ST ACTD Wiki:Community Portal

From ST_ACTD Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the Community Portal!


Community Bulletin Board

Post your Wikipedia related news and announcements here! Help, Collaborations, or other projects should be listed in their appropriate section. New initiatives, proposals, discussions, or article drives should be listed under "Notices."


  • Two new code templates are now available - the {{3}} merely displays a # symbol, which is useful for using in other templates to create links to subheadings of articles. One use of this new template is the {{mcite}} template, which can be used to cite information from a specific mission. Further information about the citation template can be found on its page. --CDickinson 16:32, 16 November 2008 (EST)
  • Please read
  • When we first set up the wiki many months ago, in haste, I copied and pasted policy pages from other wikis - Wikipedia and Memory-Alpha to be specific. I rarely have looked at them, but they do not quite fit with the intentions of the ST:ACTD Wiki. The wiki sysops will be browsing, critiquing, and editing these pages to better suit our purposes. However, I do not want to give the impression to fellow editors that we are "tightening the noose" to target certain people. While the policies are in flux, please feel free to comment on their corresponding talk pages any irregularities, questions, or concerns you have. Alternatively, you may contact me privately via my talk page or emailing me (or my email address can be found on ODN). --CDickinson 21:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Two additional administrators have been hired to assist with admin duties on the wiki. Please give Eldad and Robert your congratulations. Admins (also known as sysops) have the abilities to delete pages, delete images, undelete pages, protect pages, block users/IPs, revert edits, and be helpful (they'd better be helpful). --CDickinson 12:18, 7 December 2006 (EST)
  • A NPC Template has been created, per user requests and discussion. --CDickinson 15:47, 24 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Bugs - There are a number of possible issues with the wiki. More information and solutions can be found here. --CDickinson 13:51, 24 July 2006 (EDT)
  • A Character Template has been created. Editors should begin using it. --CDickinson 11:36, 19 June 2006 (EDT)
  • The Ship Template is now FINAL. All ships should switch over to using it as soon as possible. --Cdickinson 17:44, 31 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Use the Rank List pips (links on page to other lists). --CDickinson 11:36, 19 June 2006 (EDT)
  • WELCOME TO THE ST:ACTD WIKI! New users should read through some of the policies and guidelines.


  • Ships/Stations should all follow the same general format. See the Ship Template page.
  • Fleets can use the 'template' created by the Fifth Fleet page.
  • Divisions can use the precedence set by the Newsfleet Division page.
  • Locations (planets, systems, nebulae, etc) should use the templates found on the Locations Database page.

List of Available Templates

Did you know?

Overwriting Images

If you change an image (mission poster, character image, etc) and want to change it on the wiki, the easiest way is to upload it with the same filename. The wiki software will simply overwrite the old image with the new one (after a confirmation page), which will save the trouble of having to change the image links on other pages. If you'd like more information, please contact one of the sysops. --CDickinson 10:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Advance templates

I am now taking requests for advance templates, if you want to see something improved in the current templates or if you have a suggestion for a new template then please let me know. An example of an advance template is a template that contains optional content or uses conditional clauses. --Locutus 20:50, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Posting your email on the wiki

In case you didn't know, unlike the ODN everyone can see your emails on the wiki and effectively can harvest those emails to SPAM lists. Do yourself a favor and don't write your email here, if you must, use an image instead. --Locutus 18:01, 7 January 2007 (EST)

Easier linking to MemoryAlpha articles

You can easily link to articles hosted on other wiki sites by creating an internal link prefixed by the wiki name. For example:

