reginald (Talk) 18:56, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Harry, we would like to upgrade the swedish MA as well. BTW, I'm working at the stargate wiki as well. Is this something that could be transferrable to that place as well, by you or anyone else? We are having a big discussion about copyrights there. Peter R 14:40, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know the specific concerns of the Stargate wiki, but the Creative Commons website has very clear descriptions of their various licenses. You can basically pick and choose which rules you want to impose. -- Harry  Talk 14:46, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek: Borg
Hi there Harry. I just wanted to pick your brains about something, if you've got the time spare. When you mentioned that (on "Requested pictures") the species names from the background information were to be considered as true fact rather than speculation, what is your opinion about Star Trek: Borg? It uses most of the same sets they used in Voyager, some of the directors, and even some of the same actors. What do you think? Zsingaya Talk 23:21, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I might as well chime in on this as well. Understandably the fact that the "movie" advertises the fact that it has (somewhat paraphased from memory) "120 minutes of original Star Trek footage," it does incorporate 95% of the resources (actors, sets, models, props, uniforms, etc) used in the creation of every other movie or series of the time, with the biggest difference being the obvious fact that it is written as a first-person interactive. Granted it is probably less accessable to the fans than TAS, I think it would be fair (or at least a good idea) to be more accepting of its content-- as long as it does not contradict canon, of course. --Alan del Beccio 01:51, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * May I remind everyone that we're talking about "valid/invalid resources" as defined on on MA, not about "canon/non-canon" material, and that, at the moment, "Star Trek:Borg" is not a valid resource? Any discussion concerning the addition of anything to our list of "valid resources" should probably be held on the talk page of that policy, not on an unrelated user talk or request page. -- Cid Highwind 13:44, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * And I don't even know what Star Trek: Borg is! Are we talking about the crappy PC game or the ST:Experience ride? I know absolutely nothing about that last one, so IMO, it's not a valid resource :P -- Harry  t 22:10, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * It's about Star Trek: Borg, the interactive movie produced by Rick Berman, that was filmed on the Star Trek sets using actual props, starship models, scenery, costumes, director, composer, cinematographer and performers from other filmed productions. --Alan del Beccio 22:56, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok.. the game. I don't see why this game is any more 'valid' than other games that use some of the actors. It does not add any valuable missing information either (as can be claimed for the FASA data points), so I guess I won't vote for this as a valid resource yet. -- 23:01, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I guess my point, in as far as what makes it different, is the fact that it is live action with real people/actors, versus animated characters, which does make it different than other games that use some of the actors voices. --Alan del Beccio 23:11, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Memory Alpha
Hi, well first of all I think this is a great site, and cheers for sticking with it. I'm going to try to de-stub the article about MA on Wikipedia in order to do this place justice. If I can find enough information, I hope to even get it featured.
 * Hi. That sounds like a nice idea. I've been planning to someday expand on 'our' Wikipedia article, but I'll gladly answer these questions, so you can make a coherent story out of it :)

I have seen Memory Alpha:History, which gives a great deal of information; however, I'd appreciate it if you provide further insight about, well, anything. Specific questions I have in mind:


 * 1) What inspired you to start MA, as opposed to maintaining articles on Wikipedia?
 * We (or at least, I) never considered putting this stuff on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a 'real world' encyclopedia, and is not really the first place you go to to find out about subspace amplifiers or other trek gadgets. Additionally, a Star Trek encyclopedia (like the Star Trek Encyclopedia) has to be written in a late 24th century POV. Another problem with Wikipedia would be that there is no real point in having an article on something as extremely obscure like DY-245 on it.
 * But it's also important to note that initially, my idea of MA was not necessarily that of a 'wiki'. My major concern at the time was that the existing Trek-related community projects, like the Galactopedia, Utopia Planitia 3 or (less severely) JoAT, suffered from being run by small groups of people. Projects would usually start out with a lot of enthusiasm, but would then quickly 'die' when important people lost interest. My idea was that a system where everyone could add information would allow the creation of one large, active database, instead of scattered lists of things on personal webpages. A unique problem with a fictional encyclopedia (and Star Trek in particular) is the question of 'canonicity', and the general havoc 'fanboys' and trolls create. Therefore, I first toyed with the idea of a moderated database, or alternatively a database with only registered users. As it later turned out, the wiki format is surprisingly capable of 'enforcing' high quality content.


