Book editor Marco Palmieri said this about the catalog info...

"I won't presume to tell you what you can and can't post. I'll simply repeat what I've said in the past. While there's nothing I can do to restrict public access to this information, the catalog isn't written in a way that's intended for public consumption. It's meant for bookvendors. It's put together when many manuscripts are still unwritten, and when plots and character arcs may still be in flux. The catalog is not a reliable source of editorial information. It therefore does a disservice to the editors, the authors, and the readers to draw attention to it.

Reliable information will be released from the editorial offices in due time."

...in this thread at the Trek BBS.

Furthermore, Keith R. A. DeCandido said that the catalog description of A Singular Destiny wasn't 100% accurate.

And as Kirsten Beyer has confirmed that the description of Full Circle is even more inaccurate (and to his credit JDB didn't include that info), perhaps all of the entries with catalog info (Open Secrets, Over a Torrent Sea and A Singular Destiny) should include some kind of disclaimer.--Turtletrekker 01:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Dude, I didn't mean to delete the info altogether, just that there should be some mention that it isn't 100% set in stone.--Turtletrekker 01:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually consider deleting the info as a good course of action. This is one of those "slippery slopes" -- how much info from unreleased books should we actually have on this site? -- especially six months ahead of time, when the authors are writing notes that say that the synopses aren't representative of their work! -- Captain MKB 13:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough-- comment deleted with sincere apologies to William Leisner.--Turtletrekker 09:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well the bungle and upset feelings aside, Mike has brought up a very good point about the information about future publications. I would very much suggest an upcoming publication page which would contain any information about an upcoming product. Once official covers and blurbs are released "from the horses mouth" so to speak, the information gets moved to its own page about a month before release. Having a basically blank page for an item that will be released in December 2009 or June 2010 seems a bit silly to me. --The Doctor 20:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This is no kind of slippery slope. This isn't rumour and speculation, it's pre-release information directly from the publisher! If we have info from the editors and authors noting an inaccuracy we should note that in a disclaimed as tt originally suggested but it's a perfectly valid source of information at this stage and should remain on the pages.

And I completely disagree with the doctor's proposal. Firstly, lets not exaggerate, we have two titles announced for 2010, and neither are schedules yet, so there is nothing as far as ahead as June that year. Having the information on separate pages allows us to develop those pages with new information as and when it becomes available. Squashing it all onto one will just result in a messy system of constant re-organisation. --8of5 22:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Do as you will. I have no intention in becoming involved either way. --The Doctor 22:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 Slow your roll 2 Mythological figures 3 casualty list 4 interesting little tidbit, not sure where to put it

Slow your rollEdit

What does 75.168.149.190 have against couch, negligee, and Magical Paint of Doom? All three are real references, so I'm putting them back. – AT2Howell 14:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say... write articles for 'em, then it makes it much harder to remove 'em. I can't, not having read the book yet.  :) -- sulfur 14:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've found that the amount of articles I write directly effects the amount of trouble I get into. Most of my time is spent documenting the actual references. I still keep notes, so some day I can write a lot more articles. – AT2Howell 23:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What is your "couch" article going to say? "Esperanza had a couch in her office, which Pran sat on." Answer honestly: do you really consider that to be a valuable piece of information that serves this site's purpose as a resource for Star Trek related information? Explain why a common item like this, used in an absolutely common and unremarkable way, deserves inclusion here. -75.168.149.190 20:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There are currently 8 links to couch just waiting for someone to write an article. "Esperanza had a couch in her office, which Pran sat on." sounds good. Why don't you get on that? – AT2Howell 21:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me?? Why don't *I* get on that? Are you under the impression that I'm your servant? Here's an idea: why don't YOU do it (heck, it's already written for you!), instead of creating work for others that you're unwilling to do yourself? – 75.168.134.42 20:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey dude, you're the one that's jumping the couch. Feel free to add articles where none exist. You just shouldn't complain if you're not willing to do something about it. – AT2Howell 21:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't want to step on anybody's toes, but I went ahead and made the couch article, figured someone may as well Jb2005 22:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You just show up all helpful, eh? That could work. – AT2Howell 22:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

AT2Howell: You are the one who complained when I deleted your irrelevant red links. In the month since then, not only have you have not written articles for these items you restored... and not only have you completely abandoned any pretense of adding information from ASD to the wiki... but you have not created a single new article other than talk pages. Measure that against what you will find when you look up my contribution history, and then tell me again "you just shouldn't complain if you're not willing to do something about it."

