The Nazi link

I noticed this page has the word "Nazi" linked. Now, I could write an article about the Nazis and Nazism, plus the connections it has with Star Trek episode. Or should the real-world information about the Nazis be excluded?

Added division. I wrote the part below, but not the part above. These are two independent discussions. Ottens, please sign your comments and add new sections to the end of the page! -- Cid Highwind 01:44, 11 Jun 2004 (CEST)

I don't think this article should be on Memory Alpha in this form - this is an encyclopedia about Star Trek, not one about any historical event such as this article or most of the ones linked to. There's already an article on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:World War II), so I'd suggest to link to that one instead if needed, and try to find some Trek-relevant content for this one. If none can be found, it should be deleted. -- Cid Highwind 23:08, 24 Mar 2004 (PST)

What about adding other Trek-related stuff, like Edith Keeler's potential influence in changing history? That would strike me as pretty important... -- Dan Carlson 02:25, 26 Mar 2004 (PST)

END division.

Well, it seems someone already made a Nazi page. Ottens 17:24, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)
I've been following the discussion here, the Nazi page is submitted for your approval. Important things that I want to note about creating articles like this, about real life subjects... I think we are charged with only presenting facts that are relevant to Star Trek, i tried to give 'real' Nazis as brief an overview as possible.
It helps to ONLY write about Trek scenarios involving your real-life subject, then add the overview of real life data as an afterthought. that's all it really should be, since we are not given the charter to free write long essays about the parts of our real life articles that have nothing to do with Star Trek...
By the way, i hope no one has any objections to the illustration of a swastika, i know that many of our contributors are European and the symbol is still a touchy subject, i tried to use as little context as possible to establish it as what it was on Trek, the symbol of an alien power--Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:41, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)
Good article. :-) Ottens 17:44, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)

World War II page discussion

One main point about this article, apart from its almost total irrelevancy with regard to being Trek-related, is it doesn't help build the web. Practically all of the red wiki links in the article have no Trek basis. Why would Pact of Steel have any point being wikified here? The only real wiki links that should stay or be put in are the dates, Nazis & D-Day (ref. "The Killing Game, Part II"), atomic bomb (ref. Phoenix - nuclear missile). All the battle links should go.

IMO, the whole article, apart from the first and last paragraphs, should go. It reads like a primary school textbook (no offense to writers of primary school textbooks), is virtually a collection of dates with no worthwhile content. I would tear the whole thing down myself, but I would like some agreement on that course of action before I do so... :D -- Michael Warren 06:24, 28 Mar 2004 (PST)

Just for the record, I agree completely. ;) By the way, wouldn't World War II be the preferred title for that article? I always was under the impression that Second World War is a germanism. -- Cid Highwind 06:32, 28 Mar 2004 (PST)

Good. I will get started tonight. I think the terms are really interchangeable. Data refers to the Third World War in Star Trek: First Contact, whilst McCoy says World War III (I think). ATM, both are equally linked to on MA (non-meta), Google comparison gives 6,260,000 for World War II, 6,320,000 for Second World War. Either way, both pages are obviously going to be created, one a redirect to the other. -- Michael Warren 07:03, 28 Mar 2004 (PST)

I agree with basically everything that's been said here. A lot of articles that are about real-world events should basically be kept to two paragraphs or so, at the most, and then add links to external sites that can provide a lot more detail. Basically, we'd write what would be considered an extended stub anywhere else. -- Dan Carlson 10:09, 28 Mar 2004 (PST)

Last change and reversion of paragraph

Cid, the reason I changed that paragraph was:

1. it was pretty badly written 2. most of the information would belong in the Edith Keeler article.

I rewrote it to work better in the context of the new article. I'm not going to change it back yet, because I wanted you to know why I got rid of it. -- Michael Warren 06:26, 29 Mar 2004 (PST)

Related discussion moved from User_talk:Cid_Highwind

Cid, the reason I changed the alt. timeline paragraph in Second World War was:

  1. it was pretty badly written (though, obviously, this can be fixed),and more importantly:
  2. most of the information would belong in the Edith Keeler article.