  • [[MemoryAlpha:About]] will link you to the about page on the english Memory Alpha. --Locutus 07:34, 2 November 2006 (EST)
    • Hey, I left a message on Eldad's discussion page but I thought I should mention it here too. Using a M/A link as above takes folks OUT of our Wiki and into Memory Alpha - I don't think that's what we want for the general text of our pages. I'd rather see a similar page (with page disclaimer) on our wiki. I'm thinking these links should only be used at the bottom of the page to denote where the source of the data came from. See Pacifica for an example of this. --Jafo 10:59, 4 November 2006 (EST)
      • To be the counter argument, this wiki's scope should be ST:ACTD specific information. If the article would bring little to our wiki, then I don't see how an external link is a problem. With things like DS9, and the species, and things like that, which we use and comment on, an internal page makes more sense. Currently, a few pages were copied over to set the ground for additions. An example would be Klingon Empire, which could be used later to add current diplomatic relations with, etc. In general, what I think I'm trying to say is that other wiki links aren't necessarily bad; think of this as more of an encyclopedia for current members rather than an advertising tool to bring in new members. --CDickinson 12:11, 7 November 2006 (EST)
        • I'm not suggesting the Wiki is an advertising tool - not sure where you got that, frankly. My point is that if we link to an external article then we can't go back later and edit the article with ACTD-specific info. If we place a similar article on this Wiki, with appropriate source disclaimer, then we can edit to our heart's content. Much like the Klingon Empire article you cited. --Jafo 12:36, 7 November 2006 (EST)

Suggestion/Voting Box

Archives of old suggestions: /1 /2

Automated Automated Importer

We all know the update character function is a great thing when the character moves from one ship/position to another, but the ship rosters still need to be updated manually. What about an "update roster" function ? --EinarS

  • That feature is already available for the wiki admins, however it will not be enabled for the rest of the users due to the possible strain it may cause the server. --Locutus 14:15, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
    • Friends ask me to update wikis for them, and I'm very active on here, is there some way for me to gain that function? Would perhaps be a possibility to allow some users more privileges that are more active than others?--EinarS
      • That's up to Chris, we'll wait for him to give us his decision. --Locutus 19:26, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

The automated ODN character importer is a life-saver, no doubt. But is there a way to just automatically go through the entire ODN database and create it all instead of manually finding each character as needed? And could the ODN be made to create a wiki entry automatically when a new character is made?--Letum 22:16, 9 December 2007 (EST)

