Memory Alpha

Talk:M. Okuda

Back to page

41,943pages on
this wiki
Add New Page

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.

I think this page is pretty clean now, and covers the topic well. I would suggest merging the history of Michael Okuda (Doctor) here and then possibly renaming this page M. Okuda (Starfleet) since that name would cover both M./Michael Okuda's (all working on Starfleet Starships). —MJBurragetalk • 19:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I added section headings, to make it clear that I am not suggesting that they are the same person, rather that a SINGLE article on two indivduals (both only mentioned on dedication plaques) both based on the same real parson makes more sense (and is more informative) than two seperate and very short pages.
This is no different than having one page for all of the Enterprise Dedication Plaques, rather than five pages. —MJBurragetalk • 18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Its been decided previously that if there are two separate people, there should indeed be two separate articles -- for clarity, listing, and categorization. Since "M. Okuda" and "Michael Okuda (Doctor)" are over 140+ years apart(the entirety of a humn lifetime even in the future), and dont even have the same name, they should remain separate articles. I explained this at Talk:D. Okuda, but you must've missed it.
Anyway, this page, as it stands, doesn't accurately explain the issue. I support reversion back to the last version i worked on. -- Captain M.K.B. 18:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Has there really been some "formal decision" on this? This issue of "several stubs" vs. "one aggregation article" has always irked me a little - not enough to start a discussion about this myself, but I'm sure I would have added my two credits if there had been some discussion.
The fact that two different names were used ("M.", "Mike") complicates the matter in this case, but I still think that one article (+ a number of redirects) for all very similar names on dedication plaques should suffice. On the other hand, I don't think we should assume that any or all of these are actually the same person if they are listed on plaques created 70 or more years apart. -- Cid Highwind 19:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I added intro lines to both of the pages In question, (and in so doing realized that I sould have done the Denise compilation on the D. Okuda page). I think the line explains clearly my original intention.
I think the same should be done for any other cases where multiple listings on dedication plaques are all based on one real person (who is also not listed elsewhere within the Trek continuity). —MJBurragetalk • 20:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: "formal decision" -- No, I had made the decision, for the purposes of my continued work categorizing the different individuals, to keep the ENT people separate from the Starfleet people. They lie on opposite sides of a 140 year gap, belon to two separate organizations, and it seemed the best choice to keep all the 23rd-24th people unified, and all the 22nd people unified. Its not a policy or formal decision, but as i've been trying to explain (and been ignored, without any discussion after my initial objection), its the reason i opted for categorizing them.
I think unifying them into as few articles as possible is necessary -- but the time, name and organization difference is sizeable and its prompted me to be bold and make a decision as an archivist. With the categorization half-done, another archivist coming in and changing the entire structure is kind of frustrating, and i've placed my reasons for why unifying the articles is necessary in most if not all other cases, but not regarding the ENT era people, only. -- Captain M.K.B. 20:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I was not ignoring anyone, I simply added a couple lines to correct a misinterpretation—previous commenters kept telling me that they were not the same person, and I knew that. I still think that the connections (surname, ship constrcution, real world source, starfleet starships, etc.) outweigh the differences (era, first name vs, first initial).
It was never my intention to step on any toes, and I thought I was doing a good job of following Editing policy. I do not see how my changes could have broken any categorizations, am sorry if they did, and would happily fix it afterwards. I understand the frustration of woring on a page, and having someone else change it shortly there after, but I have been on both sides of that multiple times. If the changes are positive, then it is all good. —MJBurragetalk • 22:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if this is going to be "one person:one article", then we perhaps shouldn't stop halfway and assume, for example, that the exact same "Denise Okuda" was building starships in both the 2290s and the 2370s. There's a 80 year gap, and the later Denise might be the daughter, grand-(grand-)daughter or even not related at all. Any argument "pro separation" in regard to "ENT vs. Starfleet" might apply to "23rd vs. 24th century" as well, whether it is about categorization or something else... Speaking of which, I see a bunch of "X dedication personnel" that I can't find any discussion for at the moment. Can someone direct me towards that discussion and/or tell me why that isn't "dedication plaque personnel", at least? -- Cid Highwind 07:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I know Cid can be critical of my decisions, so i made sure to discuss my decision with other archivists before we started combining the latter day okudas and keeping the earlier okudas separate. User:Tim Thomason and User:Philoust123 have both helped me with these articles and discussed the logic involved. I say again -- there is the ambiguous or disambiguous possibility that all are different people, and the articles should suggest that, MJBurrage, so I accede you are making a valid point about all of the later Denise Okudas . I felt it is best to simply respect the 140 yr gap between known Earth Starfleet dedication personnel and regfular Starfleet, because of the length and the considerable differences in the two organizations. perhaps a separate article Okuda, Okuda family or Okuda (disambiguation) is where your idea would be best placed -- your additions do indeed have merit, i was just puzzled why you started the work again after i left the note to hold off on the earliest Okudas. I had actually done the work of combining all the Denises together, just as you suggest, i just felt "D." should remain separate. that's all.
re: categories: Category talk:Starfleet dedication plaque personnel, and the individual names are formed as they are because i thought that it would do fine being shorter. sorry you missed the discussion. -- Captain M.K.B. 16:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki