User talk:Sulfur/Archive2008

From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference.

For older discussions, see the 2006 archives and 2007 archives.

Contents 1 Ultraice 2 Quote 3 travelled/traveled 4 Source for Vulcan translation 5 yeah, i saw that today. it came out of nowhere. 6 A question for you 7 Intelligence Gathering 8 "Jumping the gun" 9 Thanks 10 History 11 movie quotes 12 Revert 13 Sic 14 Eplink repair; no apologies necessary... 15 Sorry 16 You told me to get one, so I got one. 17 Metadata 18 IRC 19 Preview Button 20 Formal protest 21 Episode Redirects 22 Constant Editing notice 23 Just a Question 24 Vanilla DVD images 25 How? 26 Appreciation 27 Sidebar novel 27.1 Formatting 27.2 Completion 28 Editing Kaltura video on Mac OS X 29 My Apologies 30 About my articles...

[edit] Ultraice

Hey, do me a favor will you,QUIT pestering me on memory alpha and beta or i will have you banned on both sites.--Ultraice 01:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quote

Data does actually say "Oh...Shit". I had it censored. That is why it was placed in the Colorful metaphor article. 65.173.105.225 04:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please keep conversations in one place. See Talk:Colorful metaphor. -- Sulfur 04:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] travelled/traveled

Um, Sulfur, 'travelled' isn't actually a typo. Both single and double 'l' are accepted. -- Michael Warren | Talk 21:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

True... but it's best to spell it consistently across the board. And there were far fewer references to "travelled" than "traveled" (~70 vs ~600 :) ). -- Sulfur 21:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source for Vulcan translation

Wasn't sure if you got this or not, this wiki stuff is pretty unfamiliar to me.

Translation provided by a linguist at the Vulcan Language Dictionary, based on what was in the script. It makes sense too given how T'Pol was acting when she was saying it. -- Captain X

[edit] yeah, i saw that today. it came out of nowhere.

--Bp 04:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A question for you

Hi, Sulfur! I have just joined yesterday, and I am wondering if you would be able to point me to a guideline on non-canon redirects (I see you have a link to a list of such redirects on your user page, but I couldn't figure out what the policy regarding them is). I skimmed through the MoS, but could not find anything about redirects. I do understand that non-canon subjects aren't supposed to have their own articles, but are redirects OK? What about strictly non-canon topics which are mentioned, for example, in several books? Do you folks have a disambiguation pages system here and, if so, what are the disambig guidelines? Thanks!—Eta Carinae 14:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirects are sometimes OK. Depending on context. And usually only get kept if an article with that name gets created a few times. :)

In terms of characters that appear in multiple novels/comics/etc, we do have some non-canon characters articles out there to collect those.

We also have disambiguations, see this page here for the complete listing. Generally, we try not to disambig something unless there are more than three options for it.

Hopefully those sorta answer your questions, or at least give you some starting points to explore some more and learn some more. -- Sulfur 15:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. Now, to look at this from the practical application standpoint—I started to expand the Mission to Horatius article yesterday with the intent to list all of the characters and major concepts mentioned in that novel. My question is: would it be OK (as far as guidelines and established practices are concerned) if I start creating redirects to the article from those concepts which have not been mentioned anywhere else? For example, I take it that NGC 434, for example, is only mentioned in this novel. Would it be OK to create a redirect from NGC 434 to the NGC section of "Mission to Horatius"? Same goes for minor crew and guest characters. Then, if later one of those minor characters turns up in a different book, would it be OK to create a disambig (or, as you said, even an article) about that person?

Sorry for all the questions, but despite having a vast Wikipedia editing experience I am not yet really comfortable here as the guiding principles are surprisingly different.—Eta Carinae 15:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hrm... I'm not entirely convinced that it is a good idea, unless they start showing up in other books. If they don't, then there likely shouldn't be extra redirects/etc. Now, if you want to go into significantly more detail on the book and its contents, I would suggest also checking out our sister wiki, Memory Beta, which concentrates on the "non-canon" stuff (read: licensed material, such as novels, comics, games, and suchnot), and has separate articles for characters that are only introduced in that media.

