User McCoy has added new, larger images ("Robert April, young.jpg" and "Robert April, old.jpg"). Shall we use them?--Emperorkalan 12:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes I'd say, but I think they sould be cropped to more typical portrait like the current images. -- 8of5 13:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- That was my main reason for asking. I may be able to do that today (but if anyone wants to beat me to it, feel free).--Emperorkalan 13:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, it is me, McCoy, and I am new here but, I hope you like what I did to Robert April, some of his facts were off, so I fixed them. --McCoy 22:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Not quite, Bones. The initial "M" was in Roddenberry's original treatment, it was later changed to "T", and that's what was used in the novels and TAS. I'm reverting the article. --TimPendragon 02:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the notion that April assumed command in 2245 is conjecture from the Star Trek: Chronology by Okuda, Memory Alpha acknowledges that source, but the novels have made the case otherwise - April oversaw construction of the Enterprise and took her out on her first (secret) mission in 2243. Please familiarize yourself with the material this wiki covers before you go changing it to match Memory Alpha. If you have a question, please post it on the talk page or the forum before making changes based on an assumption. --TimPendragon 02:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Of course, the Star Trek: Chronology, as a licensed product, is a legitimate source for the wiki, so the contradiction should be noted. --Turtletrekker 02:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Remember, that the 2243 stuff is from before the Enterprise is named. He took the ship out for the first time two years before it was commissioned and named. So basically, both books are right. -- Captain M.K.B. 16:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Of course, the Star Trek: Chronology, as a licensed product, is a legitimate source for the wiki, so the contradiction should be noted. --Turtletrekker 02:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Further clarification on the middle initial, from Wikipedia:
- Note the character's middle initial is T and not M as in Roddenberry's original proposal. The official Star Trek website, maintained by Paramount Pictures and the Star Trek Encyclopedia, an official publication both instead give the name Robert T. April.
Not sure why Memory Alpha doesn't at least make a note of that, since the Encyclopedia (but not the website???) is an accepted source there. --TimPendragon 02:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- The Encyclopedia data is no longer being honored on MA since it isn't canon -- Captain M.K.B. 16:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Admiral?[]
The footnote about April's admiralty places blame on Marvel and the lake of TAS's canonicity, do we actually know that as a fact? Marvel's run included a few TAS references, and it could simply be they made a mistake or has plans in mind that would take him back down to Commodore. --8of5 16:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, they killed the series in the middle of April's taking command arc. Its totally possible he was demoted for his bad behavior in the last two issues. Its also possible he was an impostor -- again, an explanation for his inappropriate behavior. -- Captain M.K.B. 16:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Another possibility is that April was given the brevet rank of Rear-Admiral due to his posting and was returned to his actual rank of Commodore later. For those unfamiliar with the term "brevet," sometimes military officers are temporarily promoted to a higher rank when assigned to a position that requires higher authority, but the brevet rank could be rescinded once that assignment was over (though in many cases they are eventually given an actual promotion to that rank) This would eliminate the need for him having been demoted at some point. General Grant 11:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Another possibility is that April held the rank of "Rear Admiral Lower Half" of our current US Navy, which is identical to the "Commodore" formerly used by the USN -- and perhaps this rank carries both names in Starfleet -- meaning all "one star" Starfleet flag officers are considered to be both "Rear Admirals" and "Commodores"... -- Captain MKB 15:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's a very good point. I guess I've always been so stuck with the idea that the US Navy, which Starfleet is obviously based on, has always had either Commodore OR Rear-Admiral Lower Half) that it never occurred that they might have had both ranks at the same grade. It would also explain why Kirk was never seen to have held the rank of Commodore despite the rank having existed at the time he was promoted. -- General Grant 07:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's a very good point -- and if you look at DC Star Trek comic #75 -- you'll see Kirk, wearing a commodore stripe on his sleeve, being referred to as 'admiral' -- making this theory seem plausible. Perhaps a ground-based officer of this rank is an admiral, and a ship-based officer is commodore? -- Captain MKB 13:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
There is also the issue that "commodore" has been more often a title of command in the USN than it has been a rank. Most often, the title of command is given to someone with the rank of Captain, who is given responsibility of command over a small number of ships. That person retains the rank of Captain, but is addressed as Commodore. (This is simmilar to someone with the rank of Commander who has command of a smaller vessel, such as an attack sub, being addressed as "captain") Interestingly, even fairly recently, in the 1980s, the USN had the title of Commodore, which could be given to a senior Captain in charge of a small squadron, and the rank of Commodore Admiral, a one-star flag rank equivalent to Rear Admiral (lower Half). Currently, there is no rank of Commodore, but the title of commodore given to someone with the rank of Captain but responsibility for more than one ship.
Hometown[]
Was there not something in a novel about him being from Coventry?RicoRichmond 17:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Early life citations[]
In the early life section the only part I can see as citable by Flesh of My Flesh is "He commanded the Tiberius on three five-year missions", so where is the rest from? --8of5 01:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
And the other citation in that section, given to the first sentence, gives his place and date of birth. But the October page gives a different citation for those very precise details? They both give date and place, in detail, and identical? --8of5 02:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)