Star Trek Timelines talk:Community portal/Archive 2

From Star Trek Timelines Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This an archive of the community portal discussions from May 27th, 2016 to November 12th, 2016 that have been resolved. Please do not edit this page.

If you have an issue you'd like to discuss, please post it on the Star Trek Timelines talk:Community portal page.

Item Design Voting

We can now start standardising things by adding Template:Item to the mission pages. This template allows things to be displayed in any order, so while doing this we can decide on the best layout to use. Reading through past discussions it appears that four layouts have been suggested. I have created examples of what each of these look like here. Please take a look at this page and vote using the poll included. Voting will last for around a week, after which the option with the most votes will be implemented. -- ST Logo.png MilkN2Sugars (My talk page) 06:31, 30 March 2016 (CDT)

I would vote for Option 4. It's less colorful, but takes up less space. That would be important for the advancement tables for the crew. Option 2 would be ...well, my second option. Having that break between the item name and the rarity helps it stand out better.--Siguard (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2016 (CDT)
I vote for Option 4. Looks the cleanest. Jruff (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2016 (CDT)
Option 4 is the easiest and most practical version, it takes less space and you have slim tables. Option 2 & 3 put more value on better appearance with different colors. Option 2 is the better one. Option 1 is confusing. The most important infomation is item name, it have to stand on 1st position. Practical is 4, appearance is 2. My sequence 4 / 2 / 3 / 1. --John Flame (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2016 (CDT)
I vote for option 4 followed by option 1. I'd rather keep it simple. However, if we want to add the rarity, then I'd rather put it before the name of the object, so that in a sentence it reads "You need an uncommon Earl Gray Tea **" rather than the unnatural sentence "You need an Earl Gray Tea uncommon **". --Dhrekr (talk) 09:50, 30 March 2016 (CDT)
I vote for option 4. Eeb3 (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2016 (CDT)
Option 2. Wiki's aren't about aesthetics. They are about function and aiding the reader to find what he wants efficiently. Having both options makes it instantly clear what said item is, even if it's a difference of microseconds to distinguish stars versus text, to me that counts. And as we've shown, it fits fine in our current mission page templates with minor adjustments. Also consider we can easily re size the size of the stars and text. Also consider the uninformed reader: Many do not understand you can even long press to get additional rarity info, but they do notice the colored borders, so the colors can aid in avoiding confusion. It's clear i'm paddling upstream here, but eh, that's the story of my life, and often I find the struggle is worth it in the long run. --Axer (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2016 (CDT)
The options page looks good, but in my Item2 template for testing, I had the rarity in parenthesis like (Common) that would be displayed in Option 2. Did you forego the parenthesis for search engine issues? I voted for Option 4 which to me is less clutter, but Option 2 would be my second choice. Also, I added a basic poll here that only allows for 1 vote (sorry, I think it's our only option for polls). Vote for your favorite option, but discuss why you chose it here, and also any other options you like as well. --Jello (talk) 10:58, 30 March 2016 (CDT)
That's really strange you managed to sign your comment, as me.. But with your own user-page link. Trying to impersonate the true Axer? There can be only 1! Highlander! heh --Axer (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2016 (CDT)
Yeah, I must be doing something wrong because I just edit the section and add my comments, then copy/paste a signature and change the name. I'm not sure how to just 'add' a comment to a particular section and have it sign it for me. --Jello (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2016
Jello, use --~~~~ to have your signature and datestamp properly automatically included. --Theholycow (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2016 (CDT)
Yea was wondering how you managed that. As a reminder the instructions on that are at the top of the page, and I added some big and strong tags around them to make it more obvious to new comers. --01:24, 31 March 2016 (CDT)
The removal of parentheses reduces clutter and width as well as helping keep search engine results clean. They are superfluous. --Theholycow (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2016 (CDT)
I voted option 1 (of course). Since ALL options will produce the same search results (which will be fully functional, if not hybridly (is that a word?) optimized for both types of users), my original concerns about search results have already been put to bed. Options 2 and 3 are approximately functionally equivalent to Option 1 but aesthetically inferior IMO. I agree with Axer about colors, which precludes option 4. Also I am with Dhrekr on the issue of it being very unnatural to have the descriptor follow the item name. --Theholycow (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2016 (CDT)
Thanks for the comments guys. Please do make sure to vote in the poll if you haven't already. Since this has turned into an in-depth discussion again I'll add my two pence worth. I prefer the text and stars approach. The purpose of the wiki is to inform readers, and therefore in most cases it is better to be explicit than implicit. Others have brought up good points about players perhaps being unaware of the conversion between rarity name, colour and number of stars, and so our content is going to be easiest to interpret if we use all of them. The concern about the extra characters making tables longer is a valid one, but I think the extra clarity is worth it. Obviously our articles should be aesthetically pleasing, but this should not come at the cost of functionality. (Also tried to clean up the indentation a bit). -- ST Logo.png MilkN2Sugars (My talk page) 12:20, 30 March 2016 (CDT)