PS to Jb2005: Thanks for doing what AT2 just couldn't be bothered with. --75.168.162.245 19:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Mythological figuresEdit

Being that "Christ" is a title, do I file Jesus under J in the referenced section? – AT2Howell 05:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If we're trying to avoid theological debates and be neutral in our description of him, I'd suggest that the article should be "Jesus of Nazareth" with "Jesus Christ" as a redirect, and that the article should begin with, " Jesus of Nazareth, also referred to as Jesus Christ, was a...." Given that, I would suggest that "Jesus of Nazareth" should be filed under J, yes. -- Sci 18:28 28 FEB 2009 UTC

However, has "Jesus of Nazareth" ever been referred to by any of the sources? I suggest you continue this, where AT2 previously began, on the Talk:Jesus Christ page though... --8of5 18:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

casualty list Edit

I have removed several names from the casualty list, as they match up with real people who didn't object being in a book, but did object to their names coming up with this site on a Google search. Since none of them are in any way, shape, or form integral to the plot of ASD, but are simply placeholders to fill out the casualty list, I hope there will be no objection.

Thank you.

Keith R.A. DeCandido 18:42, September 21, 2009 (UTC)krad

I'm not sure that fits with the purposes of this site -- we tend to keep exhaustive lists of many fictional characters (as the indicia of the books indicate all characters are fictional, etc.).

Is there some way to mask the google caching of the names? -- Captain MKB 19:41, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

I've abbreviated the first names so that they don't match the real people.

However, this book is searchable on Google Books, is it not? That might be a problem with removing these folks' googleability - example : http://books.google.com/books?q=daniela-bruner

?? -- Captain MKB 19:59, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

I had the same reservations as Capt, but I'm sure he can figure out some sort of solution. – AT2Howell 20:03, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

I have no control over Google Books, but several names have been again removed at the specific request of the people being named. I would respectfully request that they remain removed. The initial and last name solution is fine for the rest of them. Thank you.

Keith R.A. DeCandido 11:07, September 24, 2009 (UTC)krad

And, there lies the problem. We have the utmost respect for KRAD, yet the purpose of this wiki is complete documentation. I really don't want to be the one to piss KRAD off. But, it does cut some into integrity when a reporter fails to report on the president just because he voted for said president. Let Capt decide what we do. He's a bright fellow. – AT2Howell 13:07, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

Please. This is not reporting the White House beat; this is copying names from a book. It's easy enough to put a note on the Casualty Report 92792382 Baker article stating, "The complete list of names can be found on pages 113-117." --75.168.132.78 16:07, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

It's about quality, bro. If you do something, do it right. You can belittle what we do if you want, but that's you. We could delete everything in this wiki and say, "Go read the book." but we don't. Like I said, I'll support whatever Capt wants to do. If he's unavailable, see what 8of5 thinks. They're both reliable, and they've given a lot of time to this wiki. – AT2Howell 17:31, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

"Belittle"?? Because I think you're putting on airs by comparing copying a list of names to investigating the Watergate break-in? Dude, check your ego. And don't you believe doing this wiki right might include not pissing off the guy who wrote or edited a huge chunk of the works we're documenting? --75.168.132.78 18:57, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I agree, KRAD is frakn' awesome. So awesome the wiki will work with him? Ask Capt or 8of5. They're the calm center around here. If they're cool with it, then it sounds good to me. As much as I try to piss them off, I really do think they know what's best. I take this wiki seriously. I've only logged 1000 edits this year because I've been busy, what with leaving the Navy for NASA and all, but I like to think that we put time into this wiki to make something of quality. Maybe you're right. Maybe this should be 'happy-go-lucky' time. Just remember, you're talking to the guy who thinks couch is an important article. – AT2Howell 19:03, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