Don't take this as me telling you to go away and only edit there though. I would encourage you to finish the article here, and then if you want to go into more detail on the characters, we can put in cross-wiki links from the novel page here over to the individual character articles on MB, for example. You can see an example of this in action on this page, where you see the Greek Beta symbol. -- Sulfur 15:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, crap, I knew it wouldn't turn out to be easy :) Thanks for the MB pointer, though—I've never even heard of them before today. Anyway, my rationale for creating those redirects is as follows. There are tons and tons of Star Trek books out there. I am sure some hardcore Trekk[ie|er]s managed to read them all, but giving a detailed account on each and every book is (judging from what you folks already have here) is still far far away from becoming a reality. If I list every thing worth mentioning in the "Mission to Horatius" article and ensure that each of those things redirect there (providing, of course, that they don't already have an article of their own), that would be extremely helpful if someone down the road happens to stumble upon the same concept in another book, plugs in into the search field, and lands in an article about a book which already mentions it. To me, that's enormous help in building a web of concepts. If, on the other hand, the redirect is not created, it would be really hard to discover even if the concept turn up in another book (hypothetically speaking, if you pick up a new book mentioning NGC 400, without a redirect it'd be next to impossible for you to know that it's already been mentioned in "Mission to Horatius"). If, however, the redirecting concept never shows up anywhere else, the redirect would not be of any harm to anyone. Does my logic make sense? Am I missing something important? Thanks!—Eta Carinae 15:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the redirects are necessary. Memory Beta is the perfect place for this, not only for redirects but also for proper articles about NGC 400 and the likes. On Memory Beta, similar pages can be created without violating the site's policies. --Jörg 15:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, never mind; I probably just don't know what the hell I am talking about :) I've just looked at "Mission to Horatius" on MB, and it seems they already did exactly what I intended to do with this article here, only better :) I guess I need to read up on MA & MB policies a bit more and decide just where my services would be more helpful and to figure out precisely in which ways MA's "Mission to Horatius" article is supposed to differ from that same article on MB (if MB is for all things non-canon, why does MA even have this article at all?). Sorry for taking up your time and thanks for all the good advice!—Eta Carinae 16:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Part of the reason we had them at first was because MB didn't exist. :)

There are actually three different Star Trek wikis that each highlight different aspects of the whole Trek franchise: Memory Alpha for "canon" information, Memory Beta for "non-canon official" (novels etc.) information, and last but not least Star Trek Expanded Universe for "non-canon inofficial" (fandom) information. We'd like to keep these aspects separate to avoid confusion, and having some non-canon redirects to novel pages is more a convenience for us (done if a page has been created several times already) than something we'd like to see done for all possible non-canon topics and concepts.

We provide information on the novels, comics, etc, because they are products. Memory Beta goes into serious in-depth detail on them. We (generally) try to provide a summary, a list of references (and what they are), a list of characters (canon and otherwise), and so forth.

P.S. Check out Help:Talk pages for the "rules" on indenting... you may have noticed that we keep changing your indenting level to keep them consistency. :) -- Sulfur 16:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I don't think I'm going to wrap my head around the fandom wiki (not something I'm really interested in anyway), but keeping the aspects separate makes sense. Judging from what I've read so far, should my edits to Mission to Horatius be reverted? I'd hate to leave a mess, especially since most of what I've done there belongs on MB anyway.

Sorry about the indentation problem—I was wondering what the heck that was about. I guess my Wikipedia habits of incrementing the indentation are not easy to break :)

Again, thanks for everything—I feel on a much sturdier ground today than yesterday! Best,—Eta Carinae 16:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Indents... no worries.

Re: Your edits to the Horatius article, feel free to finish those off. You can also take your changes to over to Memory Beta and improve that wiki at the same time. If you look at some of the "non-canon" articles I've put together along the way, you'll see that your edits to Horatius are definitely welcome here. :) -- Sulfur 16:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligence Gathering

I'm doing exactly the same thing. D'oh! :D I was just about to upload both covers and create the issue article. Do you want me to proceed, or do you have that info prepped already? -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to do the covers, I hadn't done them yet, but was just getting ready to drop the "completed" article in place (without the summary as yet -- that I was going to write a bit later today). I usually get these done when they come out, but I've been busy with work and travel the last two days. Doh. -- Sulfur 16:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll upload them now, so you can slot them into your article. -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Jumping the gun"

I'm sorry, but I really resent the accusation being made that I was "jumping the gun". The article in question clearly had no content making it have to do with Fantome's species, I am quite frankly mystified as to the choice to merge there. The only content in the article had to do with Night Alien, and we have long had the standard of bringing poor duplicates up for deletion via PfD. I am not prescient, I cannot know what irrational merge suggestion having basically nothing to do with the article contents as they stood is going to be. I can only follow the practices we have set out, and poor duplicates with no useful content worth merging have been brought up for deletion by PfD or VfD as long as I have been editing here. I take offense to the accusation you made. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 03:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Not just you. It's been happening a lot lately. The thing is, most of the time, people slap on {{pna-cite}} or a delete tag, and those could be sorted out by looking at the things that link there. Most of the time there's something, and looking through those links on void alien (for example) suggested what the link should've been to almost immediately.