 * 1) It mentions that you decided to use existing Wiki software rather than make your own - were there any serious plans to create a Wiki from scratch?
 * Before deciding on using existing wiki software, I experimented with a few ideas in PHP. IIRC, one was a moderated encyclopedia, where new articles would have to be approved by admins. I then tried to write a wiki system, but despite looking quite simple, it turned out to be pretty hard to write a robust system. We tried TikiWiki first, but that was way to bloated with non-wiki nonsense. Wikimedia was an obvious choice for a wiki. For some reason, it seems to be one of the few wikis that don't use that ridiculous CamelCase way of linking, and Wikipedia was obviously a tried and tested system. Additionally, when coding my own wiki, I looked at Wikimedia's code a lot, so I was quite familiar with how it worked.


 * 1) How was the database accidentally deleted in 2004?
 * I don't really know. Dan Carlson is the technical guy. Additionally, I wasn't really involved with MA for a while during that time. But from what I remember (and from what can be read at Memory Alpha:Announcements), there was an error in a database script, and the database was lost. We had to revert to an old backup.


 * 1) When MA got its own server, what was the arrangement with Moeller (e.g. did he host it for free, give you a discount, etc.)?
 * We started out on a normal hosting package, which at the time was €25 per month. We quickly grew beyond what that package allowed though. Erik helped us out a lot, and even kept the price the same, despite the much larger site. So we got a discount in the end. Ultimately though, MA grew to big, and we had to upgrade. It would've costed about 75 to 100 euros per month, certainly beyond what me and Dan were prepared to pay for a hobby site. At that time, MA's future was very uncertain.


 * 1) When did you switch to Wikicities and why?
 * But then we were contacted by Wikicities (probably via Erik, but I don't really remember)! At first, we were a bit skeptical about a free hosting service, and how the Google ads might contradict our own 'noncommercial' license. However, after a few mails, we were convinced that Wikicities made us an offer we couldn't refuse. We were allowed to keep our own domain-name and our own style sheets (incidentally, are we the only ones that have butchered Wikimedia's look to this degree?), and all for free, with just one column of unintrusive Google textads.

I'm only contacting you because your partner's last edit was in March, which I assume means he's gone. You're probably thinking "Who is this guy and why should I care?" but consider the traffic you'd get if, say, your site was Wikipedia's "Today's Featured Article" - I think it's worth a few minutes and jogging a few memory banks. :-) Thanks, Narco 05:16, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Dan is not really involved with editing anymore. It just comes and goes, as I was similarly uninvolved throughout most of 2004. But I'm sure Dan is willing to answer some questions when you e-mail him. He was/is involved in the technical side of things, especially in dealing with Erik Moeller and later Angela Beesley. -- Harry  t 15:16, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)

MA Logo
Hi, since Dan is "out of service" I have to ask you: do you know who made the MA Logo and first of all what license does it have? Since it's used for the Wikipedia article too, it might be the best to give it the GDFL, WP doesn't allows images with our license. --Memory 20:43, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Kristian Trigwell (aka Reverend) made the logo. I've mailed him to ask about what kind of deal he made with Dan back in the day. I'll get back to you soon. -- Harry  t 15:02, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I've talked to him. You're free to use the logo, but a little credit-line to Kris would be common courtesy. So it's basically similar to our CC License, minus perhaps the commercial part. So WP is free to use it, but it would be nice to mention Kristian on the logo's Image-page. I hope that answers your question. -- Harry  t 10:22, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Done, Thanks. --Memory 20:10, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

