Wikia

Memory Alpha

Affiliation: Starfleet or United Earth/Federation Starfleet?

37,247pages on
this wiki

Forum page

Forum icon  ForumsTen Forward → Affiliation: Starfleet or United Earth/Federation Starfleet? (replywatch)
This forum discussion has been archived
This forum discussion has been archived and should not be added to. Please visit the Forums to begin a new topic in the relevant location.

I am not sure where else to put this, as this applies to just about every kind of sidebar (people, starships, etc...), but what is the new consensus on how to do this? At one point, I thought the community had agreed that there was just one Starfleet and to eventually (after I brought it up once before) to edit the sidebars to say that (in the affiliation fields). However, as of late, these fields have been getting edited to say "United Earth Starfleet", so... I want to ask, what should it be? To me, there seems to be just one Starfleet, and quite frankly it should be one way or another, not one Starfleet article combining everything and then having the sidebars refer to two different Starfleets. That's just confusing as all hell, and mucks things up a bit more then it's worth doing. --Terran Officer 23:10, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

It was my understanding as well that there was only one Starfleet- I thought that was settled. Is it newbies/anons doing it, or regular users? --31dot 23:19, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
According to User talk:Archduk3#Federation Starfleet, you have already participated in one discussion about the same question, and have already been told that all those changes were an honest mistake. -- Cid Highwind 23:25, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

The reason that I bring it up here, Cid, is because despite that discussion, when I made a change to reflect this on NX-01 Enterprise, from "United Earth Starfleet" to "Starfleet" it was changed back (by Archduk3) to say "United Earth Starfleet" so I thought it would be best to try and post someplace where a more community wide discussion could again address it, to prevent edit wars. --Terran Officer 23:29, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll take that back - that is indeed strange, especially if done three days after claiming the earlier edits were mistaken. I agree that it should be either/or, but not both in different places. -- Cid Highwind 23:35, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
I am not sulfur, who made the change back, and I was having a discussion about it with him on IRC before getting distracted. While I see the point of listing the government and then the service, and I don't really care either way, but if we are going to do it it should be to the correct name. - Archduk3 23:46, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

I apologize, I did not see Sulfur's name in the recent changes on changing it to "Earth Starfleet", but if the government is to be listed too (somewhat understandable) then it needs to be done in a way that it's not saying "United Earth Starfleet" is the name of the organization, when the attempt is to say "United Earth" is the government and "Starfleet" is the organization it's operated by. Principally, I think the actual operators of the ship can work in this case (Although, they do say "Federation Starship..." in TNG and what not) --Terran Officer 23:51, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it back for the moment. For what it's worth, not many pages link to the available redirects Earth Starfleet and United Earth Starfleet - so if there are any further "offenders", they probably use some piped link construct that they really shouldn't. Are there any examples? -- Cid Highwind 23:54, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
Most links are [[United Earth]] [[Starfleet]] or just [[Earth]] [[Starfleet]]. It seems like there might have been a bot run when the articles were merged to separate them, that or someone spent a lot of time "fixing" them. - Archduk3 23:58, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, in the introduction of the very same page, the link to Starfleet reads "Earth Starfleet" while written to appear as Starfleet. In any case, I would hope there aren't people thinking that I am making to big of a deal on this, I just want to know what sort of edits I should be making. There is also a further complication, because for instance, T'Pol served Starfleet and not United Earth, this is likely the sort of thing where I started wondering (aside from the Starfleets being merged into one page some time ago). As for the other's, I don't know right off, but one can visit the redirect page directly and view the "what links here" part to see which pages use the "off name" (or however we want to say this). --Terran Officer 00:00, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

