Rank? Edit

I'm confused, what is the source of his rank? --From Andoria with Love 23:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

USS Voyager crew manifest, The killing game I 2
-- Captain M.K.B. 05:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

So Fleck and Fukai constructed AND served on Voyager? Groovy! :) (Thanks for relaying this to me, btw.) --From Andoria with Love 05:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed Edit

  • It isn't clear if Ensign Fleck could have been part of the Voyager crew when it was trapped in the Delta Quadrant, and worked on the Prometheus, which was built after Voyager was stranded. However, it is possible Fleck made contributions to the Prometheus design or construction before he was lost, and was still listed on the plaque in absentia. He could also have been assigned to the ship before it was stranded in the Delta Quadrant : during construction or test phase... Another explanation could be that the crew manifest was deliberately falsified in order to disturb aliens who tries to scan the database or board the ship, which could explain the use of the people on the dedication plaque with ranks that obviously are doubtful.

If it's unclear we don't mention it - speculative, as well. — Morder (talk) 17:24, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Merge suggestion Edit

While the rank thing might justify having 'Jerry Fleck (Lieutenant Commander) and Jerry Fleck (Ensign) as different persons, there's no way to be sure which of the two is the one listed on the plaques. I'm not sure about the best way to deal with this though. -- Capricorn 18:20, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Removed Edit

In 2328, Fleck boarded the SS Manila at Theta Gluckstern III bound to Deep Space 7. This information is listed in a passenger manifest archived in the commercial transport database and reviewed by Lieutenant Commander Data in 2370. (TNG: "Inheritance")

The newest version of the commercial transport database doesn't include this information.Lakenheath72 (talk) 07:47, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not completely at home in how this kind of stuff is done, but woudn't it be better to move such information to a background note instead of removing it completely? Not accnowledging that it used to be different feels so Orwellian... -- Capricorn (talk) 13:20, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

I am moving it back to the page.Lakenheath72 (talk) 10:38, January 1, 2015 (UTC)