Talk:Moonbase Alpha (Space: 1999)

Length of Article

Isn't this article way too long? It's 37 kilobytes all about the setting of a TV show from the 70s. Do we really need this much detail, and in an in-universe writing style no less?Gary (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NDA1.JPG

Image:NDA1.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Section colours

I see no reason to introduce such garish colours into the article. Alastairward (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Garish is a matter of opinion. First, these are the actual colours used in the series. Second, the article specifically discusses the colour-coded armband. Now, perhaps you feel that you should go over to an article about red and delete the colors because they are garish! Idiocy. When you discuss a color, a picture is worth a thousand words. Please come up with a better argument for your position.--75.51.184.49 (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Remember please to be civil.

If the article clearly states the colours of the armbands, what do we gain from the colours you have added? Nothing springs to mind. What do we lose? The clarity and structure of the article.

Openly declaring a reversion war is also not a good idea. Three different editors have immediately objected to what you are doing, it would seem prudent for you to read this article on moving forward. Alastairward (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? I only see you. The objection above is not even signed and does not make a VALID argument.A picture is WORTH a thousand words. Everyone's idea about what "Rust" is is different. And "red" and "blue" – perhaps you want to define "flame" universally. Space: 1999 used colours specific to the design pallets of the 70s and should be delineated. Not to mention, this would be the only article in the world that discusses departmental color coding and does not include a corresponding color chart where possible to do so. However, I see your point about making the article more readable and have made appropriate adjustments here, which still seems to fail to meet whatever subjective criteria is being used here.--75.51.184.49 (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

75.whatever, please stop making the markup unnecessarily complicated. There's no need for a table; there's no need for cells empty save a swath of color. If you think a link to "flame (color)" is useful (sure it is), go ahead and throw that in -- but what you're adding is in-universe trivia that complicates the page for negligible improvement. Furthermore, taking an antagonistic attitude toward Alistairward ("Oh really? I only see you") misses the point that your additions are disputed content; continuing to restore it may lead to your temporarily block for violating the three-reversion rule. --EEMIV (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Then say that rather escalating the conflict. You have both acted wholly un-welcoming and elitist in this situation. Defending your unilateral reverts with words like "garish" and "ditto" and "how's this for a novel idea" when I have endeavored to conform my edits to both of your wishes, despite the fact that you are the only two, whose criteria I don't recognize other than it offends you personally. At the time I wrote that Alistairward was the only person involved in this until you jumped in, and without knowing him, his was just one objection. The unsigned objection could just as well been his too trying to make a point. As to you both, in my experience colour charts are used in every reference book I've ever seen and in the easiest to read & navigate, and largest selling newspaper in the world: the USA Today. Not sure why you are dead set against them. Frankly, a link to the color flame actually makes the article harder to read, because you have to navigate away from the article and come back, when you could just observe the color next to the narrative. In fact, why don't you have a look at Flame (color) entry in wikipedia to see what I mean. There is no color swatch! So how helpful is that? Just more words. Perhaps you and Alistairward have already been reverting the useless "empty table boxes save a colour" for all of wiki's colour charts since they only make navigating the article harder and there are plenty of words to describe them. To make matters worse, you behaved as though I had not already linked the word "Flame" with my previous edits (something I did to help further define the colour should someone want more detail). Certainly I accept the trivia issue, but again you have made reverts without any opportunity to address you reasons. Each time you revert, I technically am not undoing them, but starting from scratch trying to address your reasons for reverting them in the first place. In the end, the issue of colour addressed in this article in particular makes the most sense of any article I have tried to add them to, while I bow somewhat to your argument about the other articles. However, there is more to be said there as well. In as much as you are right in your opinion, I am equally correct in mine. I'd appreciate a response.--75.51.184.49 (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Although the presentation of section colors now is an effective presentation in that it avoids a needlessly complicated table, the entire section itself is in-universe trivia. As I posted to some other article talk page, "unless you can cite a third-party source explaining some real-world significance to these colors, then it just doesn't belong here. One person with the color black = unique doesn't mean anything -- unique how? did the producers pick that color deliberately? does it reflect something about the character's development? etc. But right now, it's inclusion is along the same lines as giving character's height, weight, eye color, etc. -- meaningless trivia." As for the USA Today analogy -- that's pretty much irrelevant. Alistairward's observations that throwing color up for the sake of color (even providing a sample of the color referenced in the article) is distracting; it offers trivial information at the expense of simple code and easy compatibility with screen readers. Anyhow, I think the question shouldn't be so much, How best to present the colors these characters wear, but rather, Do these colors actually matter at all in the real world? Where are the sources? How does knowing these colors increase our understanding of the topic in a real-world context? --EEMIV (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Your IN-universe argument works for the broader series, but here, you are just riding on fumes. Since this is IN universe and it is exactly that reason that the colours are given. Think of them as insignia rank, which might be illustrated here for clarity if this were say the British Army. Or perhaps that is trivial information as well and should be deleted or made the subject of another article, or not at all. As I continue to point out, the colours are not all especially defined to begin with. They are not eye colour, or hair colour, they represent the sections within which the Alphans work and are every bit as important as imparting rank, which this series does not really do. The colours represent the divisions which identify part of the character and their background. And, to discuss the colour but not demonstrate it is ridiculous, especially when I have pointed out that it is not a matter of simply saying "red" with a universal understanding, but colours which are unique to this series as well as important to the character's identity.Take this example of the US Army, how do little pictures in the table aid legibility or navigation? I find them distracting. Perhaps I should go delete them for the exact reasons you do, trivial to people reading the article outside the Army universe and cumbersome to the article. Finally I get back to the main point: IT IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT COLOUR!! How can you talk about colour but not demonstrate it? Once again repeating myself, it actually takes you out of the article to go investigate via a link. I'll now reference University of Oxford, which like every university listed in eBay has a word description of the colours as well as an image. How can that be? Redundant, distracting, one should start removing them from every article immediately. What possible real-world need could there be to demonstrate the colour in the article? And how about this article on the city of Oxford's climate? What a pointlessly distracting box demonstrating temperature with colour? Doesn't that just clutter it up and make it harder to read and navigate? Here is another example List of Governors of Ohio#Governors of Ohio, do the colors make it easier to see the groupings of party affiliations or are they merely garish distractions applicable only to in-universe politicians? Frankly, by your reckoning, the entire discussion of colour is trivial, so why even discuss it at all. Just say there were 5 sections, name them and leave it at that. Don't discuss colour at all if it is merely trivial in this universe or any other. Since you keep hammering the same argument over and over, I will defer to the "coherent" majority of which you are the only one who has actually expressed an arguable opinion if not misguided.--75.51.184.49 (talk) 03:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Eagle under attack.jpg

The image File:Eagle under attack.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting move

The NASA game comes out soon, that will need its own page and they should both namespaced. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Moonbase Alpha (Space:1999)

Please be advised that Moonbase Alpha was built on the site of the original SHADO moonbase from the Gerry and Sylvia Anderson t.v. series U.F.O. This can be found in most books regarding their work.After the threats from the organ harvesting u.f.o.'s had ceased, SHADO moonbase was deactivated, and Moonbase Alpha was constructed on the exact same site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.180.222 (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This appears to have been the intention when the series was in development but this detail was never mentioned in broadcast dialogue so cannot be regarded as canon. Quornhog (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Number of personnel

It says it houses 311 personnel at the start of the series. In season 1 episode 17 "War Games" Fatalities number 128 dead or missing. In episode 18 "The Last Enemy" Commander Koenig states they have about 300 people. In season 2 episode 1 "The Metamorph" Doctor Helena Russell notes in her log the population is 297.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.176.90 (talk) 02:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The body count in "War Games" can be disregarded as the attack on Alpha was a mass hallucination. Quornhog (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moonbase Alpha (Space: 1999). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120805170852/http://www.space1999.net/~catacombs/cybermuseum/MATN/matnindex.html to http://www.space1999.net/~catacombs/cybermuseum/MATN/matnindex.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)