User talk:Captainmike/archive 2009

user talk:captainmike/archive 2007 user talk:captainmike/archive 2008

Galloway
Hi Mike, I just wanted to seek your opinion and guidance relating to Dave Galloway, as I know you are a rank enthusiast and hopefully be able to answer my question :D

Galloway has had his rank given as lieutenant in his previous appearances, but in SS TOS (The Secret Empire), he was given the rank of [[sergeant]. This seems at odds with me as it is typically an army rank, but is it possible for him to actually hold this rank?

Secondly, looking through the MA article on Galloway I noticed that the James Blish novelization of "The Omega Glory" gives the name of the officer killed by Ron Tracey as Lt. Raintree, which would allow Galloway to survive for his future appearances. Obviously, MA couldn't use this as an explanation, but is it something we should do? --The Doctor 01:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There have been other Starfleet sergeants -- a sergeant is equivalent to a naval petty officer first class and is an enlisted serviceman with at least a few years experience, but no applicable collegiate education. More advanced sergeants are also normally referred to as "sergeant" in normal address and are equivalent to the various grades of chief petty officer.


 * An exceptional sergeant could be granted a commission as an officer, but the Starfleet rules on this aren't clear -- we've seen that both enlisted servicepeople and ensigns wear no insignia in TOS, so there's no way to tell if many crossed this line. -- Captain MKB 04:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On the naming, we should probably have an article for both Galloway and Raintree -- I lean towards canon in these cases but its a definite head scratcher.


 * For some reason, rank wise, I'm theorizing some situation where he was a "brevet officer" (notice some Lt.s lack rank stripes in TOS on every other occasion) -- perhaps he was a sergeant who was field promoted to Lt. and had some bizarre "Sergeant Lieutenant" rank that a modern rank buff would find ridiculous. -- Captain MKB 13:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The rank issue is certainly a head scratcher considering that standard naval ranks are applied to the other officers in the story. Maybe, its best to include that as a background note.  Looking over his death and resurrection, I suppose its a similar case to Ed Leslie's death in "Obsession", only for him to turn up later.  I suppose Raintree could be a get out, but as you say, the canon would take precedence.  --The Doctor 15:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sovereign Class
Hi, Captainmike. I've corrected the error you noticed in the Sovereign class article. I also see your point regarding the USS Gibraltar's registry. However, in trying to improve the look of the page, I've deleted the references to specific ship registries, so that piece of information should be a non-issue for this particular page. (That of the Gibraltar proper is another story.) . Also, I'm trying to track down anything that might be left of the original attribution regarding the USS Republic, or secure a new one from the author of the relevant book (A Time To Heal), David Mack. The TrekBBS no longer prunes threads, so a new attribution ought to be more semi-permanent than was the original.

--Cicero 23:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for receiving my note! I think the article looks good with the alphabetized list!


 * Well, I'm not sure a TrekBBS post would give us a valid reference to add to this site -- since we are limited to Star Trek books and games. I think we'd have to see it in print in a book or game to really confirm that Republic reference. -- Captain MKB 23:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll add the pageless video game ships to the list.  (Though I can't seem to find the "what links to this" feature to which you directed me.  How does one use it?)


 * Wouldn't a message board post by an author be similar to a statement by the same author in a non-licensed magazine like Starlog, or in some other more formal interview context? The class of the Republic is merely a clarification of the author's intent when writing the book, not new information developed after the fact - rather like clarification of something out of focus or too small to see on screen (but still there).--Cicero 23:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The difference is that if an author makes a comment in an interview, even in a licensed magazine, its still not "part of the story" -- Peter David could joke around in Starlog about Captain Calhoun wearing panties, but that wouldn't make it "true" because it wasn't said in a passage from a New Frontier novel -- see what I mean?


 * if you go to USS Affiliation (Sovereign class) (click this link) -- then look in you left hand toolbox (under the search box in most skins) and you can see "what links here" -- click on it and it will show you which articles link to it -- one of them is Starfleet Command III, the source -- Captain MKB 23:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a clear line, I think, which differentiates clarification from speculation or humor. In the case of the Republic, someone asked Mr. Mack what class he'd intended it to be, since he'd seemed to have had a clear physical concept of the ship in mind when writing (matched, of course, by the text).  He replied that it was meant to be Sovereign class.


 * If he'd speculated about reasons why it might be Sovereign class, having not had that before him while writing (as Christopher Bennett was asked to do when he noted that he hadn't had a ship class in mind for a particular vessel in Greater Than The Sum), the remarks would be clearly extraneous to the encyclopedia. But what he did say seems more like backstage information about a particular difficult-to-see detail of a filmed production (such as the personnel files in In A Mirror, Darkly, which aren't legible even in HD) than it does speculation, or, much less, jocularity.


 * Thanks for the help regarding the "what links here" tool. Hopefully, I'll always remember to keep it in mind. : ) --Cicero 00:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a difference here that hasn't been examined -- the unseen texts from the episodes were actually written before the episodes were released. Any "after-the-fact" author commentary is just that -- after-the-fact. He never wrote down any solid class information before or during the novel's released sections. -- ~!Captain MKB 00:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * He may not have written the information, but it was what he intended while writing. Had the novel been a film, its what we would've seen.  I'm still trying to work out sourcing, without which our debate is relatively moot.  If and when it's arranged, I'll try to offer more significant argument.--Cicero 00:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

2 seconds ago...
Mike, just realized what I did with the Countdown talk edit summary - and feel really stupid, cos it's one of my pet-peeves too - very sorry!! -- unsigned
 * Fixed -- feel free to try again..