I am working on some item pages and what I do is search for the item and go to every page the search engine lists to verify the rarity and other infomration. While doing this today on Combadge, I realized that there needs to be a way for the rarity template to display specific era items with an associated (TNG) or (DS9) that is not hyperlinked. Combadge only has 2 versions, but some of the Phaser types and clothing uniforms have 3 or 4 eras and do need to be distinguished in the item link. Other items like Database (jars) need to have this "type" reference next to the item name as well. Maybe add a 3rd variable to the template like item|Combadge|common|(DS9) - and it would put the (DS9) after the item name unlinked. If there is no 3rd variable, it would just leave that blank. This way we wouldn't have to go back and edit any pages that have been updated with the new template. Suggestions? Jello (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2016 (CDT)
Yeah that would work fine as far as I'm aware. -- ST Logo.png MilkN2Sugars (My talk page) 08:50, 1 April 2016 (CDT)
Just link it directly.. It's far better that way for users who know about the "what links here" tool. As it allows to you verify exact item locations in an advanced way that doesn't rely on user entry - similar to searching but more powerful in some ways, and imo most items do deserve their own page. But for ones you want to combine, its just a simple matter of making a redirect - which preserves "what links here functionality". Otherwise direct linking, plus a disambiguation page for the real ambiguous ones users may search for directly, is the standard wiki way, and thus how it should be. I've already done it for some such case a while back here Database. So please link all future databases according to that naming scheme, based on their icon. --Axer (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2016 (CDT)
IMO they should simply be separate items. There should be a Combadge (DS9) item and a Combadge (TOS) item, for example. They have the same name in the game but they are different items in the game so they should be different items in the wiki too. Under the name itself there could be a disambiguation page that lists all the different items with the same name. I was going to bring this up soon, so I'm glad to see it already being discussed. --Theholycow (talk) 10:05, 6 April 2016 (CDT)
I did a test by breaking out Starfleet Engineering Uniform into its 3 eras - (ENT), (TNG), and (DS9). I also changed any associated crew pages. There weren't many so it was a good test. This would take some effort to switch these pages over, but could be done. I understand they are all separate items even though the name is the same. Any recommendations, changes, or suggestions are welcome. Jello (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2016 (CDT)
Looks good. There's always going to be some ambiguity referring to equipment by show name but I can't think of any better way of doing it. For example, DS9 used the "coloured shoulders" uniform in early seasons, the "grey shoulders" uniform in later seasons, and the "black shoulders" uniform for starship crews. Similarly, TNG used black shoulders during the TV series and grey shoulders during the movies, and there's also TWOK onwards movie uniforms to consider. It's a mess, but the best we can do is make sure we name things in a standardised manner. -- ST Logo.png MilkN2Sugars (My talk page) 04:01, 7 April 2016 (CDT)
That mess is ok. It's not really important exactly which designation is given to them since they are undesignated in the game. Making them unique is sufficient. --Theholycow (talk) 08:57, 7 April 2016 (CDT)
I'd suggest, like I inadvertently already edited on Starfleet Engineering Uniform, that we say the gray shoulders are the DS9 variant, and the colored shoulders are the VOY variant, just because we need a way to distinguish them without too many words and those uniforms were the main uniforms for each series (even though DS9 had both).--Siguard (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2016 (CDT)
Yep, best way of doing it I think. What abbreviation do we want to use for the maroon uniforms? TWOK would make sense I guess since that's when they were first seen. -- ST Logo.png MilkN2Sugars (My talk page) 12:22, 7 April 2016 (CDT)
When I originally uploaded that, I was using TMP (as The Motion Pictures, not referring to the first film, just because it was three letters like TOS and DS9), but TWOK ...tworks well also ;D --Siguard (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2016 (CDT)
I think probably using the years used might be better then trying to define by eras, since there is so much crossover/overlapping in particular from the series with the uniforms and so forth. (Particularlly with Post-Gen/DS9/Voy). Where its not clear cut like TOS/TMP/ENT/TNG Eras Eeb3 (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2016 (CDT)
Sigard - looks like Eeb covered what I was going to say. The problem with some of the disambiguations is the crossover, like Tempted Data using the DS9 Engineering shirt because he was in a later movie that spanned into DS9 timeframe. It looks strange to designate a (DS9) era sitting on Data's page, but this is how STT included it in the game. However, my personal opinion is to use the era, not the year (sorry Eeb). I am a big Star Trek fan, but I have no clue of what year goes with what series other than 23xx was TOS and 24xx is TNG. I would think a poll would show most people are of the same opinion - again, less thinking involved when quickly looking at the page - "Ok, TNG style" instead of "Hmmmm, what year was 2346 style". Sticking with ENT/TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY, and figuring out either TWOK or TMP for movies, and should they ever add any animated series crew, use TAS. Jello (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2016 (CDT)
Yeah using years might be a bit less ambiguous, but I agree I'm not sure most people will be aware of which items are from which years. Using the series name abbreviations isn't perfect, but seems to be the best option. I suggested TWOK rather than TMP for the maroon uniforms incase Disruptor Beam come out with some actual TMP era equipment at some point in the future. Not much of an issue but might save some time down the road. -- ST Logo.png MilkN2Sugars (My talk page) 16:37, 7 April 2016 (CDT)

