memory alpha
Welcome!

Welcome!

Welcome to Memory Alpha, UncertainError! We've noticed that you've already made some contributions – thank you! We all hope that you'll enjoy our database and decide to join our community.

Since you're new to Memory Alpha, we have a few links that you should check out:

If you have any questions, please feel free to post them in one of our forums. Thanks, and once again, welcome to Memory Alpha!

The above message was automatically added.

31dot (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The above named user is the most currently available administrator to contribute to Memory Alpha; their signature was automatically added by User:Wikia. If you have any immediate questions or concerns, you may contact that user through their talk page.

Multiple Edits

Please make use of the Preview button when making edits. This allows you to see what your edit looks like before you save it, which reduces the load on the database and makes the Recent Changes page easier to read. Thanks. 31dot (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Removing info by accident

Hey. When editing, please make sure you're not removing valid information like the film link on the Evora article or templates/links. Thanks. Tom (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Article links

Hey. When creating an article, please make sure that it is linked from other articles and most important from the episodes/films it was referenced in. Thank you. Tom (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Indents

Hi, UncertainError. Please learn to indent your comments in discussions properly. Each post should not have successively more and more colons at the start; if you begin with one colon before your text, keep all your posts in that particular discussion with one colon. If you start with two colons, please keep all your posts in that conversation with two colons, etc. --Defiant (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

250,000 ships?

What's the source for this? "As per Justin Lin" isn't enough... we need an actual reference. -- sulfur (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is an article where Lin talks about it. -- UncertainError (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Page moves

If you're going to move a page, with or without following the guideline, you're expected to cleanup the incoming links to that page, because we don't want links going through redirects without reason. - Archduk3 03:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The still applies here. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
This again. –Gvsualan (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

I knew where it belonged, but I must have been distracted. :) --LauraCC (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Reminder

When creating new Star Trek: Discovery articles, or adding content to existing MA articles from Star Trek: Discovery, please be sure to add the {{spoiler}} template to said article. Thanks. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Citation

I happened to notice an edit on Grazer of yours where you added some info without citing it (or at least not clearly, I'm guessing it's from the same source as the earlier stuff), last sentence with the star class stuff. You might want to fix that, before someone has to put up an incite -- Capricorn (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Images

...require categories. If you're not seeing the wiki-text for them on other files, it's probably because you have the wikia category select option on in your preferences. It's recommended on MA that you turn that off, so it's easier to copy and paste categories between similar images. - Archduk3 01:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Page splits

When splitting a page off, make sure that you correct the links going to the old location. Especially when it's an "unnamed" page. -- sulfur (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Federation Klingon War Casualties

I added 14,000 casualties to the aftermath of the Federation-Klingon War.

In the latest episode of Discovery they state there are 7,000 active ships in Starfleet. It's only been a few months since the war so it's unlikely they've built that many new vessels.

If Starfleet lost 1/3rd (I mistakenly thought 2/3rds) of the fleet during the war then they certainly lost 7,000 ships. --Forresto44 (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

First of all, having 7000 left after losing 1/3 is a loss of 3500 ships. Second, you're making a ton of assumptions about how precise those two figures are, which types of ships are included in the two figures, and the rate of shipbuilding in between. -- UncertainError (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Oof, you're right it would be 3,500. It's been one of those days.

As for the original edit, I wanted to add to the footnote regarding casualties rather then the actual hard number seen in the info box. I couldn't figure out how to edit the footnote so I added the number to the info box hoping someone would add to the footnote rather then out right deleting.

Now Control says their are 7,000 active starships in Starfleet, as of 2257, the same year as the war, suggesting only a few months have passed since the peace treaty. While shipyards would certainly be producing vessels prior to peace, it's unlikely given other canonical sources (the year long refit of the Enterprise in TMP for instance) that a large amount of new vessels would have been launched in the time between then and the latest episode.

As for type of ship all that matters is that Control indicates they're operated by Starfleet and are rated as a starship.

I would add to the footnote (which already gives estimates based on onscreen information and numbers) this:

"With 7,000 active vessels in Starfleet as of 2257 in the months following the war, and the loss of at least 1/3rd of the fleet during the war, Starfleet may have potentially lost 3,500 starships."

