Talk:Double red alert

Verbage
Changed "ironically" to "luckily". It would be ironic if the phaser was in a fleeing person's duffel bag and ended up blowing up everyone except Kirk, who was trying to commit self-sacrifice. Irony can be explained like this: A man being run over by a car is never ironic - unless it's a diabetic getting run over by an insulin truck, or an alcoholic being hit by a beer truck. See? --The Rev 07:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Minor point - It was ironic because the phaser became visible only because of the double red alert that was induced by the phaser's own presence. "Luckily" works fine too. --24.214.57.91 18:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Is the resolution of the situation it was declared in really necessary at all? It seems to be encyclopedic all that is necessary is to describe the situation leading to the use, not how the particular incident was resolved. "A phaser being set to overload inside the ship was the only known situation demanding a double red alert, it is unkown if there were others." Or something like that seems more appropriate. --JCoyote 23:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Blish's useage
Blish and the use of Double Red alert. In the novelisation of the series episodes into short story form conducted under licence by SF writer James Blish, in the story [i]Court Martial[/i] he altered all script references to Yellow Alert to Red Alert, and Red Alert to Double Red Alert. Is there something that could be added about that? --86.129.147.118 17:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

23rd century development?
According to the article:
 * The double-red alert seems to have been a 23rd century development not seen in other eras, as it has never been used nor mentioned outside of TOS.

Is this really necessary? Given the presumed rarity of this alert, it would be quite plausible that this was indeed still in existence in the 24th century, yet never had an occasion to be used on screen. As such the above-quoted comment would seem to be rather speculative. -Mdettweiler 23:11, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Stating that something is plausible is just as speculative, if not more, than simply stating what was observed, because that is the only established fact on the matter. --Alan 23:29, February 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * While it may not need to be removed, it should probably be moved to the main text of the article; there is no reason for it to stand out as a background note.--31dot 23:44, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Right, definitely agreed that stating something to be "plausible" is highly speculative--that was just for the purposes of the discussion here, not for the article. :-) I would suggest that the line be removed entirely, as there's no reason to assume either way as to its existence in post-23rd century timeframes. -Mdettweiler 01:04, February 15, 2010 (UTC)