  • No, unfortunately not. There sadly is no way to get an index of all characters in ODN as far as I know (in fact it was/is hard enough to get the data the importer uses out of it). Therefore mirroring the whole database won't be possible. Besides, do we really need all characters that are inactive for years in the wiki? We already have many unused/orphaned pages as it is. As for the wiki automatically changing the wiki: this is even more impossible. Right now the importer relies on the fact that a user is initiating the update (in order to check permissions, list him in the logs etc.). If the ODN were to do that automatically we would have to add a whole bot framework. While this might still be possible in theory we don't have access to the ODN, so we can't perform any changes to it. So the short answer is: sorry, no. --Sloeffler 02:05, 10 December 2007 (EST)
    • There actually is this index of all characters on ODN ... but yeah, I get that what Letum is suggesting is a pretty tall order. Interestingly, there are 325 active characters, 1344 inactive characters, and 50 dead characters. --Jafo 09:36, 10 December 2007 (EST)
  • As the person who actually does the support for the ODN, I could create a temp page accessible via a PHP page to load into the wiki using the Automated tool. Shoot me an email with the requirements.... --SchnSilek 12:09, 10 December 2007 (EST)
    • Assuming we get full access to the ODN code and DB plus permission to modify the ODN code then our stand on this matter may change. --Locutus 13:54, 10 December 2007 (EST)
      • Ummmmmm.... let me phrase this as delicately as possible... not a chance in hell. I'll put the data for your program in a form... tell me what are the requirements, but no one gets direct access to the ODN database. --SchnSilek 22:16, 10 December 2007 (EST)
        • No point in that then, the importer already does that without any need for you to provide another alternative frontend to that data. Unless of course you want to provide a way to automate the wiki article creation on every new character update/creation, which will sadly require access to the code/SQL (without writing access to the DB). I'm assuming you store each flag as a string of text in the DB with the exception of the player's last position/assignment, so that won't solve our current issues with the free text, alternate syntaxes assignments/awards that some SMs utilized in the past/present. If I'm mistaken then let me know. --Locutus 07:13, 11 December 2007 (EST)
        • I think we are going about this backwards... let's assume for a moment, that we have imported all the active characters from the ODN. (Doing it manually should take an hour worst case.) The only database that knows when a change occurs to the biography or to the assignments is the ODN, not the wiki. So the ODN should be "pushing" data to the WIKI when there is a change. Sending changes to a flat file on a daily (hourly or whatever) basis and get the wiki to get the changes.
        • As for award syntax, it is not all free text.
          • The SM's now have a form to fill that looks like this:
          • Type of award: (Choose award here)
          • "By the request of Captain Smith, Starfleet Command is pleased to present you with the (award) for (FREE TEXT HERE) on Stardate 11111.11..."
          • Ditto for assignments and such....
        • There might be leftover odd syntaxes for a few characters dating back to when the data was initially entered in the ODN, but these are few. --SchnSilek 08:59, 11 December 2007 (EST)
          • Our main concern right now is dealing with uncommon assignment syntaxes, other then that the importer is pretty much complete. If what you're saying is true then there isn't much we can do about it. Regarding the creation of the wiki articles that's what I meant, the point is if we blindly import all the characters in an unmonitored fashion we'd be forced to deal with the aftermath assuming something goes wrong with the importer. Currently, the responsibility for each character import lies with the importer, and s/he are responsible to edit/correct it as needed. Let's not forget the wiki was never intended to replace the ODN, merely serve as an extension to it. By not forcing people to double check their character articles we'd be left with quite a few orphaned articles that don't benefit from the features the wiki platform offers. In my opinion, the best way to handle this matter is to offer the players in the email they get from personnel (once their characters was approved (after an update, promotions, award or any other change to the profile) a link to the importer on the wiki that will direct them to the edit section of the article for any final touches that might be required. --Locutus 14:29, 11 December 2007 (EST)
            • There can't be that many as they all should follow the following logic...
              • Assigned to XO aboard Deep Space 102 as Cmdr.
              • Assigned to <position> aboard <vessel> as <rank>
              • Reinstated to EO aboard USS Delphyne as LtJG. (leftover from old system not many in there and cannot happen again)
              • Reinstated to <position> aboard <ship> as <rank>
              • Promoted to Lieutenant Junior Grade for astounding service
              • Promoted to <rank> for <reason>
              • Promoted to Lieutenant
              • Promoted to <rank> (sometimes no reason)
              • Demoted to Lieutenant Junior Grade for astounding service
              • Demoted to <rank> for <reason>
              • Demoted to Lieutenant
              • Demoted to <rank> (sometimes no reason)
              • Transferred to CMO aboard USS Dakota
              • Transferred to <position> aboard <ship/station>
              • Transferred to CEO
              • Transferred to <position> (if remains on same ship)
              • Participated in Prism Kappa as DCO
              • Participated in Prism <something> as <position> (recently added only for PRISM)
              • Received Meritorious Service Medal for outstanding service
              • Received <medal> for <reason>
              • Received reprimand for three counts of dereliction of duty
              • Received reprimand for <reason>
              • (2 possibilities)
              • Removed to Inactive
              • Removed
                • 1000329-001-2: 10003.29 : Assigned to U.S.S. Elara as Tactical Officer
                • 991017-004-10: 10107.07 : Assigned to U.S.S. Ganymede as Chief Engineering Officer
                  • There's no way way to include those possibilities short of breaking support to all the other unrecognised flags. --Locutus 19:23, 11 December 2007 (EST)
                    • If there is no way, then fine let's not do it. No sense wasting time then....--SchnSilek 20:16, 11 December 2007 (EST)
                      • Can you offer a solution to those entries? Even manually converting them to meet the standards assuming we find all instances of them? (regex magic on all the freetext strings?) --Locutus 21:01, 11 December 2007 (EST)
                        • Easily.... any cases like the ones you mentioned will be fixed, to the correct standard. All I need is some time. Let me know if there are any other examples like the ones you just mentioned.--SchnSilek 22:21, 11 December 2007 (EST)
                          • With the examples you have mentioned I have fixed 5 record entries in 3 characters in the active character records. Fixed 6 record entries in 2 characters in the inactive character records. --SchnSilek 08:53, 12 December 2007 (EST)