I may not be the good Captain or 8of5, and probably not the "calm" center, but I'd like to add my two cents. We have a responsibility to respect peoples wishes and requests for privacy that KRAD has made on others behalf. An amicable solution has been reached with the majority of the names, and the other two exceptions can just be left off, with a disclaimer that the full list isn't included out of respect for those who wish not to be named. --The Doctor 20:26, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Doc, didn't know you were around today. Yeah, that works. – AT2Howell 20:30, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

Here I am ;P And complimented n'all AT2 I cannot believe you actually said this: "As much as I try to piss them off", geez! Aaaanyway, my initial reaction is to agree with Mike's original objection, this compromises the integrity of the database (albiet in a very minor way), and seems pointless anyway as the name are out there already. Plus what does it matter if a couple names are listed on this obscure wiki for a fictional characters which coincidentally (we needn't identify them as named after real people) share the names with real people who are not fictional characters who died in the 24th century...

However, I'm also a big KRAD fan, both for his fiction and just as a person and as it is such a minor admission I would be willing to bent in this one specific incident. Though I think it should be conditional on us pointing out there is an omission and explaining, without directly giving the game away (ie listing the names!), why. --8of5 22:47, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree with KRAD's actions, especially since, even though he can delete the issue here (deleting first and then asking later is not our preferred method, as an aside) -- he won't be able to delete the issue in the many other websites that will propogate the Google Books result... there are some closed memberships wikis that automatically cache the Google Book searches and publish stubby entries based on their bots' character recognition... so, six months from now, the Google issue will remain, whether we have the articles or not. Perhaps we can wait and see how much other sites will interact with the Google Books entry and propogate across the net before those involved realize that Memory Beta is not the cause of this problem -- Google's automatic reiteration of book text is... -- Captain MKB 00:56, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, the problem is they are in the book, and the book does not exist exclusively as a brick of paper... As I said I do agree with you, it does feel wrong for our purposes, and more importantly to me, silly! The articles about these people share nothing but the name, it could be entirely coincidence, and for the purpose of whatever articles we have it might as well be as we have no reason to make any reference to the real people they may or may not be named after.

I'm willing to compromise if the community at large wishes to comply with KRADs edit/request (which yeah, was done rather rudely!), but it doesn't feel right or necessary to me. --8of5 01:12, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

This is even an issue? At the risk of seeming to go "against the purpose of this site", we're talking about names on a list, and given their nature they will never have any additional information beyond "appeared on Casualty List so&so following the Borg Invasion of 2381". These references are about as ephemeral as it gets. Removing a few that were nods to real people may be "silly", there may be outside technical considerations that defeat what these people want to do, but then that's not due to anything on our part. Make a note that the list here is incomplete (and why) and take them off (or leave them off, as it stands now I think). If for some reason you can't abide that, fine. Just put "fixing it" at the very, absolute bottom of your "to do" list. --Emperorkalan 04:10, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

I'll come out as one of those who disagrees with censoring the list. Since we're being given the "remove these people" request via essentially proxy in the form of Mister DeCandido, we're not really being given a good reason to remove them other than "the author said so." Thinking about the situation logically - these names were a part of the novel, and MB's objective is to "be a guide [to] the entire Star Trek universe as portrayed in officially licensed Star Trek fiction products" quoted from policy. Don't our Star Trek novels carry a disclaimer? "This book is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places, and incidents either are products of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental." So when someone says hey that's my name in a Star Trek book, the response is it's not them, right? Nor do I feel the relative weight of the information should determine its inclusion or not (the "they will never have any additional information" argument). Again, I'm arguing for full inclusion of the novel's information. --Captain Savar 13:35, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

If you want a vote, I'm with 8of5 and the Doc. "We don't want to encourage this kind of thing, but we'll do it this once." – AT2Howell 13:38, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be a really hard one to do a straight vote on. I certainly am struggling to know which side to fall on as I agree with both: As Kalan describes it's not like it will result in a big hole in our database. But I also whole heartedly agree with everything Savar said, small loss or not it does go against our mandate and I cant really understand why it needs to be done anyway; fictional characters in the book are not the same as the people they are named after. I don’t see how listing someone name on our site will have any effect on that person at all. --8of5 15:01, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

I have always said the devil is in the details. I'm the one that fights against people saying a reference is too small. But in this one instance, consider the source. The man thanks us in damn near every book. He is a prolific writer, an most likely continue to write these novels. Do we really want to piss him off? He comes to us with this one request, and I say he's earned a boon. – AT2Howell 15:05, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment, but there is a matter of integrity. If George W. Bush or Stephen Hawking came along and asked us to take their article down would we comply? If someone whose name happened to be Larry Aledort found the article about our character of the same name on Google and asked us to remove it would we? I'm sorry for KRAD if he made a promise and didn't have the foresight to see he couldn't possible keep it with a) a website like use that meticulously catalogues everything Trek and b) facilities like Amazon's and Google's book searches that put book online. But that's not our fault or responsibility. Plus I just don’t get the argument, these articles are not about the real people, they are about minor characters in the Star Trek universe. I'm sure if I googled my own name I would find all sort of sites that list it for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with me at all! --8of5 15:51, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

Case in point, Nathan Archer is not Nathan Archer. – AT2Howell 15:58, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

And I am not a German race-car driver or a child actor from Arrested Development, nor am I the 1950s Socialist gubernatorial candidate from NY. People Googling themselves aren't quite accomplishing anything worthwhile are they? -- 16:58, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

And There's some hundered people in the USA with my real name, including a graphic designer and and a chef with some degree of Chicago area fame. And my mother shares a name with a poet. On the other hand, my sister was stalked by the creepy ex-boyfriend of someone with a similar (not even the same) name, and being a "junior" I routinely have to deal with untangling my electronic trail from my father's ("No, compare the opening date with my birthdate, and then explain to me how I could possibly have opened an account before I was born. It's not MY account..."). I'm not arguing against the point that whatever these peoples' concerns about their electronic trail from KRAD's cameo of them, it's (a) too late and (b) MB's contribution to it would be tiny and a lot more deniable than most things. What I am arguing is that since this is the first time this sort of thing has come up, and even more to the point, considering who's doing the asking, we comply with the request (or leave it as it stands) as a gesture of good faith. In addition, we should set a policy and compose a statement for TrekBBS or somewhere else the authors will see it outlining all the other sources of "electronic trail" for nod-mentions, and to ask them (wuth utmost politeness) to take that into consideration when they're giving nods to people, and when they're asking for those person's permission. In this case it popped up where the people haddn't thought about the possibility. we'd like to avoid that in the future by increasing awareness. But for this one case, we'll go along because we're not a bunch of jerks. (have to cut it short, sorry for the abrupt end)--Emperorkalan 20:52, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

As some of us have already agreed, it goes against the purposes of this site to pick and choose to disregard information, even if it is very minor. because of who KRAD is, i'm willing to distort the info by abbreviation, but that isn't even satisfactory (which is odd because there is no real clause of "don't have someone with my family name" on the internet -- in fact, both 'bruner' and 'ousmanova' do occur on websites that index family names) .. but the fact remains, we won't be the last website to copy that page of the book, and most of those sites may not even have human editors who would give KRAD the time of day -- which means that anything he wants us to do or that we don't agree with him requesting is quite futile. i say we keep the abbreviated versions and not the full names, out of respect for KRAD. -- Captain MKB 22:16, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

Guys, this wiki is about cataloguing fictitious information about fictional events, not about anything important enough to warrant violating someone's privacy by recording their name and putting it on the Internet without their permission. They have a right to control the propagation of their own names. They are not public figures, and they gave their permission to an author friend to use their names in an obscure part of a novel, not their permission for their names to be recorded in five thousand different places online. Then there's the fact that this wiki is making itself vulnerable to potential legal problems if someone who really doesn't want their name on Memory Beta decides to complain to Wikia and/or threaten Wikia with legal action. Let's grow up and respect their privacy and take the names down if they ask. -- Sci 02:09 26 SEPT 2009 UTC