Yea I changed my vote to 1 in the poll to match you guys since 2 looked lonely in the poll and as I said, the order doesn't matter to me, just the function. Milk im guessing you havent voted? Since that should make it 4 to 7 with yours (Me, Jello, u and holycow). Anyways as a reminder it's possible to change your votes on the nice poll extension we have set up. Consider the newbies who may not understand the stars that well. --Axer (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2016 (CDT)

Bonus Template Created - I created a bonus template to standardize the look of the item bonuses. Very simple to use: {{bonus|2|1|3|cmd}} which the variables are 1: skill points, 2: 1st proficiency, 3: 2nd proficiency, 4: 3 letter skill designation which pulls from the skill template. If var1 is 0, there will be no + in front of it. Jello (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2016 (CDT)

Looks good, I've been using this on item pages and it works well. -- ST Logo.png MilkN2Sugars (My talk page) 04:01, 7 April 2016 (CDT)
So, it's been a while since we talked about the item levels. Looking at the poll, it looks like just the stars won out, but not by much. So, what do you guys think about going with the stars (saving space) but using the colors of the levels, to more easily see what level it is. For example:
Earl Grey Tea
Earl Grey Tea
Earl Grey Tea ★★
Earl Grey Tea ★★★
Earl Grey Tea ★★★★
Earl Grey Tea ★★★★★
Any thoughts? --Siguard (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2016 (CDT)
Milk was going to update the poll with the top two that were voted on already, plus add the option I came up with for the colored icons, and also possibly add his tooltip option. I don't have a problem with the colored stars as shown above either. Jello (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2016 (CDT)


There's still a few days left to vote in the poll, but it looks like Option 4 is going to win and therefore rarity text will not be displayed. I've been playing around with tooltips as a possible compromise and have thrown together an example here. Saves space, but players can still quickly see what the number of stars correlates to in terms of rarity name and colour. Something to think about maybe. -- ST Logo.png MilkN2Sugars (My talk page) 09:54, 1 April 2016 (CDT)

