Redshirt Reference Edit

The reference to the redshirt article should be removed. The referenced article, while interesting, is not canon and should not be referenced in this manner. Aholland 23:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Forum:List of officers killed by episodeEdit

Looking for a list of episodes where a Starfleet officer is killed or all onscreen deaths. Does anybody know of such a list. I am using the episode descriptions to create one but I was hoping there might already be one. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pardenarden (talk • contribs).

You could probably extrapolate something from Starfleet casualties. --Alan del Beccio 01:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

New Tables Edit

I finish redoing the tables later today. - Archduk3:talk 11:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Some questions Edit

Just to clear things up a bit. First, why was Sam removed from the list? Charlie made him disappear, so he is dead (sort of). Yes, he was restored in the novelization, but it was never mentioned on screen. Second, does Wesley Crusher being stabbed in "Hide and Q" count as his death? If it does, then it should be added to the TNG revivals. QuiGonJinnTalk 13:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sam's removal was most likely a mistake when the new tables were added. I haven't seen the episode in awhile but I think someone said Worf was dead after being stabbed, so if that happened for Wesley, then yes, he should be. - Archduk3:talk 15:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"Multiple Timelines" banner Edit

Since the vast majority of the article is dealing entirely with the "prime" timeline, perhaps this should be relocated to the "Alternate Timelines and Parallel Universes" section? -Mdettweiler 18:20, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about splitting the article there anyway. I'll move the one down now and add the new timeline banner to the AR section. - Archduk3:talk 19:06, September 24, 2009 (UTC)
Bad news, there has to be a banner at the top for a second one to stay in place in the article. - Archduk3:talk 19:11, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...worked for me. *shrugs* -Mdettweiler 04:07, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

Actually, never mind that. It seems that while it worked yesterday, the "multiple realities" header didn't "stick" after a couple edits to other, non-related portions of the article. Despite the header still being present in the "Alternate Timelines" section of the source code, in the actual article it is displayed at the top of the page. Note that the "New Timeline" header still is staying put in the "Alternate Reality" section like it's supposed to. Anyone know why this is happening? -Mdettweiler 14:12, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
It seems that two headers can't be at the top, so the second one stays in the section it was placed in. - Archduk3:talk 17:56, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...strange. Do you (or anyone else) by chance know where one could ask about why this isn't working? (Because after all, I'd think it's just another template as far as MediaWiki is concerned, and thus there should be no reason why it can't go anywhere we put it.) -Mdettweiler 20:52, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

The template is designed specifically to go above the article, outside the content. It isn't designed to be inserted into the content. You're attempting to use it in a way it isn't made to be used. -- Michael Warren | Talk 20:56, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

Page split Edit

With this page as long as it is, it might be a good idea to split the page with the 22nd and 23rd century as one page and the 24th century as another. - Archduk3:talk 03:40, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the split, but it would be more consistent (with e.g. Unnamed Humans) and simpler to have a page for each century.– Cleanse 06:36, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

I agree, though that's going to make the 22nd century one a little thin. Could always make it a Starfleet and MACO casualties page for that century. - Archduk3:talk 07:13, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

The 22nd century would still be a decent sized page IMO. We have Unnamed Humans (31st century) with one person, after all. ;-) I think it's probably best to keep the Starfleet and MACO casualties separate, as they are different organisations.
There's no real harm with (relatively) short pages with these lists, so long as the distinction is clear and this page serves as the hub.– Cleanse 07:49, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
So we'll have Starfleet casualties (22nd century), Starfleet casualties (23rd century), and Starfleet casualties (24th century) and this becomes a disambiguation page. - Archduk3:talk 15:46, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
I agree that splitting this page by century would be a good idea. One question, though: how would we group Alternate Reality casualties? I'd guess that they'd go as a separate section on the 23rd century page (like how they're displayed now on the one page), but I just wanted to check in case anyone was thinking of putting them as a separate article or something like that. -Mdettweiler 19:09, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
Maybe after the next movie comes out they may get a page, but I don't think it would be an issue to have them on the 23rd century page for now. - Archduk3:talk 22:01, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
Meh, I wouldn't really want to see this page split; I just find it kinda easier to navigate when all casualties are grouped together at the same place. Then again, if it is going to be split, I agree with Archduk3 regarding the AR casualties. QuiGonJinnTalk 19:51, September 29, 2009 (UTC)

I split the page as described above, just need an admin to link the history from this page to the new ones, and split the talk page as well. - Archduk3:talk 19:34, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

Should non-Starfleet personnel on this page be kept? Edit

I see that there are a number of people listed in this article who aren't Starfleet personnel:

Harrison and Merik are especially out of place since they weren't even on board a Starfleet vessel (in fact one could probably say the same for 2387 Spock). Naomi Wildman sort of still fits on this page, IMO, since she was on board a Starfleet vessel at the time, but that isn't the case for the others. Anybody got an opinion on which of these, if any, warrant removal from the page? -Mdettweiler 01:59, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

R.M. Merik is in the Starfleet personal category, but Harrison is not, so those two most likely can go. Naomi was a personal choice of mine, since she was seen as a member of Starfleet in the future, and has a "job" as the Captain's assistant, which is essentially a yeoman. I can see why she shouldn't be on the page though. As for Spock, if he gos, so will Kirk. I'm under the impression that "retiring" from Starfleet is more along the lines of being switched to inactive, as in you you are always a Starfleet officer even if you aren't in uniform at that moment. I can't see how becoming an ambassador would change that. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Archduk3 (talk • contribs).

Hmm...methinks maybe Merik should be removed from the Starfleet personnel category then, since he was explicitly stated in the episode to not be a member of Starfleet. He and Harrison, as well as the rest of the crew of their ship, could probably be moved to a separate "Merchant Marines Casualties" page. As for Naomi, the copy of her that died obviously did not have the "captain's assistant" job yet, so that wouldn't really count; but, yes, I agree, she should be kept on the page since she was clearly aboard a Starfleet vessel, and would thus be considered part of its crew in the broader sense of the word. As for Spock and by extension Kirk, good point, I didn't think about that--in real life, if a military officer retires, they're still properly referred to as "[Rank] So-and-So, retired", so I'd definitely say that counts as personnel in that service. We should definitely keep Spock and Kirk, then. -Mdettweiler 03:19, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, I can't believe I didn't sign twice in a row...but back to the topic at hand, Isn't the crew of the SS Beagle the only Merchant Marines ship known? Might need a Non-Starfleet "Federation casualties" page to make it worth it. - Archduk3:talk 03:32, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I've removed the rest of the crew of that ship:

Making a non-Starfleet "Federation casualties" page sounds like a good idea. I'm sure there are plenty of other guys which could go on that page as well, besides the SS Beagle's crew. -Mdettweiler 13:54, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've now started the Federation casualties page for non-Starfleet folks and put the SS Beagle crew on it as its inaugural listing. Others can feel free to spot non-Starfleet casualties on this page and move them over there as necessary. (Note that, as touched on above, someone like the copy of Naomi Wildman who was aboard a Starfleet ship at time of death should be listed on Starfleet casualties instead of on Federation casualties.) -Mdettweiler 02:46, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

Main character deaths Edit

POV problem with the title (not in-universe) so I suggest a merge; I suggest Starfleet casualties but I'm not sure that's correct(which one, for example) but I'm not sure what else there could be. 31dot (talk) 02:15, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

Support. On top of the PoV thing, what constitutes a "main character" is a matter of opinion. Starfleet casualties sounds good to me. - Mitchz95 (talk) 02:50, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

Just a note, "Main character" is usually taken to mean any character listed in the main title credits (even Jake Sisko, who appeared in fewer episodes than Morn, a recurring character) but that is still outside the POV. 31dot (talk) 02:57, May 28, 2013 (UTC)