Sci, I don't think your argument makes sense given that real persons are frequently biographied on wikipedia -- and we are not even biographying the real persons in question -- just fictional people with the same name as them. Do they deserve different rights than John Smith and Jane Doe, whose names are frequently copied, misappropriated in literature and journalism? The answer is no. Any given John Smith can't petition to have his name removed from use, nor can Michael Smith or John Burns or John Jackson or Michael Jackson or Jim Smith, etc. Unless we made some sort of libelous or slanderous indication towards the person who can identify the implication, we are completely in the clear. -- Captain MKB 02:50, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

First off, it doesn't matter if we're legally in the clear or not, because the very threat of a potential lawsuit could be enough to prompt Wikia to shut us down just to avoid the costs of litigation. It's a risk we shouldn't be taking. Secondly, yes, the persons whose names we're using do have rights not had by someone whose name is only coincidentally in common with a fictional character, because it's an established fact that it's not a coincidence in this issue. People have the right to control the propagation of their names; they authorized it for the novel, but not for Memory Beta. We should respect their wishes and remove their names, period. They have a right to privacy, and if we record their names without their permission, we are violating their rights. -- Sci 02:59 29 SEPT 2009 UTC

Addendum: Furthermore, the comparison to Wikipedia is flawed. Wikipedia profiles public figures, not random persons. It's a well-established legal principle that persons who are not public figures have rights that public figures give up by choosing to put themselves into the public sphere, including the right to privacy (and stronger rights under libel/slander laws). -- Sci 03:03 29 SEPT 2009 UTC

So what if there is an Elias Vaughn out there..? or a Mackenzie Calhoun? Do we remove those characters from our site based on those peoples' concerns?! Sci, you're really not making much sense - and, as to your supposed legal stance on this - the disclaimer in the book means what it says, that all characters are intended to be portrayed fictitiously in comparison to actual persons. This is the legal disclaimer used in "A Singular Destiny"

and your little "grow up" quip up there seems out of place, as everyone is discussing this logically and in a mature fashion, or we were until you showed up and wrote that. it's not appreciated, Sci. -- Captain MKB 03:11, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

1. If there is a real Elias Vaughn or Mackenzie Calhoun out there, as I have already explained, we have every right to record information from a fictional character that shares their name by coincidence. What we do not have the right to do is record the name of a real person that we know to intentionally be the name of a real person against that person's wishes. There is a legal and moral difference between a coincidental name and an intentional reproduction of a name. I've explained this already; either tell me why it's wrong or concede the point. Don't repeat yourself.

2. The disclaimer in the book protects Pocket Books, not Memory Beta. And, as I noted, even the potential legal trouble can be enough to convince Wikia to shut us down. Lawsuits don't have to be guaranteed losses for businesses to decide they'd rather avoid them entirely. Look at what happened to Scans_Daily -- Marvel didn't even have to threaten a lawsuit and LiveJournal shut it down.

3. There is nothing mature about arguing that we have the right to violate someone else's privacy because we're recording information from a work of fiction. The entire premise -- "Well, your name appears in this book, so we have the right to record it even though you only gave permission to KRAD and not to us" -- is self-evidently rude and a violation of that person's privacy rights. I really don't care if anyone feels insulted by my pointing this out, because anyone who says we have the right to so violate these people's privacy should be ashamed of themselves. It is a deliberate act of victimization, a deliberate violation of another person's legal and moral rights. -- Sci 23:34 26 SEPT 2009 UTC

