Talk:United States military

US Space Command

As an Air Force colonel, I can vouch that the article is factually accurate. 155.84.57.253 29 July 05

I have no question as to the accuracy -- but I have to question the relevance if the Space Command was never mentioned on Star Trek -- beyond the homage present in the insignia. perhaps other archivists have views on this? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 19:04, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I dont recall it being mentioned in the reference cited. --Alan del Beccio 20:16, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)

The inaccuracy notice is because this article mentions the space Command in relation to the Phoenix in Star Trek: First Contact -- but the US Space Command was not at all mentioned in First Contact. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 21:05, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Nitrogen wasn't mentioned either, but an atmosphere consisting mostly of it was everywhere in the movie. All US missile sites belong to US Space Command, whether mentioned or not. Please note it was called "old" US Space Command missile site, indicating that Space Command no longer operated it. --User:WehrWolf 21:16, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's excellent article on Star Trek:First Contact establishes that there is only one missile base in Montana; it's Malmstrom AFB. And wouldn't you know it, it's a base under the command and control of US Space Command. [1]

The startrek.com website describes the site as being in central Montana - I just looked at a map and it doesn't get more central than Malmstrom AFB. [2]

However, several Enterprise episodes have established that the complex was in Bozeman, which is about 125 miles from Malmstrom. [3] -- SmokeDetector47 // talk

Yes, but let me explain how a missile base works: the main base contains the command and control functions, and the dependent missile sites are dispersed in the countryside for a radius of several hundred miles. These sites are accessed for shift changes (shifts are several days long) by helicopter. The reason they are dispersed, is so an enemy attack on any of them will not destroy all of them. --User:WehrWolf 22:00, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)

But is there a missile base in Bozeman? Under the jurisdiction of Malmstrom? Regardless, this is still very much speculation and should be confined to background notes in an appropriately-titled article, as mentioned in the VfD. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 23:08, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)

The word is site, rather than base, and the exact location of missile sites are classified. I'm sure the Russians and the Chinese know where they all are though. The key thing is that any missile site in central Montana would be under the jurisdiction of Malmstrom AFB --User:WehrWolf 23:13, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against any of your points any missile base or site in Montana today would be under the jurisdiction of the Space Command. This is not in question.

Do you have the knowledge to tell me what is going to happen in Montana in 2006? or 2016? Can you guarantee that Malmstrom is going to exist in its current state in 2036? and that the Space Command will be administrated exactly the same way in 2046?

Assuming that the answer is "no" and you cannot foresee the future, I'd ask why you think it is necessary to make broad assumptions like this. This would risk our articles becoming completely uninformative if they contained so much speculation rather than what Memory Alpha was designed to be: A repository of data about what happened and was mentioned on Star Trek.

None of this has been mentioned on Star Trek.

Let me draw a parallel: In 1945 there was no US Air Force. A writer in 1945 would write about the US Army Air Corps, because he would be completely unaware that in later decades there would be a USAF created.

So that writer would be wrong by using undue speculation to write about the 1980s exploits of the US Army Air Corps. Just as I think it is completely erroneous to speculate that the US Space Command of 2005 might be the same organization in 2050 when WWIII starts, or that a Montana AFB would even be there in 2050, let alone trying to make assumptions about what its role is in WWIII

Please try to limit the contributions here to things that are relevant to Star Trek without making all of these assumptions.-- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 23:34, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Moved from Votes for deletion

Wikipedia's excellent article on Star Trek:First Contact establishes that there is only one missile base in Montana; it's Malmstrom AFB. And wouldn't you know it, it's a base under the command and control of US Space Command. [4]--WehrWolf 22:32, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)

But again, this is the real world and not the Star Trek universe. Who's to say that there weren't other missile bases constructed during World War III, or that there weren't more bases in the Trek universe? It's quite clear that "our" reality is totally different from the history established in the Trek reality, i.e. there were no Khans or DY-100s or multiple Voyager probes. That said, some of the article could probably be moved to something more descriptive, like missile complex (Montana) or missile complex (Phoenix). -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 22:45, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but it's a 20th century missile, rather than a 21st century missile - ergo a 20th century missile base. WehrWolf 22:47, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)

The Phoenix was built from a Titan V, which doesn't even exist in reality so it's impossible to know when the missiles were introduced. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 23:01, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)

However, the Phoenix page says "The missile type the Phoenix is constructed from comes from the Star Trek Fact Files, and as such, should not be treated as canonical." The missile that it most closely resembles is a Titan II, and the Titan V could easily be an upgrade. [5]

PNA-cite

Is the design of that badge really based on Treks "delta insignia design", or is this just wishful thinking? Unless someone can cite a reliable resource for that, it needs to go, and the image probably with it. -- Cid Highwind 22:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion at the top of the page would appear to be your "source", at least according to those who have allowed it to remain-- in terms of the US Space Command ref. --Alan del Beccio 22:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Beg to differ. Nothing in that discussion is about the "delta" in the symbol. That is the problem here. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 22:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to hold anyone's hand here, but Image_talk:USSC.jpg/Image talk:USAFbadge.jpg. Apparently Captain Mike made the decision to keep them to display the similarities, despite the 3:1/3:2 vote to delete. --Alan del Beccio 23:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Your still missing the point. We need a citation on the claim that the "delta" in the symbol was inspired or influenced by the Star Trek symbol. That is what this is about, not an IFD, or VFD, or anything like that. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 23:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for holding my hand, Alan, but the decision of someone here to keep an image is not a proper source for the apparent claim that the USSC badge was intentionally designed to be similar to some insignia from Star Trek. -- Cid Highwind 23:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I now checked several possible resources, including Wikipedia:United States Space Command, Wikipedia:Space and Missile Badge and several US governmental sites. None of them repeats the claim that their logo is based on a Trek insignia - it might still be an inofficial joke someone managed to sneak in, but I doubt even that. Anyway, without a proper source, I'm now removing that part of the background section to a subsection here... -- Cid Highwind 14:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article

See above discussion

File:USSC.jpg

US Space Command assignment patch

File:USAFbadge.jpg

US Space Operations rating badge

Although never mentioned on Star Trek, the 21st century space operations of the US are now under the jurisdiction of the US Space Command. Space Command is responsible for military space operations and missile defense for the US and her allies. Of particular note to the Star Trek universe is the Space Command rating badge and assignment patch, both of which contain a delta insignia very similar to the arrowhead insignia used beginning in the original Trek. Like the space shuttle Enterprise (OV-101), this is another example of Star Trek influencing modern space operations.

Image talk:USAFbadge.jpg / USAFbadge.jpg

iVfD for US Space Command

Image:USSC.jpg and Image:USAFbadge.jpg

The US Space Command is also under deletion vote, these have never been seen on Star Trek as far as I know. While the resemblance is striking, where is this supposed "canon" coming from? - AJHalliwell 02:47, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: I would attempt to find a website to link to, rather than having the image saved here. --Alan del Beccio 19:51, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: The parallels between these badges and starfleet assignment badges is unmistakeable. --Captain Jack 09:21, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but the information about the badges would qualify as being of interest. Captainmike has moved it to the United States armed forces page, but perhaps it would be better served as background info at Starfleet emblem, with external links to relevant images? -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 23:03, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)

• Well the information is certainly relevant to both the US and to Starfleet -- its a comparison between a US badge and a Starfleet badge -- so the pictures would be acceptable on both pages, United States armed forces and Starfleet uniform or Starfleet insignia. I'd say we could keep the images as long as they are used in background sections, for comparison, but not as the centerpiece of their own articles. (re: Memory Alpha:Votes for deletion) -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 23:53, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)

US Air Force Section & Navy combat aviators

If the Army having more combat aviators than the Air Force isn't acceptable content, then the same notation about the Navy and its carriers isn't acceptable either. This was very arbitrary.--WehrWolf 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Moved from: Talk:Star Trek personalities with military service

Not to disrespect those who served in the military, but... is this article really necessary? It just seems kind of... random, I guess. --From Andoria with Love 03:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Without taking a stance on whether this is necessary or not, I have this to ask. What other careers are we going to do articles for? Doctors? Dentists? Historians? --OuroborosCobra ^talk 03:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much my worry. If we're doing articles on those who served in the military, we might as well do articles for those who have served in other jobs. That would be kinda ridiculous, methinks. --From Andoria with Love 05:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

My view is that due to the prevalence of military veterans in Star Trek, especially in the early Star Trek series where no less than three of the actors and three members of the senior production staff were all military members, that is substantial enough to discuss in an article. This veteran status might have had something to do with the way Star Trek itself was formed, at the very least the manner in which some of the episodes were written. Then we hve the fascinating bit of trivia that not one of the actors who has played a Starfleet Captain was ever actually in the military (I found that rather fascinating, actually). So, in conclusion, by the pure letter of the law and strict interpretation of MA policies, this article probably wouldn't be allowed to exist but its a good subject to have Also, as it expands, there will in the end be a database of every single Star Trek personality who was in the military which would be a very informative Memory Alpha article to say the least. In reference to the last bit, an article about Star Trek personailites who were also in the medical profession would be interesting, if there were enough of them to form a list (you could merge dentists in there too). Historians you probably couldn't find enough of them, but it would be worthy of a try. -FleetCaptain 05:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we'd also have to create an article about Star Trek personalities who earned a sciences degree, because Star Trek is even more about discovering, "boldly going where no one has gone before" than the military. As Star Trek is also atheist (at least Gene Roddenberry's version of it) we could also add a list about Star Trek actors who are atheists. Next, we could do a list about actors who are married to other Star Trek actors, or a list about real life Doctors on Star Trek, people who are intersted in archaelogy, like Picard, or own a pet, like Picard, Janeway and Archer... Next step would be something along the lines of "actors that are heterosexual/homosexual" (I think we've nearly been there before...) You know where this is going. I, personally, don't see the use of having a list of all actors (even guest roles?) who served in the military, but this is just my non-military-background-point-of-view, I guess. --Jörg 06:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm... we could also do one on Star Trek personalities who are cross-dressers... and then there's Star Trek people who eat at Wendy's... oh, and don't forget Star Trek folks who have had gall bladder surgery. :P -- Renegade54 16:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If I may politely say that being sarcastic doesn't help improve articles. If the fact that Star Trek personalities were members of a certian profession directly influenced the development of the show, then yes an article could be created. Star Trek personalities with medical degress would be interesting as would a database of what degrees the Star Trek people hold (I would guess most of them are in acting). Homosexuality in Star Trek would also be something to investigate, espeically wioth George Takei's recent coming out. As for this article, as previously stated there were at least three major actors and four production staff who were all in the military as well as numerous guest stars. One could argue it influenced the writing and development of the show, indeed Gene Roddenberry wrote the whole Wesley Crusher getting a field commission story arch based on his own experiences involoving officer commissions in World War II. So instead of bashing the article and making snide suggestions, lets all work together to imnprove it. Thank you. -FleetCaptain 19:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

While I do feel the sarcasm may have gone a little too far, it makes a good point. There are thousands of things we could make lists about this way, and I don't feel they are encyclopedic. So what if George Takei came out? Does that suddenly make a list of homosexual actors encyclopedic? In fact, without then making a list of heterosexual actors, we could be accused of singling out homosexual ones improperly, and even with a heterosexual list we could be accused of the same thing. Yes, this information is important and interesting, and that is why it is already on (or should be) the individual performers pages, not as a separate list. Remember that MA is not suposed to just be a trivia site, and an article like this strikes me as having not much more than trivia value. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 19:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

To Flush it out or Merge it back?

After hearing the opinions about the matter, yes this could be seen as a “trivia only” article, however my original reason for writing it was to discuss the various personalities of Star Trek that have been in the military and how such military veteran status influenced the development of the show. As there has been this much fire about it in only two days of existence, the article is probably doomed for failure (does Memory Alpha have a VfD process?). The choices are either to continue to flush the article out, expand the table and add in more material (which could take months) or simply merge the table back into United States armed forces as background information. The second choice I’d be fine with, since a listing of which Star Trek people served in the military would be very interesting and boasting to the armed forces article. -FleetCaptain 20:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to lean toward the USAF page. I think that it makes the most sense as BG information on that page. But that may just be me. -- Sulfur 21:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, a merge back with the Armed Forces page, with corresponding blurbs (already) in actor pages, would seem to make sense. In particular, also because the only article links to this page are from the US armed forces page and from Leonard Nimoy's page. --umrguy42 21:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. -FleetCaptain 22:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments moved

Comments on insignia moved to Talk:United States military insignia

Burton's father

Removed this comment on Burton's father (LeVar Burton's father was a career Army NCO, serving over twenty years before retiring just short of his son's rise to fame in Roots.) because I don't believe his father was in Star Trek, so it is not germaine to MA. If LeVar was in the military, it should be mentioned, but not his (or any actor's) relatives.--31dot 18:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Background section might qualify for its own article

I'd like to discuss again the possibility about moving the background section into its own article. We could call it "Star Trek and the U.S. military" or something like that. The article could cover how much Star Trek is based on the U.S. military, how the titles, ranks, and positions are all taken (mostly) from the U.S. Navy, speak on characters we have seen portrayed in the military, and then have an entire section devoted to Star Trek personalities who had served in the military (I am just about done researching every person I could find). This would be a huge project, involving a lot of research and redirecting an emmense amount of links. I don't want to start this unless people agree. The floor is open. -FC 18:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Followup to this: a good example of how a project similar to this was accomplished can be found at: "Shakespeare and Star Trek". -FC 18:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I still stand to what I said last year, I don't see the necessity and the use. If we wanted to add a list of people who served in the military, we could just as well "enhance" the Shakespeare article with a list of people who also acted in a Shakespeare play, I don't see the point of that. This is an interesting project, for sure, but one that doesn't belong on MA. It can be linked, of course, if it is created someplace else, but it shouldn't get its own article on MA. --Jörg 18:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This wouldn't be just a list of people who served in the military, but an article about how the military shaped Star Trek. Maybe have a name like "Star Trek and military references". Given that Roddenberry apparently based the entire concept of Starfleet on the military (in particular the Navy) having an article discussing these influences would be a great addition I feel. It could also mention all the productions in which the military has appeared and explain aspects of Star Trek (like the bridge, duty officer and other real world military terms) which exist on the show. I might make it on a temp page first, then see how it looks and move it in. -FC 00:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to direct this conversation here, where we already had it once before. If that does not suffice, I would prefer we kill off Shakespeare and Star Trek before we create anymore copycat articles that have very minimal relevance to what the rest of us here are trying to build. --Alan 01:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

We actually haven't had this coversation before. The first conversation last time was about making an article about actors, producers, and writers who served in the military. That isn't what I'm talking about doing now. I explained above that this would be a much broader article encompassing how military concepts and ideas have appeared in Star Trek. And I have no plans to copy anything from the Shakesphere article as you suggested, I just used it as a reference to how a project like this could be successful.

I'll probably write the entire thing on a temp page and see how it looks. If it gets imported and people dont like it, we can deal with the deletion vote when and if that happens. -FC 01:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If anyone wishes to follow my progress on this, it can be found at: User:FleetCaptain/Shipyard. -FC 18:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Gees, why all the hostility to Shakespeare and Star Trek? It's a legitimate article about a very large influence and running reference on Star Trek, which is too big for just background on the Shakespeare page.– Cleanse ^talk 06:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving an entire article onto my user page

I understand why this was done but I don't entirely agree with this. The entire article "Military references in Star Trek", including the talk page, was just dumped onto my user page. Another user actually created a sub-page on my user page without asking me or discussing it first and transferred everything to User:FleetCaptain/Military references in Star Trek. I didn't agree to this, didn't discuss it, and never said it was alright. The proper thing to do here would have been to move the article to a temp page in mainspace, or lock the article in pace. NOT create a page inside my own user space without asking and then transfer a huge article over without any consideration. I ask that this entire move be reversed as it was done without my knowledge and I object to someone adding a page to my user page in this fashion. -FC 11:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, this is really getting out of hand... You want to further work on this page, while the majority of participants in the discussion seems to agree that MA is not the place for it. It has been stated that anything like a "community editing" of the article (which will happen and already did happen) only makes matters much more difficult when it comes to reuse of the article content anywhere else outside of MA. It is because of this that the article has been removed from article space to a place where, most probably, only you will further edit. This is surely not meant as an attack on you or "your" article, it actually is the whole community going out of their way to allow you to work on the article for the time being. Yet you complain about it the minute you see it.

If this gets moved back to a place where the community already seems to agree it doesn't belong, I will put the page up for deletion. Again, not to attack you personally, but to get things going instead of them meandering on forever. -- Cid Highwind 12:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The entire point is that that was the rudest thing that ever walked on two legs. One doesnt create a sub-page on someone else's user page and then dump an entire article onto it without discussion. Not to mention that this was supposed to be a dual effort with Shakespeare and Star Trek but noone has proposed any of these measures for that article. You guys got your wish, I've blanked the article and this a done issue. I also never said this was my personal article and I'm not complaining about the article at all. I'm complaining about an admin messing around with my user page without asking. -FC 12:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved this entire thing to User:FleetCaptain/Shipyard which is where it should have gone in the first place. If this move had actually been discussed, then that's where it would have been directed. -FC 12:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk page from Military References Articles

Moved here since a public talk page should not be contained on a private user page. I am open to opinions if we want to move the discussion below to User talk:FleetCaptain/Shipyard but I'm not sure if that's allowed (it probably isn't). Either that or archiving this talk page. -FC 14:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This article

I thought we had said we didn't want another article of this kind? And you said you wanted to wait what everybody thought before creating the article. Now it's here and it can't stay. If it means we have to move the Shakespeare article to another place, I know of a place we can move it to. We are an encyclopedia, articles like this one clearly belong to another place. We'll open the door for all kinds of articles (remember the Star Trek and communism one?). What does the rest think? --Jörg 22:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"It can't stay"? Who has made that determination? I asked for opinions and didn't really get any except the original argument that the list of military people by itself wasn't enough for an article. This article a great deal more than just that list and it will eventually incluide an index of every episode and film that has referenced the military. I don't recall anyone saying I couldn't do this, only some comments that people were against the idea but those arguments didnt address the entire concept of what I was trying to do. -FC 22:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Below is what I wrote at the same time as Jörg... stupid edit conflicts! ;)

And again, with FC!

You know... the problem with this article is not that it is badly written or anything - the problem I see is that it is what Wikipedia calls "Original Research". Memory Alpha is not a full-fledged, all-purpose Trek site for everything - it is an encyclopedia.

As an encyclopedia, it should list information that can be gathered from resources (whether those resources are the shows itself for the in-universe articles, or things like interviews or other web pages for production POV information). An encyclopedia should not be used to create new information - which is exactly what this article does! I don't think it has a place here, although it might be interesting for some other Trek sites. -- Cid Highwind 22:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts:

Most of what's in here is from Inside Star Trek: The Real Story where its explained how Roddenberry came up with the ideas for the miltiary concepts of the show...not OR. Also there is a section which lists episodes where the military has appeared or has been mentioned...also not OR. Not to mention I think this is a far better place for the list of Star Trek personailities with military service than shoved in at the bottom of the United States armed forces article which was not a real world article like this one.

I wish people would give this a chance. I think its well put together. I also didnt put it in the mainspace to cause trouble, but rather to have other people see it and contribute to make it better. True OR can be removed, to be sure, but I was careful about that. I also keep hearing from the same people who are against this and it doesnt look like anything I can say or do will change those people's mind. I mean, come on, within a few minutes of the article going up, we have the comment "it can't stay". I don't understand such dislike for this article. I think this article has great merit and would be a great addition to this site. -FC 22:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Alot of it can be salvaged and merged into a revamped Military page, as background information. We should make sure all the info is properly sourced and stuff obviously (it seems it is legit), but I don't believe it should be outright deleted. Memory Alpha (with a few exceptions) has never really been the place for out-of-universe pages like these (although it's very well-written).--Tim Thomason 22:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

As Cid said, MA is not the place for such an article. We are not Ex Astris Scientia or trekcore.com, we are an Encyclopedia. Go check you hardbound dictionaries at home - you won't find articles like that. The Star Trek Encyclopedia also doesn't feature articles like this one. I have written similar articles for Ex Astris as well, about the evolution of the Federation logo, for example. How it changed over the years, how it was influenced by current logos, who designed the logos etc. Such an article, just like this one, has no place on Memory Alpha because it is not encyclopedic. You put a lot of research into this and this is an interesting read, but it simply has no place here on MA because of the character of the topic, which is not an encyclopedic entry. As to the list of people who were in the military, what we said before still is true. We might just as well create an article about people with blonde hair, people having a science degree, people who love cats, people who speak German and French, people who were also seen on Stargate etc... This is beyond what we want to achieve here, again, it should be hosted someplace else and then can be linked here. --Jörg 22:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I must point out the list of people in the military was added last year by consensus at United States armed forces. And comparing so many people in Star Trek serving in the military with those who have a particular hair color, etc is just silly. Not to mention a discussion which has already been had. -FC 02:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's part of the problem: we've allowed in-universe articles to become gathering places for real-life information under the guise of "background information" in a number of places. For example, the in-universe article on Canada has a listing of real-life Canadians (actors, etc.) at the bottom under the background section. The German articles serves a similar function for production people of German descent. French has a few actors from France in the background section. Great Britain also has a fairly long list of production folks at the bottom of the page. Police mentions Roddenberry in the background section. Religion has a several paragraph treatise on "Religion in Star Trek" in the background section. I'm sure I could find others. Granted, all these examples are of information in background sections, but I think we're skirting the edge of what Jörg is mentioning above. I agree the standalone military references article veers away from the encyclopedic focus we're trying to maintain here, but I also think we need to decide what (and how much) we, as a community, feel is appropriate for background information as well. The list of production people who were in the military is no different than a list of production people from Great Britain (or wherever) - or people with red hair, or people that are Jewish, or people that fly airplanes... or anything else. -- Renegade54 02:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is whether or not the article could survive a deletion vote. I'd be very disappointed if it was deleted, but if it is I plan to maintain it as a sub-page on my own user page (I won't even add back in the military list to the armed forces article). Also, with the Shakesphere article existing for so long without any negative comments, I'm a little bit sad to see so much fire directed this way on the first day of this article's existence. My proposal is that we give this thing maybe 6 months and see how it looks and how people feel about it. I have to say, in at least one case, there are emotions at work here combined with opinions about the discussion from last year about the list of Star Trek people who have served in the military. I think just giving it a chance would be a polite thing to do. Calling for its removal hours after posting it seems to be to be very very harsh and not in line with how most articles are treated on this site. That's my last word for this evening; I wish everyone a good night. -FC 02:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, am entirely supportive of the existence of this page, and Shakespeare and Star Trek. Count on my Keep vote for both.

I am equally disturbed we instantly set upon this article without even giving it a chance. This is a legitimate phenomenon in Star Trek, just as Shakespeare is. Having these articles makes Memory Alpha better, not worse.– Cleanse ^talk 06:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but articles like this and background information like this are not what Memory Alpha is about. Read Memory Alpha:What Memory Alpha is not. It stresses numerous times, that MA is an encyclopedia. The problem with the Shakespeare and the Military article is that it will open the door for even more articles, indeed, even for the Communism and Star Trek article we had here some time ago. If you search and go through the various Behind the Scenes books or DVD commentaries, you will find many many sources that inspired the writers and people behind Trek, that would equally qualify for an own "The influence of XXX on Star Trek article". We have given some outrageous examples, but basically everything would be possible then. Just as you said "But we have an article about Shakespeare and Star Trek", others could say "But we have an article on Shakespeare and the Military in Star Trek" and start their Communism and Star Trek, Religious intolerance and Star Trek, Sexism in Star Trek etc. etc. Those are interesting topics, many books and dissertations have been written about those topics, I've got them here, standing in front of me and have read them. They make an entertaining read, just as your article. But they take away from what Memory Alpha is all about - an Encyclopedia. We are not a collection of well researched articles about the influence of various media and institutions on Trek and vice versa, we are here to list everything that was mentioned and seen in Star Trek. Speculation, perceived parallels, personal opinion, they all don't belong here, especially with topics that might cause tension, as with this one. There's still so much ground to cover, why can't we focus on that for the moment, add all those missing references, from VOY episodes, for example, complete the episode summaries, expand the various missing starship articles, list all appearances of various species, background characters and technical devices, expand the stand-in and stuntman articles, work on the articles we can write about the people working behind the scenes of the new movie etc. Etc.

As to personal grudges or emotions at work. Yes, when I came home last night, I was mad. You had written on the Talk:United States armed forces page, you wanted to "write the entire thing on a temp page and see how it looks. If it gets imported and people don’t like it, we can deal with the deletion vote when and if that happens." and also "' don't want to start this unless people agree.". Both things did not happen, no agreement, no temporary page. This is not about "being bold", this is simply ignoring the concerns that others have raised.

Now, as to our "personal history": you won me over with the Nazi medal and rank articles. At first I didn't see the point, but then, when I saw it finished and after Cid worked together with you to make this a community project, I realized it was a great addition to MA. It's in no way different to when I wrote articles on the various musical instruments seen in Trek, or the pieces of classical music. Now, I also see this Military and Star Trek article is very similar to what I would write as well, it's just something that wouldn't have a place here on Memory Alpha but rather on another site. Should we, as a community, decide that we want to include pieces of original research, longer articles that are beyond pure encyclopedic entries, there would be many cool topics I could think of. But at the moment, I don't see Memory Alpha as the right place for such undertakings. --Jörg 11:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm off to work in a few minutes so to be brief, these are all good comments. I dont think you should really get mad about anything on this website. I mean...its just a website. I actually did work on this at a temp page on my user page for a few days and then imported it in just like I said I would. The hope was to get comments and concerns. I got them! I ask for a bit of time to finish this up. When its all done, if it still has no place here then it can either go back to my user page or I will work with whoever to transwiki it to another webpage which would be fine with me. I think the entire point here is that it went up and within minutes was being fired upon. I will re-read everything on this talk page later and find specific concerns and address them. Until then. -FC 13:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Cease-Fire/In-Use

I added In-Use template to the article as I plan to finish it up over the next one to two weeks and also am doing the last of the research on Star Trek personas who have served in the military.

When I'm done finishing the article, we can have a vote if people want and talk about deleting this article/merging it/or moving it to another website. The last option I would prefer if this must go from this website.

I think its a very good point that we shouldn't have articles about every topic related to Star Trek, like Star Trek and Cooking, Star Trek and Sexism, Star Trek and Emotions, etc. However, Shakespeare and the military are very different situations. Both are directly referenced in the show and have been discussed at length in publications by the show's producers. The most obvious course of action would be to develop a Memory Alpha Policy on this issue, i.e. clearly state what kinds of "essay like articles" (if any) could be allowed on this website. But that is above my pay grade, as we say in the Navy.

I am sorry if this upset people, that wasn’t the intent. We should also be careful about creating any kind of atmosphere where people are afraid to post new articles for fear of harsh criticism. Let us also remember that nowhere is it required to get permission before posting an article. I did go to United States Armed Forces talk page as a courtesy because I knew this was a serious topic, but we don't want people thinking they have to contact administrators before posting new things.

Thanks everyone for your comments. -FC 14:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, the "inuse" is basically if you are working on it as I type this, so as to avoid edit conflicts, not to keep anyone from editing it or suggesting it for deletion or otherwise for "the next one to two weeks". If that is your intentions, then perhaps it is/would have been best to have kept it on a temp page....-Alan 02:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In my time here, I've seen articles on this website have the "In-Use" template up for days if not several weeks in some cases. Besides, I'm actually almost finished. If you have an issue with it being up there, I can take it down. -FC 06:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I think we should have no "essay-like articles" on Memory Alpha - as an encyclopedia, we're here to collect and catalogue available information, not to analyze and "create" new information. I'm starting a new discussion regarding "essays" on Memory Alpha talk:What Memory Alpha is not. -- Cid Highwind 13:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Reading this article and the one about Shakespeare (that I both like very much), they could easily stay around here. There are a couple of other pages like President_of_the_United_States with a similar theme and structure (only that the latter is still more list-like). So if the articles in question are removed it should be because to keep MA "clean" and to avoid having essays about personal pet peeves (although I still wouldn't rate Shakespeare and Military as essays). It would sadden me if articles were deleted just because they are deemed "original research" or, in other words, because no one has taken care of it yet. I am a bit worried because at Wikipedia perfectly reasonable articles are often deleted or degraded because they fail to fulfill arbitrarily interpreted quality criteria, while dogmatism is perpetuated just because it is so firmly established and/or convenient. Bernd 16:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

External hosting

I spoke to Bernd of Ex Astris Scientia and he is more than willing to include both this article and the Shakespeare one on his homepage. I think his site would be a much better home for those extensive essays. Everything could be kept, nothing would have to be deleted and those two articles would have a good home at our partnersite. I mean, we even have a template for external links to Ex Astris Scientia, so just as many people would be able to read those articles there, even more people, in fact. So, if there is consensus that we could do it this way, the articles can be moved pretty soon. --Jörg 16:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent website, to be sure, and it would be a fine home for this article. I do ask a bit more time to finish up the research. There are about four vets I'm still trying to confirm service. I'll let folks know when I'm finished. -FC 16:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, of course. The article would be moved as soon as it is finished. And of course, should you find new references or stuff you want to add, you can just let Bernd know and he'll expand whatever you wish to add. --Jörg 16:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. These articles don't really fit our project, but they're perfect for Ex Astris. By the way, give my vest to Bernd, will you? :) --From Andoria with Love 20:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, and give my best to Bernd, as well. The vest is just in case he gets cold. :P --From Andoria with Love 20:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

When moving articles to EAS, please keep in mind the licensing restrictions - since the plan is to delete articles here that have been moved there (which means that proper attribution can no longer be read from this site), the article would need to have a disclaimer not only linking to this page, but also listing the various contributors to the article. It would also need to be re-published "non-commercially", best by adding a link to the CC-by-nc license to the resulting EAS article.

This is just a small problem regarding the article text in this case (because only FC has edited the article in question, and may choose to cross-license his own contributions any way he likes) - it is a bigger problem regarding the content that was apparently grabbed from another article here (the list), and may be even worse regarding the Shakespeare article that probably was edited by far more people.

For the future, it should not become a common procedure to create articles here to move them someplace else later! If anyone wants to produce articles that do not match the limited goals of an "encyclopedia", he should publish them somewhere else to start with. -- Cid Highwind 13:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I am the only person who has ever worked on the list of military people and built the entire thing from the ground up based on dozens of requests to federal agencies. I also plan to maintain it on my own user page (User:FleetCaptain/MilitaryIndex) since it was a tremendous effort. I am just waiting on two more and the list will be complete (as far as I know). Regarding the Shakesphere article, it should be moved along with this or deleted. Allowing it to remain creates a double standard, I think, i.e. we are saying this article had no place on MA but that one is allowed to stay even though it is written in the same fashion. The Shakesphere article might have its own defenders. I am up for moving it if that is what people want. -FC 17:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As Jörg mentioned, I could take over the article any time. If this article is going to EAS, I will keep its full extent but adapt the layout to EAS standard. That may imply removing some of the "wikification", as all cross-references would become external links. But it will definitely make sense to keep links to actors' pages at MA, while removing those to basic terms like "ensign" or even "shuttlecraft". Regarding updates, contact me any time, and I will include them. And one more thing: Is there a template of some sort for the credits/disclaimer? I am not so familiar with MA's licensing policy. Anyway, I shall wait for the decision... Bernd 17:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Benrd. EAS is a fantastic trek resource, really great work. --- Jaz 04:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Still being updated?

Why is this article still being updated? If I understand the above conversations, it is not going to remain on Memory Alpha. in fact, the more it is updated here, the more likely we will run into difficulties moving it to EAS, as it will encourage other editors to contribute, making it harder for EAS to give all contributors proper credit. I suggest that this page be locked until it is moved to EAS. If FleetCaptain wants to keep making edits, he can do so on his own with an offline copy. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 20:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It was never discussed that I had to stop editing the article. My understanding was that I was to finish the article (i.e. go through the list of episodes for military references and get information on the last two military veterans on the chart), then it would be moved off the page as one complete thing. Also I don't understand why we're calling for the article to be locked because I edited it. There was never any instruction agreed upon to cease editing and noone ever came to me, either here or on my talk page, and asked me to stop editing. For that matter, I think there are still unresolved issues with getting a formal move approved for Shakespeare and Star Trek which is part of this whole package. -FC 21:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I am calling it to be locked because CONTINUING to edit it while it resides in the main namespace will encourage other editors to do so, which will make moving it to EAS very difficult, if not impossible. Take it to a user subpage if you feel the need to complete it while on MA. Getting approval for the Shakespeare article has nothing to do with the status of this one on MA. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 21:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm...I think I see the point but this might be overreacting. Noone else has updated this article beside me and there appears to be no great interest by anyone else to do so. I think people are getting way too worked up about this. Much like the mind-sifter, I don't think this is all the terror that people are making it out to be nor do I think that it will destroy Memory Alpha if its remains here for a little while longer. I guess I can update the episode lists in my user shipyard and then edit in the entire completed list (so we will then have a completed article to transfer) but I don't think that locking this article will serve any purpose. To quote Q:

"Nothing you do here will cause the Federation to collapse or galaxies to explode. To be blunt...you're not that important." -FC 22:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Cobra is absolutely right, though... In the end, the "move" suggested above would necessarily consist of two parts: a simple "deletion" on our end, and someone else "grabbing" the current content and "republishing" it elsewhere before that happens. The new "publisher" would have to decide whether it's worth the hassle to actually do the publishing - which will be more complicated if different people have edited an article. -- Cid Highwind 10:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Just temm me when the page is fit for movement and I'll alert Bernd and we can get it moved to its new home. --Jörg 11:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There we go. Someone other than FC edited the article. This has now been made harder to transfer over to EAS, as now more than just FC need to be given credit. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 02:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

All he did was format a few words and lower case some nouns. No new material added. Nothing to call Red Alert about. -FC 03:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot agree. When publishing a book, even an editor gets credit. Jaz now has to get credit on EAS. It may not stop here either. The longer this is kept in the main name space, the worse this is going to get. Lock it or move it to the user space, tonight. Even Cid said I was right. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 04:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Totally protest this move

Why is this article sitting now on my user page? When was that EVER discussed? I read about locking it which would have been fine. Now I have a sub-page on my user space that I don't want and this was done without asking me. I've protested this and ask that this all be moved back. -FC 11:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've blanked the article on my user page and put it up for deletion. Enough is enough. -FC 12:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Then you chose not to read the above discussions, where I specifically stated in basically every instance where I suggested locking the page the alternative of moving it to your user space, where you (FC) could continue editing this in preparation for creation at Ex Atris Scientia. If you want to stick your fingers in your ear and pretend it wasn't discussed, fine, tell Bernd that you're not interested anymore. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 13:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I never had the power to lock that page, I am not an adminsitrator. And after you voiced your views, I stopped editing the article and moved the sections I was working on to my own user space [6]. Please also tone down the language a bit. I was polite and professional with everyone. And, yes, it was never discussed that "we will move this page to a sub-page of Fleet Captain's user page". That sub-page is now up for deletion for violation of policy. -FC 13:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at the above discussion, I see no less than three instances (before replies that you made, meaning that you should have read it) that say "move to user space". What do you think that means, leave it here? Excuse me for my bluntness everywhere, but this has essentially moved beyond an adult conversation, it has gone to flat denying what was discussed, and being annoying because others had the gal to try and preserve your work for you. Damn them for trying to help you, I guess. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 13:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Others are doing damage control efforts as we speak. As far as being an adult, I don't think I have anything to prove here. -FC 13:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I never said you weren't an adult, I said this conversation was not adult. It isn't. It is children on a playground shouting at each other, one side saying "look yes we did say that" the other side shouting with their hands in their ears saying "I can't hear you". Utter e-drama. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 14:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, whatever. User:Sulfur should get the Starfleet Medal of Honor for his efforts. The article may now be found on User:FleetCaptain/Shipyard now if others want to continue the discussion about moving it off site. -FC 14:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No deletion / note for possible re-publishing

This article cannot be deleted at the moment, because it contains part of the article history of the article that is supposed to be moved off-site. Article content has been manually copied to another page (User:FleetCaptain/Shipyard), which does not preserve article history. Article credits, when published elsewhere, would need to include parts of this and that pages history... -- Cid Highwind 12:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not say I disagree with you, I just disagree with the whole process by which this was done. I've given up on this and am fine with this entire thing being deleted. People clearly don't want it here on this site. -FC 12:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You didn't get after that whole discussion on not having this on MA and in fact moving it to EAS that we, didn't want this on MA? It was moved here to keep the possibility of it going on EAS possible, to help you. Your resistance to moving it here was only going to result in your never being able to have anything come out of your work, and you know it. This was made very clear to you by Cid, myself, Bernd (who is actually from EAS) and others. I'm sorry for being blunt, but tough noogies if you don't like this move and decide to drop this project all together. People other than you were editing this article in the main name space. Were this to be moved to EAS, as we all want it to be (and we thought you wanted it to be), the process was being made very difficult by the fact that we were going to have to make a list of citation that was growing, including at least you and Jaz. What would we have done if an anonymous edit had been made? Then your resistance would have screwed you out of having this on EAS to begin with, since I doubt EAS has a great way to give credit to just some IP address.

Your unhappiness now seems to me to be petty bickering over the fact that this was put not in your particlea place of liking in your user space. Move it there to your preferred location in your user space, then. The only reason action was taking without you was because you were being a stick in the mud, and screwing yourself over for ever having this article preserved and present for people to read on EAS.

I may have just made things worse with my honesty, but I don't give a crap. This BS has gone on long enough. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 13:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've put this page up for deletion. The administrator violated policy pure and simply (Memory Alpha:Your user page). This action was done in the middle of the night without any discussion with me which is very rude and uncalled for. I also don't think personal attacks are called for (i.e. "you are being a stick in the mud"). I was polite with everyone and acted professionally. The same can not be said for others. -FC 13:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No discussion with you? You are intentionally forgetting Talk:United States armed forces#Still being updated?, where at every step of the way that you were involved in discussing (and therefore hopefully reading), moving this to your user space was discussed. At this point, I say we get rid of the whole thing from MA. This e-drama is worse than the crap I have to put up with on DeviantART. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 13:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there was no discussion that "this page will be moved to a sub-page of Fleet Captain's user page". That is a true statement. -FC 13:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you think the "user space" is? --OuroborosCobra ^talk 05:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Moved from PfD Page

This user page was created by the administrator User:Tim Thomason in response to a discussion regarding an article I created “Military references in Star Trek”. After a heated discussion, efforts were being made to possibly move the article off site since the content was being discussed as being too broad for Memory Alpha standards.

Last night, TT proceeded to move the entire article from the mainspace onto a sub-page of my user page. This was never discussed, I was never asked about this, and was not notified that this had been done. The public talk page was also moved onto my user page as well.

In accordence with Memory Alpha:Your user page which states "Your userpage is yours" and "No other user is allowed to edit your user page", I ask that this article be deleted. The administrator created this page without asking and the creation does not fall within the three special cases listed on the policy page. Moving that article to a private user page also duplciated efforts that I had already going on at User:FleetCaptain/Shipyard and User:FleetCaptain/MilitaryIndex.

I also tried to speedy delete this unauthoirzed addition to my user page but another user reverted this (again making edits to my user page without my permission) by stating that the edit history of the article had to be preserved seemingly implying that mainspace article rules now apply on this sub-page of my user space. [7]

I have blanked this page and do not want it in my user space. I have also abandoned efforts to keep the military reference article on this site as there were so many people against it. Thank you. -FC 13:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)