US Space Command
As an Air Force colonel, I can vouch that the article is factually accurate. 155.84.57.253 29 July 05
- I have no question as to the accuracy -- but I have to question the relevance if the Space Command was never mentioned on Star Trek -- beyond the homage present in the insignia. perhaps other archivists have views on this? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 19:04, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I dont recall it being mentioned in the reference cited. --Alan del Beccio 20:16, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- The inaccuracy notice is because this article mentions the space Command in relation to the Phoenix in Star Trek: First Contact -- but the US Space Command was not at all mentioned in First Contact. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 21:05, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Nitrogen wasn't mentioned either, but an atmosphere consisting mostly of it was everywhere in the movie. All US missile sites belong to US Space Command, whether mentioned or not. Please note it was called "old" US Space Command missile site, indicating that Space Command no longer operated it. --User:WehrWolf 21:16, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- The inaccuracy notice is because this article mentions the space Command in relation to the Phoenix in Star Trek: First Contact -- but the US Space Command was not at all mentioned in First Contact. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 21:05, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I dont recall it being mentioned in the reference cited. --Alan del Beccio 20:16, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's excellent article on Star Trek:First Contact establishes that there is only one missile base in Montana; it's Malmstrom AFB. And wouldn't you know it, it's a base under the command and control of US Space Command. [1]
- The startrek.com website describes the site as being in central Montana - I just looked at a map and it doesn't get more central than Malmstrom AFB. [2]
- However, several Enterprise episodes have established that the complex was in Bozeman, which is about 125 miles from Malmstrom. [3] -- SmokeDetector47 // talk
- Yes, but let me explain how a missile base works: the main base contains the command and control functions, and the dependent missile sites are dispersed in the countryside for a radius of several hundred miles. These sites are accessed for shift changes (shifts are several days long) by helicopter. The reason they are dispersed, is so an enemy attack on any of them will not destroy all of them. --User:WehrWolf 22:00, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- But is there a missile base in Bozeman? Under the jurisdiction of Malmstrom? Regardless, this is still very much speculation and should be confined to background notes in an appropriately-titled article, as mentioned in the VfD. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 23:08, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- The word is site, rather than base, and the exact location of missile sites are classified. I'm sure the Russians and the Chinese know where they all are though. The key thing is that any missile site in central Montana would be under the jurisdiction of Malmstrom AFB --User:WehrWolf 23:13, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- But is there a missile base in Bozeman? Under the jurisdiction of Malmstrom? Regardless, this is still very much speculation and should be confined to background notes in an appropriately-titled article, as mentioned in the VfD. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 23:08, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, but let me explain how a missile base works: the main base contains the command and control functions, and the dependent missile sites are dispersed in the countryside for a radius of several hundred miles. These sites are accessed for shift changes (shifts are several days long) by helicopter. The reason they are dispersed, is so an enemy attack on any of them will not destroy all of them. --User:WehrWolf 22:00, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- However, several Enterprise episodes have established that the complex was in Bozeman, which is about 125 miles from Malmstrom. [3] -- SmokeDetector47 // talk
I'm not arguing against any of your points any missile base or site in Montana today would be under the jurisdiction of the Space Command. This is not in question.
Do you have the knowledge to tell me what is going to happen in Montana in 2006? or 2016? Can you guarantee that Malmstrom is going to exist in its current state in 2036? and that the Space Command will be administrated exactly the same way in 2046?
Assuming that the answer is "no" and you cannot foresee the future, I'd ask why you think it is necessary to make broad assumptions like this. This would risk our articles becoming completely uninformative if they contained so much speculation rather than what Memory Alpha was designed to be: A repository of data about what happened and was mentioned on Star Trek.
None of this has been mentioned on Star Trek.
Let me draw a parallel: In 1945 there was no US Air Force. A writer in 1945 would write about the US Army Air Corps, because he would be completely unaware that in later decades there would be a USAF created.
So that writer would be wrong by using undue speculation to write about the 1980s exploits of the US Army Air Corps. Just as I think it is completely erroneous to speculate that the US Space Command of 2005 might be the same organization in 2050 when WWIII starts, or that a Montana AFB would even be there in 2050, let alone trying to make assumptions about what its role is in WWIII
Please try to limit the contributions here to things that are relevant to Star Trek without making all of these assumptions.-- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 23:34, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Moved from Votes for deletion
Wikipedia's excellent article on Star Trek:First Contact establishes that there is only one missile base in Montana; it's Malmstrom AFB. And wouldn't you know it, it's a base under the command and control of US Space Command. [4]--WehrWolf 22:32, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- But again, this is the real world and not the Star Trek universe. Who's to say that there weren't other missile bases constructed during World War III, or that there weren't more bases in the Trek universe? It's quite clear that "our" reality is totally different from the history established in the Trek reality, i.e. there were no Khans or DY-100s or multiple Voyager probes. That said, some of the article could probably be moved to something more descriptive, like missile complex (Montana) or missile complex (Phoenix). -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 22:45, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, but it's a 20th century missile, rather than a 21st century missile - ergo a 20th century missile base. WehrWolf 22:47, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- The Phoenix was built from a Titan V, which doesn't even exist in reality so it's impossible to know when the missiles were introduced. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 23:01, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- However, the Phoenix page says "The missile type the Phoenix is constructed from comes from the Star Trek Fact Files, and as such, should not be treated as canonical." The missile that it most closely resembles is a Titan II, and the Titan V could easily be an upgrade. [5]
- The Phoenix was built from a Titan V, which doesn't even exist in reality so it's impossible to know when the missiles were introduced. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 23:01, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, but it's a 20th century missile, rather than a 21st century missile - ergo a 20th century missile base. WehrWolf 22:47, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
PNA-cite
Is the design of that badge really based on Treks "delta insignia design", or is this just wishful thinking? Unless someone can cite a reliable resource for that, it needs to go, and the image probably with it. -- Cid Highwind 22:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, the discussion at the top of the page would appear to be your "source", at least according to those who have allowed it to remain-- in terms of the US Space Command ref. --Alan del Beccio 22:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Beg to differ. Nothing in that discussion is about the "delta" in the symbol. That is the problem here. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Not to hold anyone's hand here, but Image_talk:USSC.jpg/Image talk:USAFbadge.jpg. Apparently Captain Mike made the decision to keep them to display the similarities, despite the 3:1/3:2 vote to delete. --Alan del Beccio 23:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Your still missing the point. We need a citation on the claim that the "delta" in the symbol was inspired or influenced by the Star Trek symbol. That is what this is about, not an IFD, or VFD, or anything like that. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for holding my hand, Alan, but the decision of someone here to keep an image is not a proper source for the apparent claim that the USSC badge was intentionally designed to be similar to some insignia from Star Trek. -- Cid Highwind 23:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I now checked several possible resources, including Wikipedia:United States Space Command, Wikipedia:Space and Missile Badge and several US governmental sites. None of them repeats the claim that their logo is based on a Trek insignia - it might still be an inofficial joke someone managed to sneak in, but I doubt even that. Anyway, without a proper source, I'm now removing that part of the background section to a subsection here... -- Cid Highwind 14:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Moved from article
- See above discussion
US Space Command assignment patch
US Space Operations rating badge
Although never mentioned on Star Trek, the 21st century space operations of the US are now under the jurisdiction of the US Space Command. Space Command is responsible for military space operations and missile defense for the US and her allies. Of particular note to the Star Trek universe is the Space Command rating badge and assignment patch, both of which contain a delta insignia very similar to the arrowhead insignia used beginning in the original Trek. Like the space shuttle Enterprise (OV-101), this is another example of Star Trek influencing modern space operations.
Image talk:USAFbadge.jpg / USAFbadge.jpg
- iVfD for US Space Command
- Image:USSC.jpg and Image:USAFbadge.jpg
The US Space Command is also under deletion vote, these have never been seen on Star Trek as far as I know. While the resemblance is striking, where is this supposed "canon" coming from? - AJHalliwell 02:47, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: I would attempt to find a website to link to, rather than having the image saved here. --Alan del Beccio 19:51, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Keep: The parallels between these badges and starfleet assignment badges is unmistakeable. --Captain Jack 09:21, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, but the information about the badges would qualify as being of interest. Captainmike has moved it to the United States armed forces page, but perhaps it would be better served as background info at Starfleet emblem, with external links to relevant images? -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 23:03, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- Well the information is certainly relevant to both the US and to Starfleet -- its a comparison between a US badge and a Starfleet badge -- so the pictures would be acceptable on both pages, United States armed forces and Starfleet uniform or Starfleet insignia. I'd say we could keep the images as long as they are used in background sections, for comparison, but not as the centerpiece of their own articles. (re: Memory Alpha:Votes for deletion) -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 23:53, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)
If the Army having more combat aviators than the Air Force isn't acceptable content, then the same notation about the Navy and its carriers isn't acceptable either. This was very arbitrary.--WehrWolf 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Moved from: Talk:Star Trek personalities with military service
Not to disrespect those who served in the military, but... is this article really necessary? It just seems kind of... random, I guess. --From Andoria with Love 03:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Without taking a stance on whether this is necessary or not, I have this to ask. What other careers are we going to do articles for? Doctors? Dentists? Historians? --OuroborosCobra talk 03:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
That's pretty much my worry. If we're doing articles on those who served in the military, we might as well do articles for those who have served in other jobs. That would be kinda ridiculous, methinks. --From Andoria with Love 05:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- My view is that due to the prevalence of military veterans in Star Trek, especially in the early Star Trek series where no less than three of the actors and three members of the senior production staff were all military members, that is substantial enough to discuss in an article. This veteran status might have had something to do with the way Star Trek itself was formed, at the very least the manner in which some of the episodes were written. Then we hve the fascinating bit of trivia that not one of the actors who has played a Starfleet Captain was ever actually in the military (I found that rather fascinating, actually). So, in conclusion, by the pure letter of the law and strict interpretation of MA policies, this article probably wouldn't be allowed to exist but its a good subject to have Also, as it expands, there will in the end be a database of every single Star Trek personality who was in the military which would be a very informative Memory Alpha article to say the least. In reference to the last bit, an article about Star Trek personailites who were also in the medical profession would be interesting, if there were enough of them to form a list (you could merge dentists in there too). Historians you probably couldn't find enough of them, but it would be worthy of a try. -FleetCaptain 05:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, we'd also have to create an article about Star Trek personalities who earned a sciences degree, because Star Trek is even more about discovering, "boldly going where no one has gone before" than the military. As Star Trek is also atheist (at least Gene Roddenberry's version of it) we could also add a list about Star Trek actors who are atheists. Next, we could do a list about actors who are married to other Star Trek actors, or a list about real life Doctors on Star Trek, people who are intersted in archaelogy, like Picard, or own a pet, like Picard, Janeway and Archer... Next step would be something along the lines of "actors that are heterosexual/homosexual" (I think we've nearly been there before...) You know where this is going. I, personally, don't see the use of having a list of all actors (even guest roles?) who served in the military, but this is just my non-military-background-point-of-view, I guess. --Jörg 06:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmmm... we could also do one on Star Trek personalities who are cross-dressers... and then there's Star Trek people who eat at Wendy's... oh, and don't forget Star Trek folks who have had gall bladder surgery. :P -- Renegade54 16:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, we'd also have to create an article about Star Trek personalities who earned a sciences degree, because Star Trek is even more about discovering, "boldly going where no one has gone before" than the military. As Star Trek is also atheist (at least Gene Roddenberry's version of it) we could also add a list about Star Trek actors who are atheists. Next, we could do a list about actors who are married to other Star Trek actors, or a list about real life Doctors on Star Trek, people who are intersted in archaelogy, like Picard, or own a pet, like Picard, Janeway and Archer... Next step would be something along the lines of "actors that are heterosexual/homosexual" (I think we've nearly been there before...) You know where this is going. I, personally, don't see the use of having a list of all actors (even guest roles?) who served in the military, but this is just my non-military-background-point-of-view, I guess. --Jörg 06:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- If I may politely say that being sarcastic doesn't help improve articles. If the fact that Star Trek personalities were members of a certian profession directly influenced the development of the show, then yes an article could be created. Star Trek personalities with medical degress would be interesting as would a database of what degrees the Star Trek people hold (I would guess most of them are in acting). Homosexuality in Star Trek would also be something to investigate, espeically wioth George Takei's recent coming out. As for this article, as previously stated there were at least three major actors and four production staff who were all in the military as well as numerous guest stars. One could argue it influenced the writing and development of the show, indeed Gene Roddenberry wrote the whole Wesley Crusher getting a field commission story arch based on his own experiences involoving officer commissions in World War II. So instead of bashing the article and making snide suggestions, lets all work together to imnprove it. Thank you. -FleetCaptain 19:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- My view is that due to the prevalence of military veterans in Star Trek, especially in the early Star Trek series where no less than three of the actors and three members of the senior production staff were all military members, that is substantial enough to discuss in an article. This veteran status might have had something to do with the way Star Trek itself was formed, at the very least the manner in which some of the episodes were written. Then we hve the fascinating bit of trivia that not one of the actors who has played a Starfleet Captain was ever actually in the military (I found that rather fascinating, actually). So, in conclusion, by the pure letter of the law and strict interpretation of MA policies, this article probably wouldn't be allowed to exist but its a good subject to have Also, as it expands, there will in the end be a database of every single Star Trek personality who was in the military which would be a very informative Memory Alpha article to say the least. In reference to the last bit, an article about Star Trek personailites who were also in the medical profession would be interesting, if there were enough of them to form a list (you could merge dentists in there too). Historians you probably couldn't find enough of them, but it would be worthy of a try. -FleetCaptain 05:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- While I do feel the sarcasm may have gone a little too far, it makes a good point. There are thousands of things we could make lists about this way, and I don't feel they are encyclopedic. So what if George Takei came out? Does that suddenly make a list of homosexual actors encyclopedic? In fact, without then making a list of heterosexual actors, we could be accused of singling out homosexual ones improperly, and even with a heterosexual list we could be accused of the same thing. Yes, this information is important and interesting, and that is why it is already on (or should be) the individual performers pages, not as a separate list. Remember that MA is not suposed to just be a trivia site, and an article like this strikes me as having not much more than trivia value. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
To Flush it out or Merge it back?
After hearing the opinions about the matter, yes this could be seen as a “trivia only” article, however my original reason for writing it was to discuss the various personalities of Star Trek that have been in the military and how such military veteran status influenced the development of the show. As there has been this much fire about it in only two days of existence, the article is probably doomed for failure (does Memory Alpha have a VfD process?). The choices are either to continue to flush the article out, expand the table and add in more material (which could take months) or simply merge the table back into United States armed forces as background information. The second choice I’d be fine with, since a listing of which Star Trek people served in the military would be very interesting and boasting to the armed forces article. -FleetCaptain 20:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'd be tempted to lean toward the USAF page. I think that it makes the most sense as BG information on that page. But that may just be me. -- Sulfur 21:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, a merge back with the Armed Forces page, with corresponding blurbs (already) in actor pages, would seem to make sense. In particular, also because the only article links to this page are from the US armed forces page and from Leonard Nimoy's page. --umrguy42 21:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Done. -FleetCaptain 22:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, a merge back with the Armed Forces page, with corresponding blurbs (already) in actor pages, would seem to make sense. In particular, also because the only article links to this page are from the US armed forces page and from Leonard Nimoy's page. --umrguy42 21:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Comments moved
Comments on insignia moved to Talk:United States military insignia
Burton's father
Removed this comment on Burton's father (Levar Burton's father was a career Army NCO, serving over twenty years before retiring just short of his son's rise to fame in Roots.) because I don't believe his father was in Star Trek, so it is not germaine to MA. If LeVar was in the military, it should be mentioned, but not his (or any actor's) relatives.--31dot 18:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Background section might qualify for its own article
I'd like to discuss again the possibility about moving the background section into its own article. We could call it "Star Trek and the U.S. military" or something like that. The article could cover how much Star Trek is based on the U.S. military, how the titles, ranks, and positions are all taken (mostly) from the U.S. Navy, speak on characters we have seen portrayed in the military, and then have an entire section devoted to Star Trek personalities who had served in the military (I am just about done researching every person I could find). This would be a huge project, involving a lot of research and redirecting an emmense amount of links. I don't want to start this unless people agree. The floor is open. -FC 18:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Followup to this: a good example of how a project similar to this was accomplished can be found at: "Shakespeare and Star Trek". -FC 18:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I still stand to what I said last year, I don't see the necessity and the use. If we wanted to add a list of people who served in the military, we could just as well "enhance" the Shakespeare article with a list of people who also acted in a Shakespeare play, I don't see the point of that. This is an interesting project, for sure, but one that doesn't belong on MA. It can be linked, of course, if it is created someplace else, but it shouldn't get its own article on MA. --Jörg 18:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
This wouldn't be just a list of people who served in the military, but an article about how the military shaped Star Trek. Maybe have a name like "Star Trek and military references". Given that Roddenberry apparently based the entire concept of Starfleet on the military (in particular the Navy) having an article discussing these influences would be a great addition I feel. It could also mention all the productions in which the military has appeared and explain aspects of Star Trek (like the bridge, duty officer and other real world military terms) which exist on the show. I might make it on a temp page first, then see how it looks and move it in. -FC 00:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm just going to direct this conversation here, where we already had it once before. If that does not suffice, I would prefer we kill off Shakespeare and Star Trek before we create anymore copycat articles that have very minimal relevance to what the rest of us here are trying to build. --Alan 01:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
We actually haven't had this coversation before. The first conversation last time was about making an article about actors, producers, and writers who served in the military. That isn't what I'm talking about doing now. I explained above that this would be a much broader article encompassing how military concepts and ideas have appeared in Star Trek. And I have no plans to copy anything from the Shakesphere article as you suggested, I just used it as a reference to how a project like this could be successful.
I'll probably write the entire thing on a temp page and see how it looks. If it gets imported and people dont like it, we can deal with the deletion vote when and if that happens. -FC 01:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
If anyone wishes to follow my progress on this, it can be found at: User:FleetCaptain/Shipyard. -FC 18:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Moving an entire article onto my user page
I understand why this was done but I don't entirely agree with this. The entire article "Military references in Star Trek", including the talk page, was just dumped onto my user page. Another user actually created a sub-page on my user page without asking me or discussing it first and transferred everything to User:FleetCaptain/Military references in Star Trek. I didn't agree to this, didn't discuss it, and never said it was alright. The proper thing to do here would have been to move the article to a temp page in mainspace, or lock the article in pace. NOT create a page inside my own user space without asking and then transfer a huge article over without any consideration. I ask that this entire move be reversed as it was done without my knowledge and I object to someone adding a page to my user pag ein this fashion. -FC 11:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)