Sci,

1. How is it different if there is a coincidence as opposed to a permitted use? I would think that someone's name being used without even asking to be worse, but you say it is more permissable?! They didn't ask all the Elias Vaughns of the world if their name was up for grabs, they just stole the name, and could never "unpublish" the amount of literature existing. But since someone got asked, and then changed their mind about how publicized it was making them, we're supposed to care?
2. What potential legal trouble? No one has said anything about this imaginary problem but you.
3. A victimization of moral and legal rights? To have a character in a book the same last name, that you were asked in advance about, but then changed your mind? Are you out of your mind? I share my name with a fictional character in the movie The Hand That Rocks the Cradle but I can't see how that victimizes me. If anything, it makes my name more private -- people looking to stalk me have to get past Matt McCoy's character, the Socialist Governor candidate, the actor and the race car driver -- it's almost a guarantee of anonymity if there are fictional characters to hide behind, no question.
   1. Now, if i had been asked about the use of my name for a fictional character, a character who was in a public medium, but then i changed my mind and asked for the publicity to be downplayed, could I ask someone to skip that page of the book? not watch the part of the movie where they mention the name? Publication is spelled with "public"... this whole thing is futile at best, and is not at all a moral issue, or an issue of victimization. Your personal information would be one thing, but a name is just some words -- especially if its common: you don't own it, you're just using it... -- Captain MKB 03:32, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

Just want to chime in a bit. As a one time thing I really don't see a problem with this, but I don't think this should be done again in the future, especially considering the disclaimer in the book (I'm just going to assume they're in all the books). As for "violating their rights", that really depends on how you interpret the law.--Long Live the United Earth 04:24, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

I do apologize for running roughshod over the procedure here, but I was under a certain amount of pressure to get the names off this site. I appreciate the kind words about me and my work, and I also appreciate the dicey situation this puts you all in.

Had these characters been anything other than virtual placeholders to fill out a casualty list the sole purpose of which was to mercilessly tease Full Circle, I would never have even asked for this. The likelihood of any of these characters (beyond those who were already established like Chafin and Sanders) ever showing up again is miniscule.

Again, my apologies and my thanks.

Keith R.A. DeCandido 02:23, September 27, 2009 (UTC)krad

I'll say it again: The difference between a coincidental name and an intentional name is the intent. If a name is used with intent, then it is the right of the person who actually has the name to control it. PERIOD. We know that KRAD intended to use their names, and we know that they gave him permission to use it in the book. That's it. That's as far as their permission went. They did not give him or anyone else permission to copy the name online, and as such we have no right to use their names online. Period. At all.

And by the way, look at that disclaimer again. Seriously. "Names... are used fictitiously." In other words, they gave KRAD the right to use their name fictitiously in the book, and gave no one else the right to use their name in any other context.

It is a fundamental violation of their moral right to privacy to try to claim that their permission for KRAD to use their name fictitiously in one context extends to other contexts. It's their name. It's not even the name of an actual character -- it's literally just a name in a book, a real name being used fictitiously with permission. That permission does not extend to Memory Beta. Period.

And, yes, it's true that those persons haven't made a legal complaint to Wikia yet. That does not mean that they might not. If Memory Beta is going to be prudent and protect itself from potential legal problems, it needs to get rid of the names. -- Sci 07:00 27 SEPT 2009 UTC

I'm not sure if we've closed this conversation and moved on yet, but I'd like to make a point of discussion. Most people seem to be worried if the site would be closed down over potential copyright issues, because Wikia would rather avoid legal trouble than deal with the situation. I'm going to point out that M-A and M-B are essentially collections of copyrighted material being used under the banner of "fair use." Think of the tremendous number of screen shots, cover images, etc that make up the databases for the various entertainment related wikis on Wikia and consider that no one thinks twice about those, but a couple of names throws people into a tizzy. This copyrighted material draws people to Wikia sites, those Wikia sites sells ads, and look - they're making money on someone else's property. There's a potential legal issue waiting to happen. What I'm getting at is that this supposed legal infringement (in this case) doesn't exist or at the very least probably isn't seen as a huge issue.

However, this probably isn't worth the time I took to write it, since it appears Captain MKB has already acted to delete at least one of the contested articles. You folks do whatever you're gonna do. --Captain Savar 14:06, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

So...how about we take a vote? Everyone wants to be on the fence for this one, but a decision needs to be made. – AT2Howell 14:10, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah the possibility of use being shut down by CBS/Paramount for blatant copyright infringement is far greater than anyone being nuts enough to try and take us to court for using a name, and name which is clearly identified as a work of fiction at the start of the book, and a name which they cannot possibly claim sole ownership of as a squillion other people have the same name!