From what I've read on all the different pages where this had been discussed in the past, "[United] Earth Starfleet" hasn't ever been used on the show - just "Starfleet". The "Federation Starfleet" has been called that a couple of times, but mostly just "Starfleet" as well. So, any link to the organization should go to Starfleet - and if there will ever be consensus to split, it should probably be to Starfleet (United Earth) and Starfleet (United Federation of Planets), and nothing else.
Another question is whether it makes sense to also name the "mother organization" - and if it makes sense, how to do that. [[United Earth]] [[Starfleet]] is not a good way, in my opinion, because it suspiciously looks like the [[United Earth Starfleet]] we're just trying to avoid. If anything, it should probably be [[Starfleet]]/[[United Earth]] (note order and '/') or [[Starfleet]] ([[United Earth]]). So... is it sensible to name not only the organization one is affiliated with, but also its "parent"? How is this handled in other circumstances, both here and perhaps on WP? -- Cid Highwind 10:47, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
It seems weird to list the government second, since it runs Starfleet, for all intensive purposes, not the other way around. As for if it should even be mentioned, it seems all Klingon ships only mention the Empire, not the Defence Forces, and the Romulan ships are the same way, so it seems only Starfleet ships mention the organization instead of the government. - Archduk3 21:37, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
Just an idea, but how about we do that for all articles? I mean, just list the government they are affiliated to, since that is where the loyalty ultimately lies. For example, Starfleet ships would simply be "United Federation of Planets" or "United Earth" depending on the era, whereas Klingon ships state "Klingon Empire", Romulan ships "Romulan Star Empire" etc etc. Any thoughts? --| TrekFan Open a channel 21:45, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be like that would be kind of messy, as while the government is what they are "loyal" to (Although for many instances of Klingon warriors and ships, that's debatable), I think to keep things neat, the operational organization should be listed (that is, Starfleet, Klingon Defense Force, etc...) In the case of service personnel, their employment (Starfleet, Klingon Defense Force, Etc...). In fact, at one point that is precisely what I was doing onto the articles I was making the edits on. Also, while I tend to argue differently for the categories (for whatever reason, my mind works in strange ways...), in terms of a sidebar I feel that a linked employment (who they work for or whatever) is enough as that itself can lead to Federation, Klingon Empire, etc... If it is, however, decided to use both, my suggestion is this (for Starfleet personnel) [[United Federation of Planets]]<br/>[[Starfleet]] To me, that will look a little neater, and while being a bit... listy, will not give wrong impressions at first glance. In addition, I am of the opinion that this format, can allow a certain "order" to be used and make the Federation the dominate, or the "primary" loyalty area (or however you want to describe it). This can be done with Klingon warriors and warships, Romulan service members, etc... At least, I find that idea a bit more visually appealing then using slashes or simply writing out "Federation Starfleet" and appealing to the belief a general will read it as we do (or supposed to, anyway) "The United Federation of Planets and Starfleet" (although I'll be honest, in that format, it was telling me the organization was called Federation Starfleet). Basically, I guess I mean that using just who they "work" for is better as one does not always equal the other, even in Starfleet (although I guess that is rare). I also wish to apologize for taking so long to respond, I had not realized that there were additional replies. --Terran Officer 05:18, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

Jumping on the back of your comments, Terran Officer, perhaps we could list it in order like you might do for a place, for example; "[[Starfleet]]<br />[[United Federation of Planets]]" or "[[Starfleet]]<br />[[United Earth]]" or "[[Klingon Defense Force]]<br />[[Klingon Empire]]". This would obviously produce something like:
Starfleet
United Federation of Planets
This would result in having bothh the organisation and the government there while still looking (IMO anyway) smart in the sidebar. Again, just putting it out there. --| TrekFan Open a channel 05:34, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

It seems fine, except that some of the others (and perhaps rightly so, I don't know) expressed potential confusion by listing, say, Starfleet first, and then the UFP. My line of thinking, that is, if it's decided to change this yet again, and list multiple things, would be to list the UFP first, then Starfleet. The "higher up" first, so to speak. Though, I am pretty certain we could just do "Starfleet" and be fine. This is added even more so, in that I considered the Affiliation line (and seen it rightly used as such many times) for the organization the individual directly works for (Starfleet, Klingon Defense Force, Etc...). This is certainly how I see it done on many other wikis, and it's a lot less confusing and clutter to me. Also, let us remember for an instance like Nog, while he certainly worked for Starfleet, I'd hardly say his "affiliation" was to the UFP, certainly he wasn't a citizen as such. --Terran Officer 05:52, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

Without going into too much detail about Nog, I do believe it has been stated that all Starfleet officers are Federation citizen which would, of course, include him. However, back to the matter at hand, I don't really have much opinion on it either way other than we do need to establish a consistent format - whatever that might be. Perhaps we could consider adding/changing the title of the field in the template? Something along the lines of what wikipedia does, maybe:
Affiliation: United Federation of Planets
Service: Starfleet
What do you think? --| TrekFan Open a channel 06:07, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

Nog needed a letter of recommendation from Captain Sisko because he wasn't a Federation citizen, but I digress... As for your suggestion, a small part of me was going to consider suggesting a reformatting of the sidebar at one point... having messed with a few on various wikies I've come to learn that sometimes... less is more. Anyway, moving back into your suggestion, any examples on the pages where Wikipedia does this? As for an answer, I suppose I wouldn't be none to opposed to that, Service/Employer or something along the lines that's if it's decided that we should show such things in all instances (Federation in Affiliation, etc...). I don't know, at times I feel like that's enough, at times I feel like its too vague when we have many characters were this wouldn't properly apply, but nonetheless, your idea is interesting. I'd support it, if the community decides this is what they want (but for the moment at least, I'm down with just saying Starfleet instead of Federation Starfleet, etc...) --Terran Officer 06:29, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I got the idea from looking at Notable military figures such as John J. Pershing, James T. Conway, Bernard Montgomery and Winston Churchill. As regards to Nog, I know he had to be sponsored by Sisko as his planet wasn't in the Federation, but I believe he became a de facto citizen when he was eventually permitted to join Starfleet. --| TrekFan Open a channel 06:42, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
[edit conflict] - Unlike almost every other organization out there, Starfleet has been shown to be under the auspices of at least two very different governments. That is not to say that they are different organizations, just that not all members of Starfleet were with the Federation. The more I think on that, the more I'm convinced that the government at least has to be mentioned. Civilians are affiliated with their government, when know, and joining another governments exploration force clearly affiliates you with them, regardless of your citizenship. Now, since almost every other organization out there doesn't have this problem, I don't think we need another call in the templates, just an agreed upon format for displaying the information. With that said, I'm for [government]<br />[Starfleet]. - Archduk3 06:57, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
Like I said before, I'm not particularly fussed as long as we have a consistent look, however, I always thought that when you're talking about a person, you always go up to the greatest organisational level not down. For example: Jean-Luc Picard, Captain, Starfleet, United Federation of Planets - OR - (real world) James F. Amos, General, Chief of Staff, United States Marine Corps. --| TrekFan Open a channel 07:28, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
This effects more than just people, and we want to look consistent throughout. Also, that example just points out that we should be placing the government before Starfleet; USA isn't necessary since the government was identified at the same time as the organization, and the organization and government use the same call. - Archduk3 07:46, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'll agree on:
United Federation of Planets
Starfleet
if everyone else does. --| TrekFan Open a channel 07:51, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say that every civilian is automatically affiliated with their government (but then I guess I don't know how that works), even United Earth/Federation citizens (but again...) and even more so, then people who joined Starfleet (trek has shown us that one does not always equal the other). T'Pol for instance, I would say she isn't serving United Earth, but Starfleet... but whatever. Still, I would say that simply saying "Starfleet" is enough, but I think what we should further do is this: what is our meaning behind affiliation? Because in many instances, its the persons employer, in starships its the operational authority/owner. As for the organizational thing, TrekFan, your also combining titles/ranks/positions, of which the sidebars has separate fields for, but I guess I kind of see what your trying to say. So I guess my core point in this response is to define what we mean by Affiliation, as like I said, in most instances, it seems to be employer. --Terran Officer 08:24, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to say that one is used more than the other right now, since it's all over the map more or less with non-Starfleet members, seems to be far more government than organization for non-Starfleet ships, and most of the Starfleet ships and people mention both the government and organization unless there has been recent activity. We are talking about more than just Starfleet here, since any decision will effect the rest. - Archduk3 08:44, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

Well for what it's worth, I have been working on changing that in the ships, too, when I am actually working on such edits. Also, the Naval ships of the US are US Government property, etc., etc., but on Wikipedia information toward their Naval operation and service is the focus of the article, sidebar, categories, etc... Here it's different, they definitely say "Federation Starship" but that's because those ships, much like say, Enterprise CVn-65 represents the US Government. Anyway, I also said in many cases, not all, which is why we should "define" what we want it to mean, TrekFan's suggest looks a bit more appealing to me now (and probably of the very reason the real world articles on Wikipedia do this as well), there's a lot of ships/stations/people where such extra fields can be of use (and being optional, why not add it? There's a lot more people who's family isn't mentioned then there is, yet we have fields for familial connections). Anyway, I suppose either way would work for me, just saying "Starfleet" or "Klingon Defense Force", etcc... or "United Federation of Planets" (new line) "Starfleet" or Affiliation: United Federation of Planets Service: Starfleet do as well (and mind you, this example is being used on Fed/Starfleet but I mean everything it can be done with). --Terran Officer 17:12, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

My problem with new fields is what we call them. Affiliation wouldn't work anymore, since we would then have two fields now that could be considered an affiliation call. - Archduk3 18:11, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia uses "Allegiance" and "Service"? --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:22, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

Allegiance probably works for me, again I have to ask if we really want to do this, most seem happy just mentioning one thing, but I can see the reasoning behind the need to mention them both. I still think that we shouldn't always assume one equals the other, particularly for citizens and non Federation citizens (and non United Earth citizens). In either case, if this is really wanted, I would be willing to go for Allegiance and then Service, for lack of better terms, and they can fit most (if not all) usage instances. --02:16, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Those really only work on people pages. What about the ships? - Archduk3 07:40, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Ships could perhaps use an Operators line instead of Affiliation, and the "Affiliation" could perhaps be builders or "owners" or something along the lines. Wikipedia does it in a similar format like that seen here. --Terran Officer 08:33, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

In a further remark that I had meant to say, the ship articles, many of them, as it is, already describe Starfleet (as seen on Starfleet controlled ship) as Operators, at least a few do, so something along those lines, I think, can work. --Terran Officer 08:35, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Why not make it:
  • United Earth/Federation/Terran Empire
    • Starfleet
Seems better than removing the government. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 04:40, March 7, 2011 (UTC)

If that's the format to be used, it would be best to implement new field calls into the sidebars, using a system similar to how Wikipedia does it (as linked above). I would say something along the line of "Government" and "Service" would be the way to go. --Terran Officer 04:43, March 7, 2011 (UTC)

I've been mulling this over the past week, and I'm not liking the options as is. "Allegiance" and "Service" are my main problems, since "Owners", we know from ST:IV that the Federation owns Starfleet ships, and "Operators" are pretty clear in what they are and used commonly enough. Allegiance, though, is not the same as nationality as I understand it, and interstellar states aren't nations, so using it for a field that is essentially a nationality call in most cases seems just wrong to me. I also don't like the "sound" of it either. "Service" has the problems of not really working with things that aren't military service. The ECS may be a "service," but it isn't a "Service," if you catch my drift. There must be some better options for those two. - Archduk3 03:42, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

I'd be fine with "Owners" and "Operators" simple, basic and to the point and can "translate" across the multiple species, governments and organizations as seen throughout the franchise. This works on spacecraft and space stations, is that what you were saying or the entire thing as a whole (which means re-figuring out people)? --Terran Officer 03:48, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not liking the suggestions for people. Owners and Operators were the suggestions for objects, more or less, and I'm fine with those. - Archduk3 05:07, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

Well, service would fit for people but I guess I can kind of see what you mean, people are trickier because there are some that are just civilians or something similar. The only thing I could only really consider still, is to use Affiliation and not use the line of thinking that one does not automatically equal the other, but I know people have decided that we should do that (when honestly? That isn't true, even in the real world). The only thing I can consider is to set up multiple potential fields, something like "Government" and "Organization" or whatever for say, Starfleet, Klingon Defense Force, Romulan military officers, etc... while civilians use something like... well, I don't know. --Terran Officer 05:15, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

Lacking a better solution, we should just make the standard this for now:
Affiliation = [Government]<br />[Organization]
It's not perfect, but it does show both without the implied single name; also, this is how wikipedia does it. The subject can always be reopened if better idea surface. - Archduk3 02:12, March 25, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with that until we can come to a general consensus one way or another. I have been thinking about this and I was wondering, perhaps "Affiliation" should just simply mean the first level of their loyalty. For example, for Starfleet officers it would simply be "Starfleet" as Starfleet itself is affiliated to the Federation and so the person would be by extension? For Klingon officers it would be the KDF as the KDF is loyal to the Empire by extenstion and so on... For employers, it would simply be the company or "person (employer)" if a company doesn't exist.--| TrekFan Open a channel 05:22, March 25, 2011 (UTC)
That is basically what I suggested too. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 05:38, March 25, 2011 (UTC)
Getting back to this after a while, I have to ask: isn't this very similar to our categorization scheme, where we avoid categorizing some object in both a category and its direct parent category? In my opinion, it is not sensible to generally list both an organization and the government that runs said organization. Some exception may exist, but I can't see a necessary one at the moment... -- Cid Highwind 20:25, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
Having thought about this a lot, I tend to agree. I think we should simply list the first level up, i.e. Starfleet, Klingon Defense Forces, Tal'Shiar and not the government. If someone clicks on "Starfleet" to find out more info, they will be presented with a link to "United Federation of Planets" anyway. --| TrekFan Open a channel 20:30, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
If this was similar to our categories, and I'm not suggesting that it is, the closest analogy would be starbases and space stations. Not all Starbases are space stations, which is why Deep Space 9 is in both categories. Not all persons affiliated with Starfleet are also affiliated with the Federation, so a distinction should be made to be as complete and accurate as possible. Is this distinction required for all organizations? No, but it is for the most predominant organization. Saying someone is affiliated with Starfleet is the same as saying they served on the Enterprise, it's true, but not really helpful when you look at the big picture. - Archduk3 21:34, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
You're opening a big can of worms there, though. For how many Starfleet members can we honestly state, without any speculation, whether they are also members of the UFP? -- Cid Highwind 21:39, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
Irrelevant, "joining another governments exploration force clearly affiliates you with them, regardless of your citizenship." - Archduk3 21:51, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
You yourself just said that we should list both, exactly because being affiliated with one doesn't necessarily mean to be affiliated with the other. Now you're stating the exact opposite - but if being affiliated with Starfleet "automatically" means to be affiliated with the UFP, there's not need to list both of them. That is exactly the argument I've made two posts ago, and which others have made before. -- Cid Highwind 21:59, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
Being affiliated with the organization affiliates you with the government currently running it, not every government that ever did. The concept shouldn't be that hard to grasp. - Archduk3 22:08, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
Are we already at the step where you become dismissive only to accuse me of the same later on? Let's not go there again. Back to the point, I'm not sure if there's any organization other than (Earth/UFP) Starfleet that has been shown to be "run" by different governments. So, even if this "auto-affiliation" scheme was correct (and I'm not yet convinced of that), it would still be completely unnecessary in all cases that are not the exception to the implicit rule of "one organization/one government". We should not "generally" list both an organization and its government but, if at all, only in exceptional cases. -- Cid Highwind 09:36, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
So, I'm just going to leave this at I disagree with you, since you seem to insist on being deliberately disruptive and can't be bothered to even read what's already been said. - Archduk3 15:50, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
Just because I don't share your opinion about something doesn't mean I haven't "read what's been said" - that's actually a pretty egocentric statement to make. I have read what's been said, and I still don't like the idea of adding a government as an additional affiliation to thousands of personnel articles (or keeping it where it has been added already), because it would be either superfluous (if auto-affiliation works as you suggest) or speculative (if auto-affiliation doesn't work as you suggest).
If the issue still is to be able to determine "which" Starfleet we're talking about, then why don't we concentrate on finding a way that does that without adding another affiliation to the person, which may or may not be true? -- Cid Highwind 19:29, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm not entirely convinced of this auto affiliation thing, Nog and T'Pol were with Starfleet and were non Federation/United Earth citizens (they needed the help of Sikso/Archer respectively to join), at least I haven't seen evidence that they were (even after joining). So to me, saying both in the sidebars would seem a bit speculative and somewhat clutterish as well. Another thing is, why are we still on the issue of "Which" Starfleet? Starfleet is Starfleet, it was long ago agreed by the community to merge the two Starfleet articles into one for lack of evidence that they were any different (if anything, evidence suggested they were one in the same). Finally, I was going to suggest to use the word "Allegiance" I think it fits, because there's a trek episode with that word (or was it Allegiances?), TNG I think it was (A Worf episode, was it not?). --Terran Officer 02:20, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