I kinda like it, though think the transparency needs to be more opaque or the font a few shades lighter (or made bold) if going that direction. Cause the blue and the purple blends with the background too much. --Eeb3 (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2016 (CDT)
Tooltips are a great compromise in this case. Great job on implementation. Jruff (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2016 (CDT)
Thanks for the comments guys. The current colours are just a rough example, they can be changed if we decide to implement them. Any more thoughts? -- ST Logo.png MilkN2Sugars (My talk page) 03:45, 7 April 2016 (CDT)
Milk - I like the tooltips. I wanted to do something like this originally, but not too great with new CSS coding. However, I am testing it on my iPhone and it doesn't work. It's underlined like on the pc, but quick tap, long tap, hold... nothing works to show the rarity tooltip. I know that can be an issue when we start to optimize for mobile browsers.
I have to say the current layout of "Rarity|Item|Stars" has grown on me, but I just wish the rarity text was shorter. I was thinking last night about a color coding option that would keep things symmetrical. On that note I came up with Template:Item2 with colored icons with just the letter in it - B for Basic, U for Uncommon, etc. Since the vote is leaning towards option 4 with no rarity - probably because of width or symmetry, could this be a possibility that would satisfy the color coding: Icon basic.png Icon common.png Icon uncommon.png Icon rare.png Icon superrare.png Icon legendary.png - If it could be a viable option, I'd suggest redoing the poll with Option 1 (5 votes), 4 (8 votes), and this option. I tried to add it to the poll page but it would reset all the votes by adding another option. I thought you could then retract your vote and revote if necessary... but it won't work that way.Jello (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2016 (CDT)
I still like only having the stars, but this is a very close second. The main reason why I like it, is that the item names are aligned. It's so much easier to skim through than the current layout.--Siguard (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2016 (CDT)
Looks like it's an iOS issue with the tooltips which is why I didn't catch it, works fine on my WP8 device. I'll see if I can make some tweaks and get it working. I rather like the icons idea, looks good but still informative. I'll repoll with options 1, 4 and the icons, and the tooltips if I can get them working on iOS. -- ST Logo.png MilkN2Sugars (My talk page) 16:27, 7 April 2016 (CDT)

Game Mechanics Pages

Hello. I've been thinking a bit and I have some points for your attention.

The first is that we'd need a "Game Mechanics" category. While more abstract than other categories, it deserves to exist - and contain things like Events, Time Portal, Guides, and so on (plus general pages such as Crew or Items).

One example of a candidate for the "Game Mechanics" category is the Crew Progression page, which I just wrote. When I started I wanted to write only the XP, but I was carried away and I think that all of these things belong together. Do you like it? I'd suggest putting all technical info in pages like this and then clean up the Crew page, but you tell me how that sounds ;-) --Dhrekr (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2016 (CDT)

The Crew Progression page looks great, lots of useful information and data. Having the detailed mechanics page and a summary linking to it from the crew page is the best way of going about it I think. -- ST Logo.png MilkN2Sugars (My talk page) 03:37, 7 April 2016 (CDT)
Glad you like it! --Dhrekr (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2016 (CDT)
Lots of great information. I wanted to let you know I had created a Crew XP table that I had not finished yet, but if you'd like to use it on the page (in place of the super-long collapsable list), you're more than welcome. You can see it at Template:CrewXP. I have verified all levels from 1 to 80. Since you have all the numbers from L81-L100, I filled in the rest. It can be called like a template using {{CrewXP}} and I thought about adding it somewhere on each crew page for reference.Jello (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2016 (CDT)
That is a much better table, thanks :-D --Dhrekr (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2016 (CDT)

Ship Stat Inconsistency and Unknown Values

Hi guys! I noticed a bit of an inconsistency concerning the ship stats. In-game, the designations "Accuracy" and "Evasion" are used both for the boost value (usually between +1 and +7), and the passive ship stat (usually a value in the hundreds). However,

  • At the moment the passive ship stats aren't currently explained anywhere (do we know the effects/formula for these?). For Crit Chance and Crit Bonus, there is a detailed page here.
  • The Crew pages' Ship Stat tables link to Starship Battles where the boost values are discussed, but the passive values aren't mentioned (there are only two lines for "Passive Ship Stats", which explain it very broadly).
  • The colored skill icons Accuracy/Attack/Evasion are used for the active boosts exclusively.
  • The white skill icons Accuracy Bonus/Attack Bonus/Evasion Bonus, which are the in-game icons for the special bonus of some crew in their battle stations (for example, General Martok), also affect the boost value only. These characters are then referenced on the Bonus Ability page.
  • In-game, Attack Bonus is also used for damage bonus Bonus_Ability#Damage.
  • (There is also an in-game inconsistency/confusion about the white skill bonuses: currently, characters only have a white bonus Accuracy Bonus/Attack Bonus/Evasion Bonus if they also have the associated regular boost Accuracy/Attack/Evasion of the same type - so what's the point of separating these, they could have made this just one value.)
  • Now CodeHydro used the Accuracy Bonus on one of the item pages (Ancient Watch) as the Ship Stat bonus, which somehow makes sense, but on the other hand is "wrong", as these two are not the same in-game, and the white icon links to Accuracy Bonus, which is about the boost value, not the passive stats.