And yeah I too am a bit confused about what the outcome is. Mike seems to have deleted one of these character pages. What happened to this compromise of using an abbreviated name? --8of5 18:58, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

KRAD (apparently) vetoed that for two of the surnames, and reverted my addition of that set of names. I've removed the article while it is under discussion. I consider this to be a temporary action while we wait to see how google crawls this info next.

I fully expect that, based on google books, the two surnames in question will begin to spread about the net as other sites cache and republish what google is doing. at that point, why not republish the articles? as long as we can prove it wasn't us who caused it ;)

To Sci, i must say, Sci's argument is quite faulty. Not giving permission to have your name published on the internet does not equal a right i've ever heard of. one could read about my speeding tickets, old cached revisions of my former 1990s geocities site, my class graduation info, all without my permission. and i don't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever reigning it in. i did give permission for geocities to publish my name when i wrote my website. did i give internetwaybackmachine permission? no, but they store my name in publicly available caches of that site, just as our site lists and reorganizes lists of info which was first published by Pocket Books and then by google books in a copyright permissable manner.

Also, don't misunderstand a basis premise of copyright law pertaining to the publication of lists and names -- one of the basic decisions about how such everyday info can be copied and disseminated. The government ruled against the phone company decades ago when the phone company sued another publisher who copied and republished the telephone directory. lists of names, addresses are not copyrightable as they contain no original creativity - they are organizations of readily available info. the persons whose names are disseminated in the phone book give initial permission for their name to be used, but may withdraw the permission from future publications -- there will be no recall of previous publications or reprintings of their originally published name.

as google books can publish this on the internet, with or without our concern, i don't see how it is our issue at all. -- Captain MKB 23:07, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing faulty about Sci's argument.It's not an argument about the leagalisms, its about respecting the privacy of non-public figures and how we act in that regard. Above Mike gives a good list of ways our information gets exploited because the current law lets them do it. Are we going to add to that? Or when faced with ordinary people trying (however futilely) to get some modicum of control over their electronic profile are we willing to bend a little? And, mind you, that "bending" is so very little: a handful of names on a laundry list -- the most ephemeral, empty sort of information we have here.

And if the McCoy Argument (act like a human being, not like a goddam machine) doesn't cut it with you ("you" being all individuals in this discussion, not anyone in particular), then at least consider this: right now, those names are off the page. If you can't be persuaded that it was right to take them off, can I at least persuade you to give restoring such low-value information the priority it deserves: the lowest. There's never a shortage of things to do here.--Emperorkalan 09:01, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

The futility is what I'm addressing -- even if we make the rather generous act of 'being human' and bowing to an odd impassioned request, does this really help these people? not in any way i understand. is something bad going to happen if we don't? doubtful. that said, i'm willing to let this one lie down for a while until the situation develops more (less?). i'm particularly curious of how long the google cache of these pages will last, even though the links and info are removed. -- Captain MKB 11:28, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

Everyone else might be doing the wrong thing, but that doesn't mean we should add ourselves to their lot. What they do is on them; what we do is on us. Maybe we can't change every other way that someone's privacy can violated, but that doesn't mean we have to add to it, either. The point is not to stop all the forms of privacy invasion you've listed, Mike, just to refrain from adding to it, because it's the right thing to do. -- Sci 14:28 30 SEPT 2009 UTC

interesting little tidbit, not sure where to put it Edit

I'm currently reading Cross Cult's German translation of this book and they mention the events from Face of the Enemy. In this mention, Subcommander N'Vek is referred to as a traitor, but in the female form of the German word. Now my question to anyone who owns the English language edition of this novel is, is any hint to N'Vek's gender given in the original? If so, does it point towards the male or female gender? My purpose being, I'd like to know whether this obvious error occured during translation or perhaps was made by KRAD himself. - Bell'Orso 21:08, February 25, 2011 (UTC)