I wasn't trying to single you out. I was trying (and maybe not succeeding) to suggest that people research for a few minutes before simply slapping a delete or cite onto an article. Sorry if it didn't come across that way. -- Sulfur 03:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This didn't need research. It named Night Alien and the void in the article. You guys are plainly wrong on your merge as well. It doesn't matter what the original red link was for, the contents of the article were a crappy duplicate of Night Alien, and had nothing at all to do with Fantome's species. This wasn't a case of needing citation, the contents, as crappy as they were, made clear what they were about. Whether "I am the only one" this is directed at or not, I am among them and feel it was completely out of line, and that the merge was completely wrong. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 03:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

For the reasoning behind the merge, see my last comment here. In short, two of the three links that previously went there mentioned Fantome. The content of the article, not good. The stuff pointing at it? Just pointing to the wrong place. -- Sulfur 03:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The stuff pointing to it isn't it. I can create a link on my user page or anywhere else with incorrect information, it doesn't change the content of the article itself. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 04:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For cleaning up the vandalism redirects. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 23:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History

Please keep the English history article accurate, Scotland was never part of the British empire... it was part of Britain itself. Previous to 1707 and the act of union between Scotland and England that formed The Kingdom Of Great Britain (Brought about a Scottish king inheriting the English throne), Scotland had fought several successful wars of independance. My point is that it is inaccurate to include a component nation of a country in the regions controlled by that very country as Scotland has equal status within the union and was never subject to England during the period of the British Empire (British means anything pertaining to England, Scotland, Wales or the island of Great Britain as a whole).

[edit] movie quotes

You said that wonder why all quotes on the Star Trek IV page weren't done the same. I don't see any difference. What did I do when I rearranged them that screwed them up and what's the difference? I don't get it. – leandar 15:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

May not have been you... but quotes are formatted:

"blah blah"

Whereas a bunch of quotes were:

"blah blah"

Notice the order of the double and single quotes. :)

It's all about layout! -- Sulfur 16:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

So in other words, always put the italic marks (I swear I'll get this right, lol) before the quotation marks and after the quotation marks? – leandar 16:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The double quote mark is completely outside of the quote. It's like a set of (). Next level is the italics. Third, and final, level is the quote itself. This is correct:

"This is a correct quote format."

Make more sense? :) -- Sulfur 16:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks.  :) – leandar 20:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

Thanks for catching that. I think I used the "undo" button, which only goes back one edit. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 09:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sic

It's Sulphur, not Sulfur. 90.185.57.80 14:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's both: see Sulfur. Kind of like Aluminium and aluminum. – Cleanse 22:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eplink repair; no apologies necessary...

If it was broken, it oughtta be fixed. I don't feel *that* strong a sense of ownership over my userpage, anyway. – Persist1 20:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's more one of those things that when I edit a userpage, I make a point of "apologizing" in the update field, since we're not supposed to edit them except for offensive stuff or vandalism. :) -- Sulfur 01:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Hey, looks like your message was not saved here. Sorry. – Tom 15:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Fyi... {{SUBST:UserConstantEdits}}  :) -- Sulfur 15:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You told me to get one, so I got one.

You said people would take me more seriously if I got an account, and here I am! =) Happy now? --Elohssa Naer'uoy 03:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Metadata

Sulf, what's the bug with the metadata? Is it that you can't see the info on the right hand side? -- Michael Warren | Talk 19:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that it's not respecting out CSS really. That and even if the metadata for an image is completely empty, it occasionally makes an appearance, and even when the metadata is chock full of info... it's not always showing up. :) -- Sulfur 19:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is respecting our CSS - I just had a look, and MediaWiki:Monobook.css says

table.mw_metadata td {
	background-color: #fcfcfc;
}

which is white. That value just needs changing to conform with the rest of the site CSS. I did it in my own stylesheet a few days ago, figuring it was a conflict between my stylesheet and the site-wide one. The other stuff I don't know about, but this one is fixable. -- Michael Warren | Talk 19:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hrm. I somehow missed that bit. Fixed that color now. But the stuff shows up occasionally, but not always. And that's the bigger issue. :) -- Sulfur 19:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IRC

Hey. Can you visit the IRC for a moment? – Tom 03:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Preview Button

