Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
Martin Madden has only appeared in deleted scenes, and has not been used as first officer in any licensed works. So unless you've already read Resistance and know something that the rest of us don't, he shouldn't be listed here as XO.
I know that KRAD has hinted that the character hasn't been entirely done away with, but we do not yet know in what context he will be used. Be patient, grasshopper, I'm sure that all will be revealed.--Turtletrekker 23:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey all. I was curious why there were so many places that this information is duplicated. We have USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) personnel, Template:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) senior staff (and its related sub-templates), the Template:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) personnel template... and the list on the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) page itself. It seems like a lot of overhead to keep four sources updated. Is there any way we can condense this? Perhaps merely use the templates on the pages? Do we need the list on the Enterprise page or just a link to this page? --Captain Savar 20:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- The pages formed as USS XXX personnel usually have lists sorted by position and department all in one page, so that one has a clear purpose for existing
- The templates are duplicated as there was originally the unified template:USS XXX personnel style one for the E-E crew, but then the crew size started to balloon and user:Cicero created the expanded template:USS XXX XX personnel variations. I initially questioned this, but was waiting to see how big the crew is getting. The series of multiple templates would probably be keepers and the unified one could have the duplicated names cut out of it.
The USS XXX pages themselves should not have long crew lists once a second article exists to list crew. perhaps move that info the the USS XXX personnel page and then maybe just substitute the USS XXX senior staff template in the ship article itself. -- Captain MKB 21:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I take it "†" means they died? Is that a generally recognised symbol? As it wasn’t immediately obvious to me what it was mean to denote. --8of5 19:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree -- it's a little ambiguous and possibly unnecessary information. Is this really the right page to record all death dates? While this is more informative than a straight list, with dates, ranks, etc., I think info like that makes the list much less clear, especially if we haven't nailed down a format -- like how this symbol is sometimes before a name but sometimes after its date? Shouldn't it always be the same? -- Captain MKB 21:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
At least some of these crew listing pages noted "KIA" (killed in action) as part of the dates, ie (2374-2377 KIA). I don't think it's crucial we include that information, but it's not a bad thing either. Just not sure an abstract symbol is the best way to mark it. --8of5 21:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't realize the symbol "†" would be perceived as abstract. In formal writing, "KIA" is considered improper, being informal and jargon. † is a fairly standard symbol used to denote deaths in academic lists. --Columbia clipper 00:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've read about the dagger symbol now, and I can safely say it's inappropriate for our wiki.
- From Wikipedia:
- Since it also represents the Christian cross, in certain predominantly Christian regions, the mark is used in a text before or after the name of a deceased person or the date of death, as in Christian grave headstones. For this reason, it should not be used as a footnote mark next to the name of a living person. The religious connotations of the symbol can also make this usage inappropriate for persons from non-Christian cultures.
- From Wikipedia:
- Now, we can argue all day whether or not Data, Hawk and F'k'k'hk'l'kr'xx were all Christian, but instead it would probably make more sense for us to err on the side of informal jargon, and use a notation that would be readable and recognizable to the non-academics among us. -- Captain MKB 17:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)