--Forresto44 (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Gorn Egg reference

Howdy... where did the Gorn Egg reference come from in "The End is the Beginning"? -- Renegade54 (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

It's the crypto algorithm IDed on Raffi's screen. -- UncertainError (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

"Proxy" definition on dom-jot

I'm pretty sure what the bartender from LD: "We'll Always Have Tom Paris" meant by finishing the game of dom-jot "with proxies" was that he wanted someone else to play the game on Mariner's behalf, so as not to cause a fight in his bar. He said that he "just got that table rejotted", and therefore didn't want them to damage it. - VaderFan01 (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I just checked over the dialogue and it seems you're right. I withdraw my objection. -- UncertainError (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Sectors from "Starstruck"

I am working on writing pages for these sectors and would like to know the location of two of the sectors, the Actium sector and the Sierra sector. Can you please tell me where they are on the map? Thanks.Memphis77 (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The Actium sector is below the Maxia sector and the Sierra sector is to the right of the Maxia sector. -- UncertainError (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you.Memphis77 (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, again. Where is the Delta sector? Thanks.Memphis77 (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

It's below the Actium sector. -- UncertainError (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, thank you.Memphis77 (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I would like to get your opinion on this. Could the Terran sector be the same as the Sol sector?Memphis77 (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Almost certainly, given the context. I'd wager that they picked "Terran" so that it would match the Vulcan, Andorian, and Tellarite sectors. -- UncertainError (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Aloka and Neville

Are they from the space station? In dialog from "Kobayashi Maru", there is this dialog:

Burnham: "Three dead. Four wounded."
President Rillak: "And nine who get to go home."

There were ten on the station. Add two, Tilly and Adira, there are twelve. Nine escaped to the Discovery aboard the escape vessel. Three remain - Tilly, Adira, and Nalas. They escape on the same escape vessel. Debris hits the shuttlebay, killing Nalas.

With these facts, I am presuming that the nine from the station were removed from the shuttlebay and Discovery personnel were in the shuttlebay when the escape vessel completed its second trip and were there when the debris hit. They were the ones who were killed or wounded.Memphis77 (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I suppose that's possible, though the shuttlebay scene doesn't suggest anybody else was killed there. Was it stated that the station had a crew of ten? -- UncertainError (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes. During his status report to Capt. Burnham, Commander Nalas said, "We've got all ten of us in the main control room." (time stamp 28:16)Memphis77 (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, seems you're correct then. -- UncertainError (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

a clone by definition cannot be opposite sex

If you've seen Star Wars: The Bad Batch, they introduced a female clone of Jango Fett. And I'm pretty sure there are other examples out there somewhere. So, an opposite sex clone is not unheard of.--AlexJarrett242 (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't get my science from Star Wars. -- UncertainError (talk) 08:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

We're talking about science fiction here. Nothing's impossible. I said there are other examples than just Star Wars.

Both of which are genetic duplicates with opposite genders and much more if I went on.--AlexJarrett242 (talk) 08:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant. If Star Trek calls her a clone, the article can be amended accordingly. -- UncertainError (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Blass Twitter link

Hey, the Twitter link you gave as a source on the articles for the new ships like USS Vanguard give an error. Could you check it out and fix it on the pertinent pages, or provide a new link? Thanks! -- Renegade54 (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The link works fine for me. Are you sure it's not an issue on your end? -- UncertainError (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It's working fine for me now as well, so who knows? I'll chalk it up to stray cosmic rays. :P -- Renegade54 (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

common sense

Do not simply revert a valid request for information and use the edit summary to explain what should have been added to the article in the first place. If something isn't obvious or apparent, it should always be noted in the background notes. --Gvsualan (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Moving things from one unnamed list to another

When moving things from one unnamed list to another, be certain to update the appropriate links. In the case of the unnamed drones, you did not bother correcting the redirects that linked all of the articles to each of the drones. This is important. -- Sulfur (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

M'talis prime source

Can you put a note and citation on the M'talis Prime article noting that Matalas confirmed that they were the same and WHERE? -- Sulfur (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Captain template

Please note that {{Captain}} template is has not been used to link to the rank for some time now. –Gvsualan (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

USS Credence

Where was the NCC-2604 registry pulled from? Every place online has NCC-2804 and I went checked and watched and it more time and appears to me as NCC-2804. "Yaroze86 (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)"

It's 2604 in the concept art. It's a "6" in the episode too if you look carefully; there's a hull seam through it that can give a false impression. -- UncertainError (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

USS Credence in "Erigah"

How do you know that the Credence was in the episode? It could have been another Credence-type starship and the labeling for each of the four starships was illegible, at least on my computer, in the 3d display.Memphis77 (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I could read the names. -- UncertainError (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks.Memphis77 (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Starfleet Academy date

