Intricated (talk | contribs) (Federation-centric?) |
(A logical suggestion by Intricated) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Since we already have the [[Starfleet Security]] article, shouldn't the [[security]] article be left more generic to the topic at hand, and leave specifics on [[Federation]]-based security forces to the former article? So the [[Bajoran Militia]] from [[Deep Space 9]], some mention of [[police|police forces]], etc. may get equal billing? Any Federation-related details can easily be '''merged''' with the Starfleet Security article. - [[User:Intricated|Intricated]] 15:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC) |
Since we already have the [[Starfleet Security]] article, shouldn't the [[security]] article be left more generic to the topic at hand, and leave specifics on [[Federation]]-based security forces to the former article? So the [[Bajoran Militia]] from [[Deep Space 9]], some mention of [[police|police forces]], etc. may get equal billing? Any Federation-related details can easily be '''merged''' with the Starfleet Security article. - [[User:Intricated|Intricated]] 15:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC) |
||
| + | |||
| + | :Makes sense. That would leave this article as little more than a set of links to security-related articles and a definition sorta like: '''Security''' is the general practice of protection of individuals, organizations, property, and regions. Security can be ad hoc or organized, civilian or military, offensive or defensive. Does that make sense? [[User:Aholland|Aholland]] 16:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 16:46, 9 March 2006
Shran asked the question why the second paragraph was italicized. The answer is it was like that before I modified the article and I just kept the formatting. I've no problem either way, but I think he is right that it is best put into a normal font. Aholland 12:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but for the record, I wasn't putting the blame on you, I knew the paragraph was italicized before, I was just wondering why. ;) --From Andoria with Love 12:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Federation-centric?
Since we already have the Starfleet Security article, shouldn't the security article be left more generic to the topic at hand, and leave specifics on Federation-based security forces to the former article? So the Bajoran Militia from Deep Space 9, some mention of police forces, etc. may get equal billing? Any Federation-related details can easily be merged with the Starfleet Security article. - Intricated 15:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Makes sense. That would leave this article as little more than a set of links to security-related articles and a definition sorta like: Security is the general practice of protection of individuals, organizations, property, and regions. Security can be ad hoc or organized, civilian or military, offensive or defensive. Does that make sense? Aholland 16:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)