 * Please, start signing your talk comments too! -- Captain MKB 23:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - 2 stupid mistakes in one go - it's been a long day! – CommodoreFisher 00:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

USS Titan senior staff Template
Hi Mike. The template USS Titan crew template was intended to be confined to that ship's senior staff, like the Enterprise-E senior staff template. (I can't seem to effect a reversion myself - and leave my explanation on the talk page - so I'm bringing this specifically to your attention.)

There have been at least 60 or so crew members of the Titan named so far, rendering a complete crew list template impractical. This is usual for a starring ship - even senior staff members tend to accumulate rapidly. By limiting the crew template to the senior staff, it remains an easy-access tool to navigate among them. If you'd really like templates which include the other crew, perhaps we could produce department-by-department templates? Each would have at least as many listed persons as some existing crew templates.--Cicero 00:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, 60 crew might necessitate department by department templates -- however, I'd be interested to see how well they fit into one.


 * I think our largest crew template is the template:USS da Vinci personnel -- but I haven't counted through that one.


 * Either way, I still think we should follow the conventions of the other templates and name them using "USS" and then lowercase for all the additional words (for example, the Template:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) medical personnel template) -- Captain MKB 00:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree regarding the capitalization. At the very least, it's much easier to type when looking for the page.


 * For what it matters, the largest template I'm aware of is Template:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) personnel, which carries about 150 names.--Cicero 01:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that if the Titan template had the senior staff at the top and the rest of the crew at the bottom, it still wouldn't be as big as that one.. -- Captain MKB 01:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The template wouldn't be so large now (or, probably, soon), but the crew manifest will continue to grow as the novel series progresses (probably significantly, if the usual Titan novel continues to be at least average in its crew name production). I think we would do well to confine the template as much as is practicable.  Perhaps we could include a link to the complete crew manifest?  Or perhaps each department template could carry links to each other department?--Cicero 01:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Lists
In Singular Destiny I have a long list of dead folks which includes two very important characters. Should I put these names under references? They're already listed on another page, but belong on the book's page as well. What do you think? – AT2Howell 04:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably best under a "casualty list" subsection to keep them separated, but definitely yes. -- Captain MKB 10:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess you still haven't read it? – AT2Howell 17:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't but I am keeping abreast of the happenings now -- great article material. -- Captain MKB 19:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got to say that the two characters on the casualty list really surprised me. I re-read it a couple of times and still didn't believe it. – AT2Howell 19:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * True they are surprising -- and we should be careful to add spoiler warnings to articles that mention them, in case someone still wants to read this story and be surprised about it, they would really think we were jerks if we spoiled it for them, don't you think? -- Captain MKB 18:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

An anonymous vandal
We've got a vandal: Special:Contributions/216.47.197.5. Jono reverted the edit, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention so you can block the jackass. --TimPendragon 06:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Commodore Travers edit from Dec 2008
It's been roughly 2 and a half months, but since it's recently been updated, here goes.

My Commodore Travers trivia was erased because it was unclear:

''Commodore Travers warns Picard of his distrust towards him with the phrase, "Here There Be Dragons." In the TNG novel of the same title, Jean-Luc Picard again is in the middle of Dramatis Personae. With reptiles (not Gorn) essential to the main plot.''

For clarity that was, of course "Dixon Hill"'s dialogue between himself and Travers. Obviously the Commodore didn't buy his bit about the Stargazer (merchant ship), how a non-Starfleet member has an advanced artificial heart etc. Travers then tells him in the novel that "Here there be..." marked maps in the Middle Ages for a reason: to warn captains about possible dangers in the unknown. The novel Here There Be Dragons also makes the connection to that period of Earth history. The dramatis personae comes from the fact that Jean-Luc assumes the alias of his favorite, fictional private eye. In the other novel, Jean-Luc (as Lukas) takes on another identity. Much like he did as Robin Hood in "Qpid". Finally, Gorn and literal dragons are the reptiles that play important roles in both stories.


 * What does "in the middle of Dramatis Personae" mean? Keeping in mind that "Dramatis Personae" is a DS9 episode that neither mentions nor features Picard. If you meant that Picard was a main character, you might've said "Picard was in the dramatis personae (emphasis on the article/capitalization construction for clarity, and not confusingly linked to the DS9 episode), or even better, you might've used English and stated that he was a main character'. I'm not sure how it would be determined he was "in the middle" of it when he is the lead character of the series


 * The sentence fragment "With reptiles (not Gorn) essential to the main plot." was not entirely clear -- perhaps you meant to use a comma and not to start a new sentence. Did you mean that "Here There Be Dragons" had reptiles also? I've never read it. There would probably be more meaning if you constructed the sentence without parentheses, either.


 * Also, wouldn't it be notable as forshadowing, that Travers referenced 'dragons' shortly before he was killed by reptiles? maybe the other novel was less significant than the irony ignored in Requiem. -- Captain MKB 04:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get in the middle of this, but just an observation here. "Dramatis personae" literally means "the masks of drama," essentially "playing a role." I took Ensignsisko's phrase "in the middle of dramatis personae" to mean that Picard was undercover, or pretending to be someone else, as he did in Requiem. Again, odd phrasing, but the meaning wasn't that hard to parse. --TimPendragon 04:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)