So, I'm not sure when, where, or if this has been discussed before, but I've noticed since becoming more active again in the last few weeks that in infoboxes, the affiliation/allegiance fields for starships, organizations, etc., is often rendered as "[State Name], [Space Service Name]." I strongly object to this -- it just looks bloody awful. It's also redundant: A ship of the Federation Starfleet is inherently a ship of the United Federation of Planets; a ship of the Klingon Defense Force is inherent a ship of the Klingon Empire. And it just looks messy -- you wouldn't put an infobox for the U.S.S. George H.W. Bush saying its affiliation is, "United States of America, Navy." You'd say, "United States Navy," and maybe link "United States" and "Navy" separately. So I'd like to ask about getting a consensus on changing this practice. -- Sci 18:47 21 APRIL 2012 UTC

That makes sense. I agree. How do you think it should be improved: just "Starfleet", "Federation Starfleet" (full name), or something like "Starfleet, Federation" (an order of priority)? -- BadCatMan 13:45, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

A couple years ago (in terms of sidebars) I suggested two separate boxes: one for governmental affiliation (simply Federation, there's absolutely no need to try to squeeze "United Federation of Planets" into a side bar when the one word variation is more commonly used, no matter how ridiculously anal one is about using longest-possible versions of all titles at all times. there's no need. say it with me. no. need.)... and another field for service affiliation (Starfleet, Earth Starfleet, etc.)

Just to set the stage here, our formatting on the site operates on a principle of wiki simplicity, and I think this conversation touches on some problems that have been removed from formatting lately:

• we should not be using a preponderance of HTML is templates and sidebars - they are supposed to take simple data inputs. <br> tags should not be used, neither should <big> or other HTML contrivances.. Simply put, if you are using a ton of (-"Punctuation"). and formatting on what is supposed to be a simple data point, you aren't using the template right. Linebreaks, boldfacing, bulleting, and text size should be set by the template, not the end user.
• To this end, we should not be separating the words "Federation" and "Starfleet" with ANY complex formatting. This is dependent on the end user to not clog the template's data inputs with nonsense like HTML linebreaks; faux bullets constructed with linebreaks and punctuations like hyphens, etc,... the correct use is to (this is the wiki prime directive) KEEP IT SIMPLE. This is why we discussed this, and decided to separate linked terms with a comma - to avoid some of the nonsense i've mentioned here. It's not a difficult thing. -- Captain MKB 14:00, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think seeing an allegiance entry of "Federation, Starfleet" is keeping it simple. It implies a false division of allegiance between the Federation and Starfleet, and it just looks ugly. It's not elegant. On the other hand, listing the "Federation Starfleet" -- and I think we should use that as its full name, just like we should list the "Klingon Defense Force" rather than just "Defense Force" or "Defense Force, Klingon" -- is elegant. We should either format it as "Federation Starfleet," as a single link to the article on the Federation Starfleet, or as two separate links, one to the Federation and one to the Federation Starfleet, with no punctuation between them. I think adding the comma between the state and its service organization is both misleading, inelegant, and unsimplistic. -- Sci 18:42 29 APRIL 2012 UTC

1. Ok, but there is a division. One is the governmental affiliation and the other is a service affiliation. So you're wrong in saying it's false.
2. I don't think it looks ugly. I think it looks fine. I think you should start working on processing the fact that this is apparently specifically your problem, needing to add unnecessary length and complexity when two links can be expressed in two words and a comma. You tend to write some pretty ugly links yourself, and we've learned to live with that quirk that is specific to you. Are you sure you don't want to change it to Defense Force and Food Concession Fleet Organization of the Klingon Imperial Empire?

The main reason the aesthetic you are aspiring towards doesn't match the workings of a wiki is the excess of formatting required to achieve what you consider to "not be ugly" (even though I don't share the opinion of ugliness).

Day to day contributions to sidebars and tables and browsers templates should not require scads upon scads of HTML code, should not require <br tags, they should not require artificial bullet lists made with hyphens and <br tags. It's great that you're aspiring to a certain layout, but you have to be aware every user has a different browser and operating system - their linebreaks will occur in different places. what looks "good" (to you) in a preview will NOT look the same way to everyone else, depending on the size of their phone or monitor.

Add to this the fact that new users are not going to conform to such bizarre ways of coding data. Even though you seem to think we should add a lot of obscure code pieces, there's no easy way for us to make 100s of users and anons understand it. I don't understand what you've been trying to accomplish, and I'm pretty good with code.

Basically, if we have a template with a variable that says "affiliation", we can only expect new users to type in the word they think should belong there. We should not be requiring them to use <br tags to create new lines based on a desire of seeing one part of a phrase on a new line. we should not have <br tags within piped links. Nobody is ever going to do this. If we want to change the way things are displayed, we need to append it to the style sheet, add templates for users to call to add the code for themselves without putting this much wasted energy and thought into it, and be done with it. Enough nonsense, please! -- Captain MKB

1. But there isn't a division. Holding allegiance to the Federation Starfleet is holding allegiance to the Federation. The loyalty to the former is loyalty to the latter, because the former only exists to do the latter's bidding.

