User talk:Aatrek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


No bad feelings, I hope; we've all got the same goal: showcasing our very best work. With a bit more time I'm sure that it will become FL with no problem. I haven't "closed" the FLC because I was thinking that if I move it to Peer review, you might get some more comments on top of what Rambo's Revenge and I have given, but it's up to you. If you want me to close and archive it, I will. Regards, Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, no problems! (I had actually done a peer review, but I really didn't leave it open long enough. If you moved it over there again, I think it may help). I can make it happen; the whole "secondary sources" thing kind of threw me, though. I assumed that the episodes themselves were primary sources, so that - which has episode lists of their own - would be a secondary source. I've got some books on the episodes; I'll try and source that.Aatrek (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I've moved it to Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes/archive2 and it should appear on the main Peer review page soon. The episodes are primary sources, but so is, because it's the official website by CBS/Paramount/Current copyright holders. Those Michael Okuda compiled Star Trek encyclopedias and chronology books should be okay as secondary sources. They're not published by CBS, but by Pocket Books. WP:V and WP:PSTS can explain the difference far better than I can, but it doesn't matter what it is, a company such as Microsoft, a TV show such as Star Trek, or a person such as Brad Pitt; all have to have received coverage by reliable secondary sources (something not linked or tied to the subject) to show its notability. Official websites, autobiographies, and official guidebooks don't do that, but there is plenty of secondary sources about ST so it shouldn't be a problem. Let me know how it goes, regards, Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I've made a number of expansions and changes so far (more to come, obviously)... do things look better so far?Aatrek (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Star Trek Season 1 Episodes[edit]

I checked out the new template as above. Is there really a need to list the episodes twice? It doesn't seem to be an aid to navigation. Alastairward (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Normally I would agree, but people always seem to complain that "production order" information isn't listed, but you're probably right. I don't really want it on there twice, either. Thanks for the input. Aatrek (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks good now, handier than the older box it replaces. Alastairward (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


For the laborious job of creating a new template and then adding it to all the episode articles, good job. Alastairward (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


Redirects to templates are AOK. You put more strain on the server bypassing all those redirects than just letting the redirect point toward the template's current page. Maybe bypass the redirect if you're making other edits, but jumping in solely to bypass a redirect isn't necessary. --EEMIV (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, oh well. I actually just finished doing the overwrites, so I'm done anyway. I'll remember that in the future, though. Aatrek (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding references[edit]

Hiya Aatrek! Great work in Trek-related articles; they show some thougt and care, and not just mindless, fannish inclusions. I appreciate it.
I wanted to ask about this edit, wherein you stated that it was part of Spock's spoken starlog. I was wondering, when I asked for a citation for that, if anyone that meets our inclusion criteria had said something similar? I think you'd agree that having external citation would be a lot better than listing our personal observations. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter. I will watchlist your page for a while until we've been able to discuss the matter. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about a specific citation (especially a secondary source), as the movie's only been out a week. It's 2258 on Memory Alpha, which I know is not a valid source, but I can't find it anywhere outside the film itself at the moment. Aatrek (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, perhaps we should be more generalized until we can get the date from a valid source. My edit was supposed to reflect that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Sure, that's no problem, I guess. You can revert it if you'd like. Aatrek (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Good grief[edit]

You've really been working hard on the admin for Trek articles, nice work. You should probably get a barnstar, but I'm not sure how to get those awarded. Good work anyway! Alastairward (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. -- Aatrek / TALK 19:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Barn star[edit]

Star Trek Barnstar.png The Star Trek Barnstar
For boldly going where few editors had the energy to go, awarded for tireless renewing of a myriad of Star Trek articles. Alastairward (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Great work! Congratulations!--DrWho42 (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

re: "Star Trek" template[edit]

Is the mandate for "THE" template or "A" template?

The reason being, and I note you doing a variant of this as well with the character pages, the Project seems to have an "overview" navbox as well as a few "targeted" ones. If the mandate is for just one of the projects navboxes, it would be best to use one that is tailored to the specific grouping. If it's for the overview, then the navbox should include all of the articles.

Now, the latter won't fly since navboxes that crammed with articles become useless. If the overview goes that route it's TfD bait.

A better way maybe to add links to the publication and character lists or navbox templates (plus any others that are appropriate) within the overview. That would allow a greater degree of navigation without either breaking the overview template or the general intent of the navboxes.

- J Greb (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Wp trek.png[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wp trek.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Deleting talkpages[edit]

Why did you mark talkpages of redirect for speedy delete where the talkpage contained the WP-Project correctly marking them as redirect and possibly containing information regarding content that was merged. Agathoclea (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No harm intended; I misunderstood the speedy delete criteria. I thought that all talk pages for pages that USED to be articles qualified, and I didn't realize that redirected articles didn't count. Sorry for the trouble! -- Aatrek / TALK 21:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
We all live and learn. Actually the redirect class (which is missing of your nice compilation you just made at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek#Reassessing_article_importance is quite useful in tracking redirect through the article alerts system just in case someone places an RFD on those. Many of those redirects have to stay as they contain history pertinent to GDFL licensing of the articles where info been merged to. Agathoclea (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


To link to a file without showing it (or to a category without including it) just add a colon ":" in front of it. See this -- Agathoclea (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sins of the Father[edit]

Hey there...not to suggest that you're a Trek Guru or anything, but I was wondering whether you could look over the recent edits to "Sins of the Father" and proffer an opinion. To my mind the edits (from an IP who frankly was rude the first time they undid my first reversion of their edits) aren't an improvement and just increase the size of an overly-long plot summary, but since they seem determined to keep their changes I'd like a second-opinion (or possibly a helping hand) before diving in again. Thanks for any input! Doniago (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I stopped in. -- Aatrek / TALK 15:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Very much appreciated. Doniago (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Moving of StarTrek-stub and its subtypes[edit]

Hi. I note that you have moved several Star Trek related stub templates (with the edit summary "for consistency"), making them no longer consistent with the standard naming of all the other 10,000 stub templates on Wikipedia. (If you had proposed the move via WP:SFD or WP:WSS/P, you would have been told as much. The templates have been moved back to the proper consistent names. Please, in future, if you wish to alter the name of a stub template, check that the new name is consistent with stub naming conventions, and check that there is no reason why your new name should not be used at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. Grutness...wha? 00:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Licensing for File:Enteprise_smithsonian.JPG[edit]

Hi Aatrek,

I'm here to let you know that the image File:Enteprise_smithsonian.JPG is improperly licensed. Although you are the photographer, your picture constitutes a derivative work of a copyrighted work of art and is therefore not available for licensing under CC or GFDL. If you wish to keep using the image, it will have to be done under Wikipedia's fair-use policy. Please fix this as soon as you can, and let me know if you have any questions! --jonny-mt 04:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Transcluding a limited number of Recent Changes Linked[edit]

Hi! Did You succeed in limiting number of transcluded Special:RecentChangesLinked? --Emanuelis (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Little mistake in DS9 listing.[edit]

Hi Aatrek,

In the DS9 listing, episode 3x20 shows the wrong director. It should be Avery Brooks, according to the episode itself. For the rest, i really enjoy your listings. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljpicard (talkcontribs) 19:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Startrek nextgen dvdset.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Startrek nextgen dvdset.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Star Trek stories[edit]

A tag has been placed on Template:Star Trek stories requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Cbbkr (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Startrek voyager season6.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Startrek voyager season6.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


Your account is blocked from editing Wikipedia. This block can only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee by email at Risker (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Deepspacenine season2 dvd.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Deepspacenine season2 dvd.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)