There have been several categorizations suggested lately for pages on the wiki. I'd like to ask those of you who are actively editing, or happen to be wandering by - what things are most useful for you? What information do you feel needs to be accessed quickly and easily, and would be best accomplished by categorizing pages?


While I was being an insomniac the other night, I pondered the ship categories (for example, Category:USS Quirinus). It seems everything ever associated with a vessel is dumped into these categories, making them possibly less navigable than desired. It would be a lot of work, but would breaking up the characters (player and NPC) at least like this make sense:

  • Category:Officers of the USS Shipname (current PCs)
  • Category:Former officers of the USS shipname (past PCs)
  • Category:Crew of the USS Shipname (NPCs associated with a vessel, past or present)

Each of these would then be a subcategory of the USS Shipname category. So - too much work, useless, unworthwhile - or is it desirable and is there someone willing to take on that task (when we get the full character database imported especially)? --CDickinson 23:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I do agree in general: creating sensible categories is always a good thing. Of course one could argue that there are ships that only have a very small number of officers or NPCs, but still I think that this is a good idea.I would structure it a bit differently, however:

 +-USS X Crew
 |  +-USS X PCs
 |  +-USS X NPCs
 +-USS X Missions
 +-USS X Media

I would not add past crew members except maybe in a list because this could otherwise become quite a problem for characters that have transfered a lot. I also changed "Officers" to "PCs" when I came to think of all those CIVs, Prov. Officers, Officer Candidates, Marines,... out there. Of course those categories are mainly optional, if a ship doesn't have NPCs with pages on the wiki (or no media, or whatever) there is no need to create such a category. --Sloeffler 07:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Simplified NPC template

I was wondering if we could have a simplified NPC Character template similar to the ones we use for NPC ships. The only reason I ask is that when I create NPC characters, I don't usually think into the details of their service records, awards, and what not. --Newsfleet Division Manager 06:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I didn't really hear anything back regarding this issue so I created an experimental page so that it's more visual. You can check it out here. Special thanks to James M. whom I borrowed the side bar from. You can check out his original idea here: Proposed Changes via Cathryn O'Mally. Anyway, the purpose of this proposed template is to simplify NPC bios. When I create NPCs, I don't go into as much details as the current template does (which left a lot of blank parts). --Newsfleet Division Manager 18:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Everything but the basic character traits when it comes to NPCs is optional. Encouraged, but optional. --Locutus 18:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, I see. So, it's okay for us to delete areas that don't apply to a particular NPC character? For example, if my character doesn't need assignments, awards, etc., I can just delete that off my article? --Newsfleet Division Manager 18:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
        • If the NPC isn't in Starfleet, then yeah, of course. Again, the NPC template only requires the basic layout and the sidebar. All the information you decide to put there is optional, encouraged but optional. Emphasis on the encouraged bit, seeing the all point behind this wiki is to offer information. --Locutus 20:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Inactive Characters

Quick poll, any one has a problem with inactive characters using their own category? ("Inactive Character" instead of "Characters" for example). Please only reply if you're against this matter. --Locutus 15:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy Pages

Although I mentioned a while back about finally getting around to editing them, it hasn't happened until now. And, quite frankly, I need some input from the "community." Specifically:

  • See How to edit a page, How to start a page. These pages are intended to be HELPFUL to new wiki editors, and yet, I think they could use some help themselves in order to be more helpful to others. On THEIR talk pages, please provide some feedback - what needs to be added, what needs to be removed, what needs to be changed, what needs to happen.
  • See ST ACTD Wiki:Manual of Style and ST ACTD Wiki:Naming conventions. Again, another copy of Wikipedia pages (sorry, Wikipedia). It's too broad, but what do we need to set down as our styles? Suggestions?
  • Wikipedia has a "Neutral Point of View" policy; at the time we were laying down the foundations for this wiki, it seemed like a good idea at the time. Now - not so much. We don't have controversial topics, we deal in facts. Something either happened in a mission, or it didn't. Does our policy need to be removed?
  • How can we make our Be Bold policy say what we mean? We want people to feel free to work on OTHER pages, not just the ones for their ship or their crew. Especially the ship pages with no active editors, and a lot of the back history to this game - I just don't have the time to look into everything.

If anyone has any other comments about our policy pages, feel free to leave them on the corresponding talk pages, or on my talk page. --CDickinson 22:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocking users

Something had been bugging me for a while, but I wanted to put it here so that other people can put in their opinions. A while ago, I have noticed that the administrators can block people from editing the wiki. I can see the logic and reason behind it, but should we allow it? Blocking people discourages them from returning to the wiki and contributing - which is something that we do not want. I don't think it even helps with anything. It might stop someone from temporarily editing the wiki, but when he or she returns, they may make the same violations.

My opinion is that instead of blocking people, try talking to them through e-mail and work through the differences. Leaving messages on a user talk page does not always help.

We have to keep in mind that ST:ACTD is an international organization with people of all ages. I have noticed that some people received warning from the wiki administrators regarding spelling and some other small things, but not everyone can be a perfect speller. Of course, some people are better than others and it helps as one gets older, but I don't think someone should be blocked for spelling. I know there are spell checkers and it wouldn't be hard to run spell check, but we have to keep in mind that some people might not have the resources to get a spell check - we don't know what their reasons are.

Keep in mind that I'm not totally against blocking people, but I believe that there might be a better way to enforce the wiki guidelines. I'm just not sure what it is, but maybe some of you might know. In my opinion, blocking people just discourages them and it doesn't solve the problem.

What do you think? -- Mike Y., Newsfleet Division Manager 22:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Only two people were blocked so far, one of them refused to cooperate with us nor did he respond to our inquires to his action and the second one ignored over seven warnings to his talk page. Our banning policy is simple, we only block people when we absolutely have to and most of the time we never reach that point.
I had a reply ready but I'll let Chris handle it, we've long established that he's the one that should handle comments here.. Just remember this, blocking users is an established method of dealing with guidelines abusers on countless other wikis. We're no exception. --Locutus 23:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
True, I don't disagree with that, but I'm only thinking that there might be a better way to handle it. If everyone jumped off a cliff, it's not like we would jump off too. All I am saying is that there might be a better way, but we just don't know it yet. Of course, spammers should be blocked no matter what.
Regarding the person where you left several warning on his talk page, have you ever contacted him through e-mail? Keep in mind that people might not know that a talk page exist. There is no set manual here to inform new users how to exactly use the wiki and many of them learn by just playing around with it. Some people don't even have user pages - which probably mean that they are unaware that they can create one.
If there is truly no better way to do it, then I have no problem with it. However, I just think that there is a better way that someone might know about. I would like to believe that we are all friends here and that people should talk and not block. That's just my opinion. ST:ACTD is different that other sims out there and I believe that we should try and be nice to our players. I'm not here to cause any trouble. I here just to figure out ways to improve how we handle things. -- Mike Y., Newsfleet Division Manager 23:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he responded to a few questions we had and ignored the warnings. His block was our last resort, one that we talked about quite awhile.
Again, only two people were blocked here. Unless you ignore the rules out of spite your chances of getting blocked here are slim to none. You're opening a can of worms here on something that doesn't even exist yet. --Locutus 23:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
True, true. I am opening a can of worms but isn't it better to catch it before something does happen? If you don't think so, then I'll be quiet regarding the issue and you can delete everything that was said here regarding the policy against blocking users. However, it was only my friendly suggestion. -- Mike Y., Newsfleet Division Manager 05:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


A lot of users has been creating new userboxes on our wiki lately, we want to hear your feedback on this matter. Do you think they're necessary? Do you think a strict design guideline should be enforced on them? Do you think we should limit the userboxes to stuff that is only relevant to ACTD? Answer away. --Locutus 21:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Heh, if you ask Wikipedia uber-admin David Gerard, he makes it clear how he feels about them at the bottom of his user page, and would probably nuke them all out of existence if he could. If you ask me, on the other hand, I think they're fun little tokens that our particular wiki users can kind of "wear" like a badge of honor on their user pages. In fact, I created two new boxes today for COs...

CO This user is the Commanding Officer of USS Kingoverlord.

and one for XOs...

XO This user is the Executive Officer of USS Paperworksucks.

Personally, however, I believe that they should remain relevant to ST: ACTD. But I suppose it wouldn't hurt if we put it to a vote whether or not we should allow a broader range of userboxes, or not. Another issue, if we allow the boxes, is what to do to make them more accessible to casual ACTDWiki users. --Kvolt 22:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

    • You do realize your CO userbox has an horrid colour selection, right? A blue link against a black background is a very, very bad idea. --Locutus 22:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
      • This is a wiki; you can help by adjusting the link colour to something more legible. No need to be so bluntly judgmental. --Kvolt 23:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I try not to meddle in people's personal projects. Criticism is part of the wiki experience, nothing is meant personally. --Locutus 23:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears this issue gained no conversation. Personally, I'm against them. This project is to create an encyclopedia for things ST:ACTD related. Creating pretty or non-pretty boxes to specify what positions we hold in the game is unhelpful towards that end goal. Now that we have SM, CO, XO - what's to stop us from making boxes for every darn position? Yes, I'm invoking the slippery slope argument against them. Unless someone can convince me otherwise, please don't make more, and I'd rather see the current ones disappear. The ones that showed up on my user page weren't put there by me originally (see the change history), and I'm removing them now. --CDickinson 05:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Personally, I don't see any problems with having userboxes. If someone wanted to know a specific user's purpose in the game (i.e. staff member), then user boxes will make it easier for them to identify who he or she is. I think that since the userboxes are only on userpages, I don't think there should be any rules against them. They belong to the user and it doesn't affect any wiki pages. If you don't want to see userboxes, don't click on user. That's my opinion. --Mike Y., Newsfleet Division Manager. 02:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Then where do you draw the line at? --Locutus 09:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm with Chris on this issue.. I really, really don't see the use of such things, other than clutter up my already precious on-screen space. There are better ways of showing what you do. They're called lists, and my user page gives a good reflection of that. As far as I am concerned, they can all be removed and kept away.. To me, a user page should just be a short, simple overview of who the person is and what they do. And as I said, I believe the best way to achieve that is by a simple list, not a collection of way too colourful userboxes. They work contrary to what a wiki is supposed to be: an encyclopedia. And yes, userpages are part of that still, as I do have to click a link within the wiki to get to it, and it remains within the wiki...--TimS 17:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • My opinion on this situation is as follows: Wiki user pages are personal pages made by the members of the wiki about themselves. They should be able to change them, jazz them up, and put whatever info (Or user boxes) they want on them. Even though you all argue that this wiki is for "Information only" that is really hampering the artistic potential that can be achieved here. Lots of people use the wiki, and I think that it adds quite a bit of new depth to the game. Yes, we post info, mission status, mission summaries, and that's all fine and good, but I think we should be able to post more than that. Yes, I am a firm advocate of artistic license as you can see as I am a writer and sketch artist myself. I like to see a bit of visual once in a while. --Derek Walter 2012h, 03 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Once again, where do we draw the line? --Locutus 21:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
      • The question is, should we even draw lines with user pages? If we draw a line on user boxes what is preventing us to draw lines in what can be on a user page and what cannot be. For example, should we even allow pip images on user pages? I think user pages should be left to the user and should be unregulated. Since user boxes fall into the user page category, I think we should just leave it alone. -- Mike Y., Newsfleet Division Manager. 00:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Completing data on Entries

