In "Suspicions", there also is a reference to an Admiral Brooks, however the Suspicions-one seems to be affiliated with Starfleet Medical while the one from this article must be from Starfleet Command. I think, another article called Brooks (Starfleet Medical) would be in order, but I'd like to hear another opinion before I'll do so. Kennelly 13:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to put it into context:
  • BEVERLY: "Three days on the shuttle to Starbase 23, then a transport back to Earth. I can hear Admiral Brooks now, telling me how I've disgraced Starfleet Medical. Then a leisurely day and a half before the formal inquiry begins and my career ends." ("Suspicions")
  • NECHAYEV: "Captain, I've read the report you submitted to Admiral Brooks last year regarding the Borg you called "Hugh", and I've been trying to figure out why you let him go." ("Descent")
I'm not sure. For all we know, Admiral Brooks could have been Commander-in-Chief of Starfleet, and all matters of consequence go through him/her. I'm sure however, someone would need to confirm the scripts by the episodes dialog to be sure the name(s) weren't changed. --Alan del Beccio 13:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Just watched Descent, Brooks is spoken onscreen. Will check Suspicions soon. Of course you could be right with it being the same person, for me Beverly's sentence just strongly implies that this Brooks is from Starfleet Medical. Kennelly 14:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It is actually equally possible for an admiral to inform someone theyve disgraced a division, without the admiral belonging to that division. I think this is the simpler explanation, and requires less speculation since we have no clue who the admiral worked for (an admiral could be responsible for dressing down officers of numerous divisions and branches, since an admiral would rank most all of them..) -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 14:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: Brooks is also spoken onscreen in Suspicions. So, as a conclusion, I'll add the second reference from Suspicions into this article, right? Kennelly 15:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I would suppose so. Perhaps a small note, similar to what was written on USS Ajax could be added: "Considering the commonality of the name, and because Brooks appeared in dialog only, it is unclear if these references refer to the same individual. However, without direct evidence, this article assumes that it was the same person." --Alan del Beccio 15:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Done (with your proposed Background note). Kennelly 15:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)