I rewrote it to work better in the context of the new article. I'm not going to change it back yet, because I wanted you to know why I got rid of it. -- Michael Warren 06:29, 29 Mar 2004 (PST)

Sorry, I should have made clear my reasons for reverting it in the first place:
1. The paragraph didn't mention either Edith Keeler, the circumstances that led to the creation of that alternate timeline or at least the episode.
2. The formatting (italicized and in parentheses) made it look like an afterthought - I don't think we are using this formatting in other similar circumstances.
Besides those two points, I'm pretty much open to any version... ;) -- Cid Highwind 06:47, 29 Mar 2004 (PST)
Italicizing has been my formatting method for dealing with alternate timelines - you'll notice I used it in the USS Yellowstone article which you changed today. I can add in a simple (see: Edith Keeler) to my paragraph, no problem - and the circumstances should really be dealt with in the article on Keeler, rather than in this one (the episode was down in References). -- Michael Warren 07:02, 29 Mar 2004 (PST)
That's true, I had already forgotten that because it was just a minor edit. My reason for changing this type of formatting in both instances is the fact that it is very similar to the style now commonly used for background info and speculation (:''TEXT''). It might lead to confusion if both background info and specific in-universe info uses a similar formatting.
Regarding the style of links, I was under the impression that "free links" and episode references at the end of a paragraph are preferred to those in a specific link section at the end of a page. The description of circumstances leading to the alternate timeline could be shortened a bit, of course (suggestion: remove the sentence starting with "Keeler was an ..."), but I don't think that the remaining two sentences to explain the first one would be too much.
Maybe we could also get a third opinion on this? -- Cid Highwind 08:05, 29 Mar 2004 (PST)
I dislike the dual meaning of the italics.. (this is something we carried over from the Okudapedia style, they leave out all alternate timelines as italicized footnotes, "secrets" like Cochrane's fate too)
if we are deciding to keep all of our 'real-life' style meta-trek data italicized, and we wish to also differentiate alternities, then i don't think we have another choice but that we should find another style. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 01:06, 11 Jun 2004 (CEST)

War Dead

Current estimates of the war dead range anywhere from about 20 million (if you just count military) to about 50 million (if you include civilian), with some estimates up to 70+ million! It depends on how and what you count. So while Spock appears to be wrong (!) by a factor of at least 100%, I believe the range should be given correctly in the note. For a description of why we aren't quite sure of the numbers, and the cold nature of body counts, see Aholland 18:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The figures given in the article come from here. As you can see, the total number of military deaths total neary 25 million, while civilian deaths are over 37 million (counting those who died in the Holocaust). The deaths that come closest to the 11 million figure are those of the Chinese, who lost around 10 million. So, yeah, he was way off. However, I don't see a reason why we shouldn't have the whole range of all estimates (20 to 50/70 million, or whatever) in the note. --From Andoria with Love 21:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit of

The user revised the article to change the order of the Allies. It seems to be a simple preference for unstated reasons for the UK to be first in line. For what it is worth, the Declaration by United Nations of January 1, 1942, which was the first declaration of alliances that included the U.S., had the following order of nations: the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, China, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Poland, South Africa, and Yugoslavia. I will modify the article accordingly. Aholland 20:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Was it stated? Maybe (I haven't seen it a while). Anyway, it makes no sense. Shooting Lenin would have hurt the Nazis quite a bit, remember the Soviets actively aided the Nazis until June '41, and by that point any chance they had of invading Britain, let alone any fantasy of invading the USA, was long gone. If they really said that, it's terrible history.

Pending Vote on SS uniforms

Hello all. I'm recruiting for votes at SS uniforms and insignia. Its gone up for Featured Article status and has sat stale for a few days with only 4 votes. At least five are needed to declare it an FA so I invite people to check it out. Thank you! -FleetCaptain 22:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.