What's the source on date the series is set in? We have conflicting ones on the two episode articles currently (sorry for the edit conflict BTW). JagoAndLitefoot (aka Ausir) (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Lura Thok's personnel file states that she was born in 3145 and that she is 50 years old, thus dating the episode to 3195. -- UncertainError (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
According to Paramount+, Starfleet Academy unfolds 125 years after the Burn (which happened in 3069). This establishes the ST year as Fall 3194. I could see Lura stating she's 50, as she may be coming up on her 50th. Sdavidscotthood (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Regarding the yearbook entries, you claim my guarded interpretation (present vs graduation year? events of the episode or an actual Prince for a Day contest?) is “obfuscation”, but imagine saying the same in the context of an academic environment or journalism. We just don’t have a behind-the-scenes source on the subject or, as far as I can tell, even one or two totally unambiguous references in the other entries.
One cannot argue that MA is a kind of game where no harm is done by treating an 87% conclusion same as 100%, because the real-world background sections must still be composed to the obvious standards of a real-world wiki, and even the canon sections are so bound because the POV is that of a respected archivist working at Memory Alpha at the end of recorded history, who is faced with all these records from hundreds of years in the past that must be analyzed according to scientific, encyclopedic standards. PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
It is not an 87% conclusion, it is a 99.9% conclusion. If a character had said the line "Reymi won the Prince For a Day Contest (it was less than 45 minutes)" in an episode, there would be zero doubt on this site what event that referred to, and it would added to articles accordingly. You are obfuscating, by pretending there is ambiguity where there is none. -- UncertainError (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
There would be doubt. I might have the strong feeling of near-certainty that the writer meant that previous episode, especially with the mention of “45 minutes”, but would I be comfortable claiming that as a fact in the Continuity section? The phrasing would have to be something like “The dialogue echoes / may refer to the events of…”, and then I’d wait and see if TrekMovie or another site publishes an interview with someone close to production that can be referenced, and even then it would not be a canon connection, merely behind-the-scenes intent.
Obfuscation is a strong word for a fellow user’s activity, like I have a vested interest in pushing a particular point of view, and that after having manually untangled Caleb Mir’s backstory from the timeline just so I could put a + next to dates. I’ve really tried to contrast the newly enthusiastic use of TNG-sized stardates with a number of references that point to a later date. This could very well be like the situation on PIC, where a couple of references seem to remain from a time when S3 was set later than 2401. Maybe now it’s the other way around. Maybe 3191/92 could still work in Season 1, but there is something in Season 2 that needs the +4 offset, and it was a last-minute change. Who knows? We’ll just have to see, but there is no rush to agree on the year in the meantime. PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Indulge in your fancies to make your stardates work if you want. I won't. -- UncertainError (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
But… the production itself is trying to make the stardates work.
What motivates you to push for certainty and continue undoing and misrepresenting my guarded analysis with insulting comments when these same entries were placed under “graduating class of 3196”, which in your conviction must in fact be interpreted loosely, when they could’ve simply gone with, say, “yearbook 3195/96”? Did you see how many people immediately decided on 3192/93 when the episode aired? I was addressing all these reasonable conclusions, which we can do in a wiki as there are no space restrictions.
All the ambiguous production choices must be accurately represented so the writers and graphic artists themselves possibly learn of the confusion and hopefully try to be more consistent in subsequent seasons. MA isn’t there to simplify their choices as a licensed or fandom publication with a deadline might. The background sections are there to display all the complexity and provide referenced claims. There is a strong suggestion but no proof of what Reymi’s entry refers to, just as there is a strong suggestion but no proof that “graduating class of 3196” was meant metaphorically, in a kind of real-world sense. PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

The exact dating of the Burn is inconsistent within the show. -- UncertainError (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

This is why we shouldn't be exact at this point and wait for more episodes. We're talking about a piece of dialogue vs what Paramount reports. And if you take a look at some of the media beyond that, some of them are saying it takes place during DIS: S05. It's dangerous to just go by one piece of dialogue. Once we have more episodes, it's likely to frame the Fall year it's supposed to be. Sdavidscotthood (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Talk Pages

Are for discussion, often dealing with hypotheticals. It is about opinions on information across several episodes or series, given the topic. I would greatly appreciate it if you stopped demanding proof on Talk discusssion pages when the point of it is to open dialogue and compare notes on whether something might or might not happen. You were given an apology on one. What did you do? Ignored it, and took a bullying position. Please respect other Users here, their contributions, and it's easier to modify something than to delete it entirely. Sdavidscotthood (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. We deal with facts, not opinions. Supporting your assertions with canon evidence is required. -- UncertainError (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Not with Talk or Discussion Pages. You will respect that, or you will get the same response that your comments are not appropriate. With wiki actual pages, yes. You and I are going to agree to part ways now. Thank you. Sdavidscotthood (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Olatunde

Thank you for providing a link to the source of the Olatunde species name. Gilgamesh de Uruk (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2026 (UTC)