Verbal referenceEdit

I thought only presidents given a verbal reference was going to be listed here. I though the ones who are just shown are only listed on the US Presidents page? --TOSrules 04:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't know if that's the policy, but it sounds like one I'd support. Plus, if we listed everything seen in that time realignment thing, we'd go on for a while. Somethings listed included Osama Bin Ladin (being captured I believe, since it was a couple images after the "new car", but that's just my opinion ;-)) and a buncha presidents and other historical events, that are very very minor. I put this up as a canidate for deletion. -AJHalliwell 04:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VFD: William J. Clinton Edit

William J. Clinton 
Delete, this has no actual trek reference, and was only seen in Daniel's "Time line realignment" clip from "Storm Front, Part II". It's been said that only presidents with actual spoken mentions would get their own page, and that just seen would be on the President of the United States page. -AJHalliwell 04:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, articles have been created for all the presidents who appeared onscreen in other episodes -- like "The Cage" visuals -- wouldn't this apply here also?
The question here is whether his few frames of video would justify his article -- a few of the other president only appeared as drawings and vague descriptions, without being named. I think it does, because the creators of the episode intended for his appearance to show the timeline as it occurred after the distortion was resolved. Their use of footage of him as a popularly recognizable figure confirms that Bill Clinton existed in the Star Trek universe. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My sentiments exactly. I think that that is well justified. We have several articles in our archives which are based on far less, and they are considered legit. Why can't an image that clearly appeared and was clearly identifiable not considered fair game? --Gvsualan 16:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Clinton, Eisenhower, and Johnson are all presidents that should be deleted under what was said on the talk page for US Presidents. There is was agreed that only presidents who were mentioned by name should have there own page. These presidents do have a place on MA, but without a name mentioned verbally or visually I don't think a page is warranted. Kind of like the issue with Beryl and Corundum they appear on screen, but there is not enough reference to give them there own article. GW Bush appears in Stormfront right? --TOSrules 20:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No trek relevancy whatsoever! -- Krevaner 16:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I really wish they hadn't used these images (Clinton and other popular modern images) in the timestream. A collection of stuff from the Eugenics Wars or World War III would have been nice. Unfortunately, they did and that means we have to assume it fits somewhere in trek. So I vote keep on the article, however, we need a note to address the fact that we have no idea what the image means in the trek timeline, that includes knowledge of: his being president or even what his name was. Tyrant 20:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)Tyrant
Althought I agree with Tyrant, I'm afraid it is relevant because you, me, and everyone else saw it when we were watching Star Trek -- not CSPAN. Look, this is no different than when Toronto City Hall was put up here, and that made it through, this should be no different. --Gvsualan 20:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If it helps the situation, i ambiguated the context a little -- moving mention of his presidency to a background section. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 04:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It was acceptable then, but the ambiguity of it now does make it more acceptable. We know he exists in the Star Trek universe, just not in what capacity. --Gvsualan 07:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Mixed, but Keep, but I should point out that this could lead to a HUGE can of worms being opened. If we go by the timestream sequence, this could lead to pages for everything from Beethoven to September 11th. Just a thought. --Brad Rousse 05:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

well I would not rather open that can, but this is a community project. But consider, Clinton is already listed on the US president list, without cannon facts to list about him the article does appear to be redundant. The Toronto City Hall article does at least bring up factors like the Iconian Connection as where Clinton just says he is a president who was shown in the Timeline realignment. It does mention the Eugenics Wars in a purely conjectural way, but it is not important and the fact could always be put on the Eugenics Wars page. BTW: I did not see Clinton on the realignment, because I have not seen the episode. --TOSrules 20:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious how someone can have such a strong opinion about something they do not have all the facts on? That is, voting on something when haven't seen the proof. --Gvsualan 17:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It almost sounds like you are taking this personally, maybe i am wrong. At any rate, have I voted? which comment to do I actually submit a vote? --TOSrules 19:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

