Casualties[]
Are these all Starfleet? --LauraCC (talk) 18:36, October 3, 2017 (UTC)
- Given the context, I assume Federation, Starfleet and civilian. -- UncertainError (talk) 18:39, October 3, 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I was wondering whether to list them in Unnamed individuals (23rd century) or Starfleet casualties (23rd century). --LauraCC (talk) 18:40, October 3, 2017 (UTC)
- During the Party Ash Tyler was directly refering to lost soldiers, so I would say the 10K are meant to be Starfleet personal or personal of member worlds. And if 8000+ alone were killed during the Battle at the Binary Star... Starfleets losses are rather low over the 6-8 MOnths the war was going. --Tezunegari (talk) 19:14, November 5, 2017 (UTC)
I Think the 8,186 Dead refer to the battle of the binary Star alone. I don't think Burnham or other Civilian Prisoners have Access to such detailed Information about a war. But the number of losses during the first battle of the war, and a situation that Bad Starfleets first ever mutineer? At least Burnham would have been confronted with the alleged results of her mutiny. And the female prisoner might have had friends of her cousin tell her the numbers or as part of the news about the Start of the war.--Tezunegari (talk) 19:27, October 4, 2017 (UTC)
- Seems high for that battle; it'd mean each starship had a crew of ~800, way more than the original Enterprise had. My impression was that Burnham was holding herself responsible for everyone killed so far in the war, and why wouldn't she know the number? We civilians in the present know casualty figures from our wars. -- UncertainError (talk) 19:56, October 4, 2017 (UTC)
2256-57[]
Since the disambiguation was changed (without discussion, though I understand the reasoning) to state (2256-57) instead of (2256), I feel the need to point out that we still don't know what year we are in. After a bunch of episodes where it wasn't clear if we had entered 2257 yet, we now conceivably might already be in 2258. -- Capricorn (talk) 00:21, February 7, 2018 (UTC)
- 2257 is the "safe" year, as we clearly aren't in '56 anymore. I don't doubt the page will need to be moved again if this story line is going to drag on much longer, or if we do learn it's '58 already, but that's a problem I can't solve since I don't write for the show. There wasn't any need to wait to move information when we learned Lorca was the mirror version, and this falls under that same rational; in that a new episode clearly required the information to move, or in this case, adjust the disambiguation, and the reasoning is obvious, therefor not in dispute or otherwise requiring discussion. Much like the creation of this page and it's disambiguation was undisputed at the time. While it's possible '57 isn't correct, it's not possible that only '56 is. - Archduk3 05:31, February 7, 2018 (UTC)
Causality Out of Date[]
I am curious as to why the causality list isn't updated to reflect what has been explicitly said on screen? 10,000 is an out of date number.
I can see an argument made that we don't know if 80,000 people on the starbase were all killed, but given the nature of the Klingon this entire season its a safe bet they were at the very least injured, making them casualties.
We do know 11,000 civilians were killed in a Klingon attack on a colony world.
Yet the page remains woefully behind the current information.
--Forrestpen (talk) 08:06, February 25, 2018 (UTC)
- Those numbers are speculation. MA doesn't list 'safe bets'. -- Compvox (talk) 08:31, February 25, 2018 (UTC)
11,000 civillians is not speculation. Cornwell said it emphatically and without any doubt.
If 11,000 is speculation then the loss 1/3rd of the fleet needs to be removed since it was said in the same report as the 11,000. That's a Starfleet admiral listing statistics, I think we can safely bet they're accurate given Cornwell's high ranking status in the fleet.
Agreed I can see how Starbase One was indeed speculation, and the exclusion of the 80,000 till we get formal confirmation.
However the actual casualty number for the Federation should be updated to: At least 21,000
--Forrestpen (talk) 16:19, February 25, 2018 (UTC)
Alpha and Beta Quadrant in tactical maps[]
The heavily-used star chart of the border in 2256
I only just recently noticed that there is an important error in the tactical maps showed along the first season of the show. Foremost example is the one referenced in the page (replicated here on the right, for everyone's reference): comparing this chart to pages 56-57 of Star Trek: Star Charts, for instance, clearly shows that Andoria, Vulcan and the Briar patch are in the wrong quadrant: they are shown as part of the Alpha Quadrant, while they are in the Beta.
It looks like the Quadrants boundary is shifted a couple of sector (approximately 40 LY) to the right.
Is this YATI already mentioned somewhere in MA? If not, where it would make sense to note it down?
Looking forward to hear your comments on this. --Lucamauri (talk) 15:29, June 2, 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, the border has been shifted, and yes, people have been working to take this into account and/or note wherever relevant. (The old wisdom that the border went exactly through Earth had limited hard canon evidence anyway, so for a site guided by screen evidence rather than reference books this doesn't change too much) If you think that there's pages where this new fact isn't accounted for yet, free to improve them. Just make sure that it's relevant to the page, because the point you've raised here isn't all that relevant to the page you posted it on. -- Capricorn (talk) 22:18, June 3, 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Capricorn for your notes. I must agree with you this is not the right place to discuss this topic. I see it has been trated indeed in Beta Quadrant#Background information, but not, for instance, in Alpha Quadrant#Background information. As these two Background information refer to Alpha / Beta quadrant location uncertainty, I would suggest creating a template with the relevant information that can be used on both pages (and on others if necessary, of course). Would this make sense to you and other users? Should we start a discussion there? --Lucamauri (talk) 12:35, October 20, 2019 (UTC)
- I think Ten Forward would be the proper place to discuss something like that, as it would be a big innovation with potentially far-reaching implications. -- Capricorn (talk) 08:35, October 22, 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Capricorn for the suggestion. I actually haven't thought about this as such a big innovation, but I surely appreciate your different outlook and I'll start a discussion as you advised. --Lucamauri (talk) 10:30, October 27, 2019 (UTC)