To pipe in here, I agree with TerranOfficer (in the interest of full disclosure, I did not read all of the discussion above). I don't recall it ever being stated that, if you are affiliated with Starfleet, you are, by default, affiliated with the Federation. Quite frankly, I think that good arguments could be made for both sides, with the actual answer being somewhere in between. Therefore, for simplicity's sake, I would vote to keep it simply Starfleet, all the implications of which would then flow from the reader's interpretation of affiliation. -Angry Future Romulan 14:05, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
The definition of the word affiliation at both the Webster and Oxford English dictionaries makes it clear that if you are affiliated with the organization, you must be affiliated with the government. In canon, in the 23rd and 24th centuries Starfleet has been known to take orders directly from the Federation Council and the President of the United Federation of Planets. In the 22nd century, Starfleet Command is at least affiliated with the United Earth Space Probe Agency, and Starfleet guards the United Earth Embassy. There is no evidence to even suggest that Starfleet exists outside the purview of either the Federation or United Earth. Being in Starfleet without being affiliated with the government running it is the same thing as being in the SS without being affiliated with the Nazis. Also, here's some quick points that were already mentioned but have been brought up again:
  • Affiliation does not have to mean citizenship. A second call for "citizenship" (when known) could be added to further the distinction if necessary.
  • I didn't like "Allegiance" the first time it was brought up, I still don't.
  • There is only one Starfleet run by two different governments. No one but Cid has suggested otherwise.
  • There is no current standard, thought most pages read [Government] Starfleet and have for a long time. There is no way to keep things the way they are.
If people still have a problem with the definition of affiliation, then a different word needs to be found. - Archduk3 15:53, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see how those dictionary entries make it absolutely clear beyond a doubt that this is how "affiliating with sth." works - but the point is and has been for a while: it doesn't really matter. If it works like that, then listing the "inevitable circumstantial affiliation" in addition to the "direct affiliation" still isn't too sensible.
Let's have a closer look at an example that has been given above: we have Sisko, who is a member of Starfleet and, independently, a Federation citizen - and we have Nog, who is a Starfleet member and, according to your definition, also affiliated with the Federation. He is not a Federation citizen, though. The problem then is twofold: on the one hand, something that all Starfleet members after 2161 share (making it pretty much a non-information), their "circumstantial affiliation", is listed as if it was some important information. On the other hand, listing this non-information actually hides a fact that is much more important - the fact that one is also a Federation citizen while the other one isn't (and a third one may have an inconclusive status of citizenship).
Perhaps there really is a problem with understanding the way "affiliation" is being used here - but perhaps it isn't on the side of "we people". "Affiliation" is being used here in the "membership" sense - and has been all along. It is not necessarily used in the "chain-of-allegiance" sense ("allegiance" itself being used loosely here, not as a call to go for a separate "Allegiance" field) that you seem to make out as the only correct interpretation of "affiliation". If a "Citizenship" field (as already suggested above) is considered necessary, it should be an independen entry - but the current "Affiliation" field (as "membership" entry) should only list the direct affiliation. -- Cid Highwind 17:23, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
Just to surmize my opinion, I agree that only "Starfleet" should be listed since that is their primary affiliation. Anything else can be figured out if necessary and should be in the main body of the article anyway. The government is not needed. --| TrekFan Open a channel 17:29, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Don't know why people have a problem with Allegiance, hell that would work better with the followers of Nero and Kahn, but anyway, if it's going to be left "Affiliation" like several others are saying, I say just Starfleet. If need. Regardless of what 'affiliation' means one way or another, there's clearly different interpretations of this going on. --Terran Officer 19:31, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing against "Affiliation" or "Allegiance" (since I suggested the latter!). I was arguing the point to just mention Starfleet and not the UFP. Either one of the field titles will do fine, IMO. --| TrekFan Open a channel 19:38, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki