Why does this need a Starfleet at the front? --8of5 00:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

None? Starfleet is no more necessary here than it would be to have a page for a Starfleet away team or Starfleet starship Enterprise or whatever else you want to shoehorn Starfleet in front of. --8of5 21:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, its not simply because "I want to shoehorn it" so there's no need to be flip with me about it like that.

When I was working on the Category:Starfleet units, I was trying to create a uniform format for any "type" of Starfleet unit. Since many of them were generic terms (like "fleet"), I added "Starfleet" in to make them suitably disambiguated from other race/organization "fleet" and "regiment" type units.

Since I apparently missed a window of opportunity to respond to you here about it, I hope my explanation is sufficient to convince you that I don't really intend to "shoehorn" it into all these other things unnecessarily - but I was trying to adhere to a uniform name for this specific type of article (a military unit) so the other changes you mentioned will not be coming to pass. Sorry to alarm you. I'll be thinking about a good way to do this (unless you have a suggestion). -- Captain MKB 00:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I was being flip with you because someone else already moved the page back to Hazard Team and you flipped it right back with just a little note in the edit summary. As it was obviously in contention you should have been the one to open the talk page right then.

And your explanation seems to point precisely to you wanting to shoehorn it in, to fit it into your military unit project. The Hazard Team is different from the other fleets and units, it's a less generic term and a one-(or two)-off creation. The Hazard Team are little more than a glorified away team, it's sort of like if one of the fleets had a nickname, "The Destroyers" or something, that would be the pagename, not the "The Starfleet Destroyers". Make sense? --8of5 00:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, great, glad you're thinking about what would be appropriate and what might not. I'll be trying to figure out a good way to satisfy your concerns while you calm down. Thanks for checking on the situation. -- Captain MKB 04:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly calm thank you, if you want the page moved to your preferred title try arguing for that rather taking shots at anyone who dares disagree with you. --8of5 07:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I said, its not really a matter of "my title" versus other titles, I'm trying to come up with something that will be consistent with other named teams and units. I disagree with you that the Hazard Teams are different from other, larger or more widespread units, they are simply a smaller, rarer version of such. As to nicknames, there are several others with nicknames, which you can see if you look at the categorizations I created, and it did not include putting Starfleet in front of all of them, which you continuously are saying I intend to do. It does make sense not to, I already said I accept that point.

As to 'taking shots' and explaining edits, I had asked an earlier user to enter into a discussion about the title before changing (as he was starting an edit war over numerous topics), but he plainly informed me that he did not feel he needed to follow policy or discuss edit warring. He also stated that part of the reason he was doing it was because he enjoyed making extra work for admins, so I disregarded his comments and reverted his title changes, and worked towards correcting the errors created by his improper moves (he blanked several existing articles and rejected my assertion that that was wrong). The only reason I haven't taken further action against this user is that he is contributing in good faith.

However, I respect your point of view on this topic and am ready to consider finding a new way to fit this into the larger framework of military units articles. -- Captain MKB 15:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well explained and argued. Having a look at the military units I see you've some how got it set up so that the likes of Nova Squadron still use their proper/basic/Starfleetless name as the page name but get a Starfleet in front on the category list. Can't we just do that with this page too? Though I still don't see why it needs a Starfleet in front of it anywhere, especially in a category called Starfleet units.--8of5 16:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

MarinesEdit

I removed a reference to the HT being a Marine corps offshoot, because this has never been a part of the HT's history in the comics or games they appeared in.

Please do NOT add information like this to articles unless there is a SOURCE that you are getting it from, this wiki is not here to showcase ideas users originate themselves, we are here to list what is in the comics games and novels. -- Captain MKB 17:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

CapitalizationEdit

Even though source references my sometimes choose their own capitalization rules based on their own factors, we've been lowercasing general concepts like this as they are not proper nouns (as with ranks, et cetera).

For example -- "away team", "boarding party", "lieutenant commander" are standard when talking about the general concept of a rank or nonspecific team name. These are capitalized when they become propernouns - referring to something specific. For example:

• "Lieutenant Commander Data had brown hair." - capitalized - specifically used
• "Data was, at that point, a lieutenant commander, and come to think of it, Hobson was also." - decapitalized, nonspecifically separated from the names
• "Rather than a standard away team, the boarding party was a special hazard team." - decapitalized as team(s) not specified
• "Munro was a member of the USS Voyager Hazard Team" - a specific, capitalized team.

I hope this clarifies the standards we have been and will be following on Memory Beta. We've established these so that we will not have to alter our standards even if some sources contain mistakes or simply choose their own anomalous schema of doing things. -- Captain MKB 02:43, May 13, 2011 (UTC)