What will our overall positions be on completing data on entries that are little more than a name? Examples include solar systems that are mentioned in passing, but never cannonly seen in-game, or any of the dozen of NPC vessels that have missing basic data, like ship class or registry? My inate desire is to fill every blank that is available, but alot of the older data has nothing other than a name. I would like to contact the creators of the entry (NPC Ship, or planet, or item, etc) and get them to provide the missing data, but if that is not possible, then what are we planning to do?--Letum 01:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  • If information was not canonly seen within the game, it has no place on the wiki. As for the blank pages, you could try to contact the people, best of luck to you. I'd rather see a lot of well-written and worthwhile articles over a bunch of empty pages. --CDickinson 01:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


I'm noticing an alarming trend of mass deletions by this wiki's admin staff, most particularly involving redirect pages. My question is...why? This is yet another case of administration authority gone wild that plagues other wikis, most notably Wikipedia itself. The Talk:Afton discussion page has already gone through this little song & dance with resident admins Eldad and Cdickinson, stressing the usefulness of such pages that only serve to help build the web, not shatter it. I'm guessing that only because the contributors of the Afton redirect page (and in turn the USS Afton article) said something about it is why that particular redirect is still in limbo regarding its deletion status (as of this writing). My suggestion is to leave the redirects alone, and let the users drive the building process of this wiki. I believe if the admins continue these ceaseless inquisitions on the use of minor (and legitimate) wiki-building techniques and editing styles that some of us find handy in their use, then it will only serve to discourage further use of this wiki overall. --Kvolt 00:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Delon, the "web" is not built by adding branches pointing to individual spots. Web involves interlinking, not creating additional links in a chain. The search function is more than sufficient to locate the Afton page; if it's not, there are easily accessible links to ship pages everywhere. Perhaps you've heard of KIS - keep it simple. Why have three pages that all direct to the same place when one is more than sufficient? --CDickinson 01:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Even though a decision on the Afton case has already been reached, I do agree with Chris. A simple search and consequent mouse click would get you just as far. To me, creating all these redirects have just one cause: laziness. What's the trouble in entering where you want to go, then hit search and get the first link? In addition, once you have gone to the site of your liking, does it not remain in your browser history? Or else, don't you know well enough what the exact address is? Heck, I get around the wiki by entering the locations I want, and if the page does not exist as I expected it, I search and find it among the results, as Chris put it in the Afton talk, mostly at the top of the list of results... Creating all these redirects causes potential future problems when other similar pages come up, or pages with those exact names for a different subject. For that reason, I would actually oppose redirects in general.--TimS 21:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'll reiterate what I said on the Afton page: If a name is commonly used, why shouldn't there be a redirect, in order to facilitate usage? You can call it laziness if you like, but isn't the point of the wiki to easily pull up information about a subject, whether it be a ship, character, mission, etc.? Why should users have to jump through extra hoops to find the page they want? If an exactly named page needs to be created later, isn't that the point of creating disambiguation pages? Or, if it is not disambiguation worthy, simply putting a note on the top of the page with a link to the other page by a similar name? I am opposed to making redirects that are simply variations in things like capitalization, as is seen on wikipedia, but I think redirects to commonly used variations on names (example: Afton instead of USS Afton, names sans the middle name used on the ODN but often not in post headers, nicknames commonly substituted for the real name in-game) are useful. For this reason, I, like Delon, am opposed to the mass-deletion of redirects we have recently seen.--Shelwass 21:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Redirects created for the sole purpose of covering every possible name variation for characters and NPCs are more likely be removed, unless if one of these following exceptions apply:
1) If a character name was changed after it was created.
2) If a character got married and therefore changed its last name.
3) A player contacted one of the admins and explained before the redirect was created, in details, why the redirect was needed.
--Locutus 23:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
        • And this new policy isn't up for debate? Clearly, I'm not the only one that feels that such redirects are useful and shouldn't just be deleted without warning. --Shelwass 23:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
          • It is up for debate, that's why I included that last part. Redirects will be dealt with per-request, for the sole purpose of avoiding the flaming war that happened on the Afton. --Locutus 23:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The main purpose here is to avoid a glut of redirects that will fill the search pages and decrease usability, the thing we're trying to avoid. --CDickinson 00:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The argument those like me and Shelwass are trying to make is running into a definite wall of resistance, especially when dealing with autonomous authority that have no checks or balances. The admins have their minds made up, so I am giving up the debate on redirects since it is futile to continue, in my opinion. Clearly, redirects (when done in moderation) and disambiguation pages are forbidden, except without ridiculous oversight, inflexible rules, and prior authorization. Unless we're willing to compromise, I have nothing more to say on this. --Kvolt 02:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Some want to eliminate redirects all together. I find this view, and the fear of the search-lists becoming too cluttered with redirects a bit extreme. As long as redirects are going to be tolerated in a controlled fashion, I think more guidelines should be created, (like those created for character-related redirects.) That way, even if one disagrees with the redirect policy, they know what is accepted and what is not. It will be clear when to make a case for special permission, and concerns or disagreements regarding the policy can be made in a much more appropriate setting.
I find it strange that so many ‘NCC-#...’ and ‘SB-#...’ redirects exist. These, to me, are quite frivolous. I cannot imagine anyone searching for a registry number. Perhaps a list of ACTD registry numbers would be a more practical idea, than having a redirect for each one. --Kbergstrom 11:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
in response to this observation (NCC-#), there is a list of all (or all that I can find) NCC numbers used in both canon and ACTD. (see Category:Registry). But the function of this page would be hindered by not having the numbers linked to a ship/station page or the Canon Ship page. At least in my opinion.--Letum 06:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