File:EarlyRomulanWarship.jpg
Harry, in your absense it was deemed that the above mentioned image was not acceptable on the site. Evidently I am the brave one here who needed to pass that along to you so as to justify editing your user page. I replaced it with File:Romulan bird-of-prey, ENT-forward.jpg as a "filler." The votes are below:
 * File:EarlyRomulanWarship.jpg : Image from the Star Trek Chronology. "Fair Use" probably doesn't apply, apparently no other permission. -- Cid Highwind 11:35, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. -- SmokeDetector47undefined 11:47, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * This is kind of amusing, seeing that Harry Doddema uploaded it and all.. ;)--Alan del Beccio 05:30, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought, but, well... ;) -- Cid Highwind 10:18, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep . Wasn't this an early design for the Romulan Bird-of-Prey? That would make it a useful background image. Also, if the Chronology was able to use it, wouldn't that mean it is the property of Paramount and therefore falls under "Fair Use"? --From Andoria with Love 11:06, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * It only means that an "official" product was allowed to use this image (or it even was created for that product in the first place). I'm sure that this has to do with $$$ and that we are not allowed to republish this for free. Not everything that is property of Paramount automatically falls under "fair use" rules for some reason... :) -- Cid Highwind 20:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed and archived. --Alan del Beccio 01:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, that's okay mate. I seem to have lost a bit of interest in the whole Star Trek business again. Good to see MA is still going strong though. I might pop in every now and then. -- Harry  t 15:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia
Hi there. When I read the Narco interview, I thought you'd be interested to know that the Wikipedia entry on Memory Alpha has been featured. I've also submitted it to become the "today's featured article" some time in the near future. ;) Memory Alpha - it turned out pretty well, IMO. --Vedek Dukat Talk 05:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Efrosian
If you get a chance, check out the Efrosian discussion page. Your name is being used to support the inclusion of material created solely by FASA. Thanks! Aholland 18:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Policy discussions
Hi Harry, Hi Dan,

I know both of you haven't contributed much to Memory Alpha in the last months, and I'm sure there are good reasons for that, but I'd like to call your attention to what is going on on Memory Alpha recently. Perhaps you, as the founders of MA, could get involved in these discussions.

Basically, the lingering question still is: "What information do we want to include, and which resources do we want to take information from?" - exactly what is known as the "Canon policy" on MA although it doesn't exactly deal with canon vs. non-canon material.

When MA was started back in 2003, there was so much to write about that any conclusive discussion about what to include/not include was pushed back. We had the studios definition of "canon" as a rule-of-thumb, added TAS to that mix and otherwise relied on the stated goal to write an encyclopedia that is "reliable". Later, this was clarified to state that anything but the episodes and movies themselves are not "valid resources", and although this wasn't enforced in _every_ case, it was working policy for the last two years.

So, why am I recapitulating all this? Because, apparently, this combination of rule-of-thumb, stated goal, policy and, most importantly, common understanding of what we want to include, no longer works. In the last weeks, there have been many discussions between two "groups" of contributors - one, including myself, which basically wants to stick to the past goal of "canon+TAS" and another group, including some other admins, which wants to include more and more information from resources that are not the episodes themselves (such as deleted scenes, unfilmed parts of scripts, interviews etc.).

I think that a line between "information to include" and "information not to include" has to be defined, and that in this case, community consensus is a bad way to come to that definition - after all, the "boundary" of a project is something that falls outside of what is typically handled "the wiki way".

Regarding this, I urge you to become involved in these discussions, and perhaps help us by defining again the mentioned "boundaries" of the project. Did you intend it to rather be "reliable" and "accurate" in regard to aired Trek, or did you want it to become all-encompassing, even if that means risking reliability and accuracy?

Please help - all I can say is that an encyclopedia where information is included just for the sake of having some more information to include, regardless of its relevancy or "canonicity" is just not the project I helped to build in the last two and a half years.

The main discussion regarding this can be found at: Memory Alpha talk:Canon policy. Please make sure to also review the recent history of the canon policy itself, and perhaps other discussion pages linked.