So what are your opinions on how these passive values should be handled, and where they should link to? Also, do we have an explanation how the passive Accuracy/Evaion values function? --Crunch (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2016 (CDT)


I don't know if anyone will have any definitive answers yet.. only guesses. DB has been tinkering with all the ship bonus/equipment bonus/passive stats since launch. I'm pretty sure they are going somewhere with it for PvP and also overhauling the Space Battle Missions so it's more than a button mashing. I will try to use the wording that is in the game itself.

  • The colored icons Accuracy/Attack/Evasion are Boosts and are the +3, +4, etc. based on rarity and fusion. Currently, they do provide stronger abilities in Space Battle Missions.
  • The white icons Accuracy Bonus/Attack Bonus/Evasion Bonus are Bonus Abilities and seem like they will be an addition to the colored Boost in battles, but really have no effect on anything visible when doing a Space Battle Mission.
  • The Boosts and Bonus Ability icons should not be intermixed on the crew pages.
  • The Bonus Ability icon Attack Bonus is shared for Attack and Damage.
  • The crew [i] information window shows what once was 'Passive Abilities' is now called Equipment Bonus, which are given by equipping items that possess the Accuracy, Evasion, critRating, and critBonus bonuses. The crew pages still call it Passive Ship Stat Bonuses even though I don't see that wording used anywhere in-game anymore.
  • When I made the icons for the Bonus Abilities to use in the Ship Ability and Bonuses crew page section, I just added them to the Skill template because it was already setup to be used in the same fashion of displaying an icon... however, they are not 'Skills'. I think it could stay in the Skill template since it's already setup. Any comments on whether to make another template for Bonus Ability?
  • There are 2 Bonuses when items are equipped: Skill Bonuses (such as 0 +(1–5) Engineering) and the Equipment Bonuses (such as +25 Evasion).
    • Some items have a Skill Bonus, an Equipment Bonus, or both.
    • I started adding another row to a number of items called Equip Bonus. While half of the items will always say 'None', the other half will show the Equipment Bonus in the proper location (separated from Skill Bonus). Same goes for Skill Bonus for those items that only have an Equipment Bonus. Comments or suggestions to separate to another row or keep in the Skill Bonus row?
    • I find it easier to separate them because a) they are 2 distinct bonus types and will play more of a role in PvP, b) every time I check an item to one that I'm equipping to one of my own crew, I am forced to verify if there is an Equipment Bonus every time if it's not listed.
    • Eeb3 is just adding 'No Passive Ship Bonus to the Skill Bonus row, but it looks awkward and is really not in the correct location.
  • I changed CodeHydro's use of the icon Accuracy Bonus on the Ancient Watch item page to be consistent with all other item pages to show +40 Accuracy.
    • I will attempt to add to the Bonus template the ability to add Equipment Bonuses - type bonus|40|acc and display +40 Accuracy - this way if it needs to be changed later, it can be done through the template.

Jello (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2016 (CDT)

New Main Page Poll Suggestion

Id like to suggest that we start having new polls on the main page every month, or every 2 months. (It is currently the same poll that has been up since January 15th, 2016 Here is a suggestion for a new poll for the main page:

Who is your favorite Star Trek Captain?
James T. Kirk
Jean Luc Picard
Benjamin Sisko
Kathryn Janeway
Jonathan Archer

--Admiral Titan (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2016 (CDT)

Don't Kill! :-)