To-Do Projects

Do you desperately need help with an article? Need someone else to help research information for an article, track down a player, or Wiki assistance? Post your needs here... or help out someone on this list!

Projects Completed

  • Main Page done for the most part, a few other changes are coming. --Locutus 17:07, 17 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Character Template
  • Rank images upload
  • Officer's Manual pages added to the Wiki. --Cdickinson 20:36, 15 May 2006 (EDT)
  • The groundwork has been laid for the Category:Awards section. All primary descriptions in place as requested. --Kvolt 23:42, 5 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Page started for USS Paula Greene, but it's very basic. Recommend any of the current crew to update it with any current information. --ACTDMJones 16:02, 4 May
  • The techspecs that Greg was not able to finish before going public need to be added and wikified. Please post if you can help out. --Cdickinson 14:17, 2 May 2006 (EDT) Added the missing specs... --Mzollinger 16:40, 21 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Xayvian Station information page has begun, along with the list of missions. C.J. Tala 18:39, 3 June 2006 (EDT)
  • A page listing all the ranks, to avoid people uploading duplicate images and to achieve constituency throughout the Wiki.
    • This is sort of obtained via the Rank List page. I'll update that to include ALL of the ranks currently uploaded onto the Wiki. (It would also be nice to use a single set of ranks - either Tango Fleet's or Kuro-RPG's, but that's for the Rank List talk page. --Cdickinson 15:42, 6 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Basic setup for USS Ganymede. --Rob van den Dungen 16:10, 10 June 2006 (CEST)

ST:ACTD Wiki Policies and Guidelines

This section lists and details some of the policies and guidelines that editors and contributors to the ST:ACTD Wikipedia should be aware of and follow. Many of these are copied from or borrow heavily from other Wikipedia projects, including the English Wikipedia and MediaWiki.

For all policies, see Category:Wiki policies and guidelines

Editing Help

This section lists some resources for finding help with Wikipedia markup language.

A great place to start is Wikipedia's Tutorial


Personal tools