2. I never said anything about wanting to put HTML codes or what-have-you in the sidebars; I really don't care that much about this. (I have in the past used such code. I saw that it seems to have been decided -- I don't know where or who decided it, but whatever -- that that would be discouraged, and I haven't considered it important enough to request a change.) What I have said is, we should get rid of the punctuation in the middle of a service's name. If we're talking about a ship of the Federation Starfleet, it should read "Federation Starfleet." If we're talking about the Klingon Defense Force, it should read "Klingon Defense Force." If we're talking about the United States Navy, it should read "United States Navy." I leave it up to others as to whether the wiki could should create a separate link for each individual word -- "((Federation)) ((Starfleet))" -- or one.

3. You know, Captainmike, I really don't know what to say to your ad hominem attack there. You've said in the past that you think I have a grudge against you, and you've complained about personal conflicts. I had thought we'd both made some good faith efforts towards being cordial to one-another more recently. Last week, I had this concern, and I worked to try not to make it personal. I worked within the Memory Beta system by bringing a topic up, and when no one even noticed it for the first week, I was prepared just to forget about it. Then the topic was finally responded to, and I contined seeking to talk about it and find consensus on it. And then you respond by making it into a personal insult and trying to make it it all about me and that you dislike something about me. This isn't about me. This is about whether or not we should have a comma in the middle of an organization's name. One wouldn't see Wikipedia or the Encyclopedia Britannica referring to it as "United States, Navy," and I don't think we should, either. -- User:Sci

1. So now you are advocating that we stop linking to "Federation", but still expect users to catch the drift that the "Federation" is the allegiance, despite the fact that the article only links to "Starfleet" (or "MACO", or any other Federation organization)? That doesn't make any sense. You're actively advocating that we stop linking a valid link because "people should know". The link is there because it does NOT necessarily follow that Starfleet only exists to the overall loyalty to the Federation.
2. I speak of what you've been doing. You wrote this as a forum call after you reformatted a great many articles with excessive (and broken) code, and I had to revert those changes on the basis of the fact that the code didn't work how i imagine you expected it. The reason I bring up the code is that the changes you suggest (and the changes you were trying to make) need to be achieved by adding the code at a site wide level, not going through and recoding individual templates and sidebars. I have explained it thoroughly why this was done, and how it should be done, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up as a response.
3. and predictably, you're going to start a separate discussion about me personally because you imagine some kind of attack has been made against you (really, you're just clouding the point and making the issue a lot less clear). This isn't a personal attack against you, its a remembering of valid points we've made to you in the past and will apparently have to again - there's no reason to write long complicated links to simple things. I don't know why you take that personally. It's not an attack and you need to calm down. Just keep in mind that the further you get off topic, the less we'll get accomplished on the wiki. -- Captain MKB 22:23, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Something I learned watching Babylon 5 last night was the nature of the chain-of-command. A Starfleet vessel's first priority for taking orders, its allegiance/affiliation, is Starfleet itself. The Enterprise may represent the Federation occasionally, but it is foremost a Starfleet vessel. Compare it to, say, a Federation government courier or diplomatic transport that represents the state directly. All that needs to go here is a ship's direct, primary allegiance. The rest is redundant or misleading.

It would be more correct and complete to give the full and official name. After all, is "Starfleet" the Federation Starfleet, the United Earth Starfleet, or the Imperial Starfleet? This becomes an issue for ships that change their allegiances for some reason: USS Defiant (NCC-1764) (with a rather complicated affiliation entry), for example, and anything that crossed over from United Earth to Federation. Extraneous information just clutters the box needlessly.

I know how you feel, Sci. Mike does this every time he disagrees with someone, it seems. :-( -- BadCatMan 11:57, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

... and this is the second time in this forum page i'm warning someone for making off-topic personal comments about me. Let's not go for a third. If you aren't grown up enough to accept that other users have opinions that differ from yours, maybe the collaborative environment of a wiki is not meant for you. -- Captain MKB 16:38, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

1. I have not been speaking at all about code. So far as I understand it, simply urging people to remove a comma from the middle of a service organization's name does not require site-wide changes in code. Yes, I did a few days ago add some code to some infoboxes that you deleted; I did not contest that, and I do not. I am not talking about code. I am talking about the comma in the middle of service organizations' names.

2. "I think you should start working on processing the fact that this is apparently specifically your problem, needing to add unnecessary length and complexity when two links can be expressed in two words and a comma." This is an ad hominem attack; it is, to borrow your phrase, "an off-topic personal comment." It comes out of nowhere and it's not relevant to what's being discussed (commas in an organization's name). Now someone else lodges an objection to how you treat your fellow users, and you retaliate by accusing them of making an "off-topic personal comment", and talk about warning them, and about their not being collaborative. This is not cooperative behavior conducive to friendly collaboration, Captainmike.

3. At least two users agree that commas should not occur in the middle of a service organization's name. This makes it a valid topic for discussion; so far, we've had two against and one for. We need to hear some other voices -- Sci 01:05 2 MAY 2012 UTC