Haha, I was getting persistent "Bad Request" and 404 error pages when trying to submit an edit I made. It took me a good quarter of an hour to realize the reason apparently was I started my "Summary" line with the word "kill" x-D For some reason it's forbidden, but it also seems to break down the whole engine. (Chrome, Linux) Try it! Edit something, start the Summary line with "kill", and hit "Show Changes" --Crunch (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2016 (CDT)

Resource breakdowns

I am no coder, so I'm putting this here to see if anyone is and is interested. I think the resource breakdown info they have on this ARK wiki is seriously awesome. Anybody here who could adapt this for this wiki? Jauranna (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2016 (CDT)

It seems that requires a wiki that supports scripts, which this doesn't (yet). User:CodeHydro is trying to address what you ask for, using a set of templates, cfr. Template:ItemX. Click on "What links here" on that page to see which item pages already use it. --Tygra Dax (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2016 (CDT)

New Item Page template

I've made a new template which I hope will help simplify trying to put in items, Currently at:Template:ItemPage.

  • This allows the page to be modular, allowing Basic~Legendary only needed as items are discovered.
  • will append SLINav automatically
  • Will Categorize for Items and Equipment (and the 22 Components) while making the ItemX build pages not categorized in transclusion.
  • File Name for images needed only once, not per rarity.
  • Will link to ItemX from start.

I have done three live pages with this template: Idrin's Armor, Hirogen Hunter Armor, Cortical Monitor
Eeb3 (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2016 (CDT)

Note I had to remove SLINav from the template, otherwise it's not possible to add a Notes section above it. --Crunch (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2016 (CDT)

DropTests with Error 1

To more easily detect DropTests with "Error 1" (=incorrect data), these pages will now auto-add themselves to Category:DropTest Error 1 (please do not create this page, to keep the link color red).
Note that both uninitialized-but-created tests, as well as all missions containing Error 1 tests will be listed there as well. --Crunch (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2016 (CDT)

How to handle drop rate changes prior to v1.4.0?

With the game announcement that drop rates have been changed to prepare for v1.4.0, how do we handle the change with respect to the DropTest templates? --Yoda of Borg (ST Logo.png) 01:04, 30 August 2016 (CDT)

Very good question, and I fear there isn't a simple/optimal solution/answer. I tried to give an answer here: Talk:Missions#New Mission Drop Ratios.
tl;dr: if drop rate change suspected, delete old data, add disclosure note. --Crunch (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2016 (CDT)

Base proficiency max changes?

Whoa, since a few days, several edits are popping up modifying the maximum proficiency values by a small value (2 or 3) for many characters, which cannot be explained by modified items or incorrect data.
Did they adjust the base (=L.1) values of these characters? Which characters are affected, all? Some? Did they announce this? Is there a forum thread for this?
It's wreaking havoc with the Away Team Skills tables, invalidating most entries, and making it almost impossible (or at least a considerable PITA) to reconstruct which values are old, and which have changed, and keeping track of which values already got updated, etc., etc. ... -.- Several examples (click to see the diffs):

How should we handle this? --Crunch (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2016 (CDT)

I now created a thread about this. Further investigation reveals that MOST (but not all) crew members appear to be affected. It's a change in their L.1 skills, which subsequently affects all values up to L.100.
...which means about 250 crew pages need to be adjusted, and then the 6 huge skill pages need to be synced, and all references to any crew stats ANYWHERE in the wiki (for example, on many User pages) will still be outdated. Why would DB *do* this, for a meger and irrelevant +3 skill points? -.- --Crunch (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2016 (CDT)
===> OK, I now created a page where these updates can be tracked: User:Crunch/20160917 DB Proficiency Change
Feel free to contribute! :o)
Note: *if* a crew member got changed, *all* his levels and rarities for that skill are affected, so simply change all values in the Away Team Skills tables by the same amount - no need to re-confirm each and every one of them. --Crunch (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2016 (CDT)


In correcting the recipe for the uncommon Writing PADD (TOS) I made a mistake. I was trying to show that the current version now uses 2 common power cells instead of the one basic. After making the "correction", I belatedly realized I hadn't made the quantity correction. I went back in only to have my eyes swim at the changed script and now I can't make sense of it to make the necessary change, and would appreciate very much some help. (Captain Vorkimus (talk) 09:59, 5 October 2016 (CDT))

No problem, fixed! bntracy (talk) 10:28, 5 October 2016 (CDT)