one sided? Edit

Is there a reason that Bill Clinton has the distiction of being the only President to show in archival footage and not be refered to by title?-- 16:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that there is more than just archival footage for the other Presidents (with the exception of the Gerald Ford article, up for deletion). The others must have been pictured, and at some other point refered to as President. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, your guess is wrong, these articles were all created at the same time, in reference to the same episode, each based on one, uncredited shot of archival footage per president, yet this is the only one where the title was removed-- 16:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
What title are we talking about?? Clinton and all the others say the same basic thing, xx President of the United States. -- Renegade54 16:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
ahem, same thing over and over again, follwed by this, makes it very hard to assume good faith, with regard to OuroborosCobra's um, persistence-- 16:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I know in at least one case, you are wrong. George W. Bush, there is a reference to him actually BEING president. What I would recommend happen is that we double check whether or not they were said to be President on a case by case basis. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Renegade, the issue being discussed is whether we can refer to them as being President if all we have is a picture, and no reference that they were actually President in canon. There is a possibility (unconfirmed) that there is inconsistency in the different President articles over what we have done about this. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm really not sure why "good faith" has been cited in this discussion -- this page is not to discuss why previous edits should or shouldnt have been altered, but to explain what form the next edit should take, and why. If the anon could stop pointing fingers at older edits and simply suggest a course for the next article change, perhaps this discussion would go smoother. -- Captain M.K.B. 17:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, those are examples of my good faith. I noticed an edit war starting. I suggested that a discussion take place on a talk page, as per policy. When I was ignored, and the edit war continued, I ceased any reverts and edits. Instead, I went to an admin and requested an intervention to stop an edit war. Don't like what I did? Tough. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The 'edit war' you speak of, was one edit, followed by you immediately reverting, and then running and screaming for protection and blocks, followed by more reverting-- 17:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Funny, I wasn't even the first to revert your edit on this article. Shran, another admin, was. And I was not the only one involved in edits on the other articles, AJ did in another, and I think Renegade and Sulfur did as well. Multiple people making edits, reverting each other (you reverted the reverts mutliple times as well). Sounds like an edit war to me. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Has Shran even made any edits today? Inventing edit warriors now?---- 17:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I apologize, I misreadthe edit histories, but as you can see here [1], Renegade reverted you, and here [2], AJHalliwell reverted one of your edits. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

and the origional topic... Edit

Is there some reason why the Presidental articles (the ones based on the Stormfront timeline) can't all be standardized? Same source, same information-- 17:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that there is more than just archival footage for the other Presidents (with the exception of the Gerald Ford article, up for deletion). The others may have been pictured, and at some other point refered to as President such as in the case of George W. Bush, and Nixon. That would mean a possibility of different sources. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
You already said that, and it led us here, please, someone else-- 17:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there anyone else who even disagrees with my edit? --, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
You could try responding to me, rather than just ignoring me. Just a thought. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I think its fine to call all of them Presidents, whether they were referred to as President or not in Star Trek. -- Captain M.K.B. 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Same here. Although if we wanted to be strictly canon, the stormfront ones would not have names, and none except lincoln wopuld have order of succession. But this exception to the strict canon rule is acceptable to me. --Bp 17:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that in other cases, in other articles, we've made assumptions that Trek history parallels ours unless something specific points to a deviation. One would assume, then, that a photo of Reagan speaking with, say, Gorbachev, would be in the same context in Trek as in the real world, especially since the footage used is actual newsreel archival footage. I could be totally wrong though... in which case, I apologize. :) -- Renegade54 18:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed Edit

The character W. Clinton was likely an in-joke reference to William J. Clinton.

Incite for over 2 years.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 01:27, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Title Edit

Is there a reason we don't have him under "Bill" Clinton, since that's what he's usually called? Wikipedia has him under Bill. Not saying we should remove his full name from the article itself. 31dot (talk) 21:05, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

Forgot I made this suggestion, but I still think it might be a good idea to move this page. 31dot (talk) 14:59, December 2, 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it should be changed to Bill --BorgKnight (talk) 15:18, December 2, 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to have to oppose here, even though the naming conventions, for now, say we should use the more common title, since with the redirect we don't actually loose anything in searches or linking, and his full name is simply more encyclopedic, regardless of what Wikipedia does. I plan to directly address the discrepancy between the wording of the naming convention and how we have actually handled things like this a few times before. - Archduk3 02:44, December 8, 2013 (UTC)