Your rudeness about the preview button is uncalled for, and maybe you should be temporarily blocked. --Dr. Zefram Cochrane 22:13, 14 February 2008 (EST)

[edit] Formal protest

We were makings some real progress on deputy director and people seemed to be listening to everything everyone was saying and making changes accordingly. However, User:Gvsualan then reverted to the last version that he edited and then locked the article so that no one could edit it under the guise of an "edit war". We werent adding and reverted the same information over and over again, we were making real progress, had added a background section, and were flushing it out. For a single editor who was directly involved in editing the artclce to then revert to the last version that they edited and then lock the article to me seems a GROSS violation of administrator powers on this site. I also was never edit warring, but listening to others comments and adjusting the articles per talk page concerns. User:G seems to be implying that I was unreasonable and was adding in disputed material without cause which I clearly was not. Since you came in late in the game, i ask you to unlock that article and remove those silly notices. -FleetCaptain 05:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I also just posted a formal protest to this on the MA Main page. A user locking an article when they werent getting thier way is uncalled for. And I really got the impression that I was being looked on as a vandal/trouble maker when in fact I'm a major contributor to this website. Sorry to ruffle feathes, this just really pisses me off. -FleetCaptain 05:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Episode Redirects

What did I do wrong with the episode redirects? TrekkyStar 17:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It breaks a number of things. Did you not notice that all of the links to "most wanted" pages start at ~650 or so? There are many a discussion about this. Also... if we did want them, did you not figure that someone would have created them all by now? Seriously? -- Sulfur 17:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that sorry I didn't pay attention. I created the page strike. TrekkyStar 18:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Constant Editing notice

Just a reminder that you have a three or so week old constant editing notice on Sons of Mogh. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 23:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just a Question

Do you know when I started my user account? (it's for my user page) TrekkyStar 22:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You've made your first edit on 30 October 2007 and started your user page on 7 February 2008. Just have a look on your contribs. – Tom 22:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vanilla DVD images

Probably a good idea to drop the (Region 1) in the image name - the region 2 releases were identical (with the exception of a rating symbol where applicable). -- Michael Warren | Talk 14:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yah. I'd agree. I'll do that after though. I was going with the user's stub stuff at first. The only different cover seems to be STVI. Which has a totally odd cover. -- Sulfur 15:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, TUC had the same cover as well (I've got it) - the silvered ones were a limited edition version briefly sold in the UK (I have TWOK in that design), occasionally with bonus discs included. -- Michael Warren | Talk 15:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? Nice. I'll hose that one off then. :) -- Sulfur 15:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How?

UESPA, create a list of articles for this category in your user space and link it from here so that people can see what you're talking about

This may sound stupid. How?--UESPA 02:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Either create a subpage off of your user page, or a section on your userpage with links to the articles that you mean. That's it. :) -- Sulfur 03:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I will.--UESPA 11:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Appreciation

I think we did some good work today, don't you? :D -- Michael Warren | Talk 23:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, getting there at least :) -- Sulfur 02:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sidebar novel

It might be a good idea to build in some redundant image lines, as some novels have more than one cover on their page (reprints, etc.). I'll start tackling some of these - how about I start with Pocket TNG? -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm still tweaking actually. I'm not totally convinced on the layout as yet to begin with... and I don't want to put it onto a buttload of articles, and then realize/decide that I have to change up some of the variables again, like I've done already. Give me a little bit more first before tackling it. I'm going to find a couple move to test/play with it on, and once I'm happy with that, then I'll let you know, and we can hit it all up and good. -- Sulfur 16:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Further to that... Some of those pages with reprinted covers are insanely long as is. I feel that we should have "original image", "one reprint", audiobook cover. Any further differing reprint covers can go into the body of the text (ie, in the background section), just like I've done with comic books with multiple covers. Otherwise, the sidebar gets way too vertical. -- Sulfur 16:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet even further to that... what do you think of the layout for the audiobook section on Final Frontier? -- Sulfur 16:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would make the separation more overt - use a ! cell to emphasise that it's a different product. Aside from that, it looks OK. I'll let you tinker - I'm going to fill in those last few DVDs that need doing. -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not 100% convinced that audiobooks should be on the same article as novels... but... whatever.  :)

In terms of breaking the novel from the audiobook in the sidebar, that's what I was doing with the cover image. Or at least, that was the intent, since any lines will be hidden by that.

Either way, with too many images, such as Strangers from the Sky, things start to look a bit clunky. The sidebar is insanely long now. Take a peek. Any suggestions for improvement? -- Sulfur 16:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. How about dropping the audiobook cover image from the sidebar, since it's not going to be hugely different from the novel cover, and creating a subsection of Background of 'Cover gallery' or similar for all the variants? Just have the original novel cover in the sidebar, with the ! indicator for audiobooks. Could I have a tinker with it and see? -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The cover gallery idea is a good one... give that a try then, and let's see what it looks like on the strangers one. I added an alternate caption for the second image... just so that on the final frontier one (for example), we could have the audiobook image at the bottom if we still wanted. -- Sulfur 16:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Finally managed to make the code do what I wanted - what do you think? -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That works for me. Good enough I say! :) -- Sulfur 17:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In terms of adding it to novels, I was going to do it the fun way... start at "Z" in the category, and work backwards. Always more entertaining that way. -- Sulfur 17:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, shall I go forwards, and you go backwards, and meet up somewhere around The Lost Years'? -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wherever we meet, we shall never see the like of it again. :) -- Sulfur 17:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Just run into Adventures in Time and Space, which is a reference book, not a novel. Add the sidebar here, and on all other reference books? We should adapt the sidebar for a new template for reference works. -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hrm... if it's a reference book, fix the category first. I'm not 100% convinced on putting the novel sidebar on those, since there may be other things that we need to cover off on them. Same goes for biographies, etc. Let's worry about the novels first, and then look at the other books.

As an aside, I did all of the books in the audio category, which included Enterprise: The First Adventure.

And the edit conflict I just got shows me that you agree with that. :) -- Sulfur 17:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

• What you talkin' about, Willis? :D -- Michael Warren | Talk 15:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Go read it again Webster! -- Sulfur 15:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Completion

Well done, us! I'm just double checking the audiobooks with the master list, and adding them in where missing. I suggest we work on a reference works template next - but we can leave that till Monday... :D -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yah, I think that I got most of the audiobooks along the way. We also have biography and autobiography books to hit on this run of stuff. Just fyi. My guess is that those would be pretty much the same as novels in terms of what's needed in the sidebar. -- Sulfur 16:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Mostly missing categories (my fault!). I think biographies would fit better with a reference books sidebar, since we have the fixed stardate and year cells in the novel sidebar. -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editing Kaltura video on Mac OS X

Hi Sulfur,

I'm Miki from Kaltura team. I saw your comments about the tool we're providing and noticed you're experiencing problems with our editor. I'm using a MacBook (OS X 10.4) with FireFox 2.0.0.12 myself and didn't notice any technical problems. I would be very happy to discuss it with you, preferably through e-mails. My address is miki.avital@gmail.com.

Thanlks,

Miki.

Mikiwiki 11:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Apologies

Sorry about those images, the first one I messed up between citing and captioning and the second I just haven't put on an official page yet. I'm using my user page for humor obviously, but also to learn more about posting things (like pictures) properly and professionally looking, before I add anything to any of the more established well written articles. TwoFatFrakes 18:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About my articles...

Just two quick points to make, first, the command centre page that I made has been wiped completely, and not even added to bridge. First, it's a different room altogether, second, can you change the redirection of command centre so it doesn't automatically go to the bridge page? On the command centre page you could put up 'are you looking for the bridge?' or something.

Second, I've seen a lot of pages with trivia on them can we just keep that section distinguished from background info because it's a lot easier to see and actually focuses on just the mission and what is happening.

Thanks, sorry if I seem really annoyed, it comes naturally to me! :D

Keep up the good work, Dave. Dave 16:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In reverse order... "Trivia" isn't an encyclopedic section. We're trying to eliminate them. It's slow and painful. At best.

Second... "command center" is the proper (americanized) spelling. I'm Canadian, and I know where you're coming from on the spelling, but it should be, at worst, in the "command center" article. Better still would be to merge it into the bridge article, since they are (really) one and the same thing. Merging the text in wouldn't be too tough, perhaps split off a section for the NX-class ships or something? -- Sulfur 17:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think it's quite the same thing, it was more a specialised room, but I'll add it to the bridge section anyway. Oh, and with the trivia, it's mainly because on Facebook, there is an application called 'Addicted to Star Trek', and there are many links to Memory Alpha, as the main source of canonical information. Sometimes it's easier than sifting through loads of info on the episode just to have a small section saying where they're up to. Any chance of a small area called 'The mission so far...'? Like trivia, but named differently and with straight-to-the-point facts on the mission covered in the episode. Any ideas? Dave 18:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've just made a new page, called "Command center (NX-01)", and put a link to it at the top of the bridge page, should anyone get confused. They shouldn't, I hope. Dave 18:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)