Category talk:Starfleet dedication plaques

Dedication plaques
to categorize all the individual dedication plaque pages. there are 18 by my count. --Alan del Beccio 15:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. --From Andoria with Love 02:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support -- Renegade54 20:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed to Category:Starfleet dedication plaques to correspond with the naming of Category:Starfleet dedication plaque personnel. --Alan del Beccio 16:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

USS Yamato plaque
What's the source for the Yamato ship yard and launch date? IIRC the Encyclopedia only mentions the plaque's quote. --User:137.208.3.45 21:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * If the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) was built at Utopia Planitia, and its the sister ship of the Yamato, its not too much of a leap of faith to presume that they were both built at the same ship yard. As to the year, I've no idea! zsingaya 21:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Which only means that they were of the same class and built at the same time, not necessarily at the same ship yard. The USS Missouri (BB-63) for example was built at the New York Navy Yard, while her sister ship, USS New Jersey (BB-62), was built at the Philadelphia Naval Shipard. --James Cody 21:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dedication plaque Images
Any chance of getting any actual IMAGES of dedication plaques?--T smitts 15:09, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * There are a couple on MA floating around, such as File:Sutherland-plaque.jpg, in case anyone wants to find a way to add them. But alot of them look fan-made, and aren't seen in incredible detail on the show. Some good examples of on screen though, would be the Equinox's and USS Voyager's, from and . The Defiant's (second one) was seen really well when it was recommisioned from the USS Sao Paulo I think. -AJHalliwell 17:52, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Restructuring this page
Someone has suggested images added to this page, and I have had the notion i'd like to add a list of links to article titles listed on dedication plaques.. i decided to throw this out for discussion to see if this list of links would make a good addition to this list article.. basically, would anyone object if i removed the main table and divided it into subsections listing links from various plaques screencaps or set images have confirmed as being onscreen?

USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D)

 * The USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) had a less detailed plaque until around TNG Season 3, when it was replaced with an updated version.

..
In this particular case i'm not sure if the quote would be attributed to Cochrane or Archer, but in other cases a link to the quote originator would be included also -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:10, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Name
For the Tsiolkovski entry, the plaque says "К. З. ЦИОЛКОВСКИЙ." For the purposes of matching up with the rest of the plaques, should it be changed to read "К. З. ЦИОЛКОВСКИЙ," or even "К. З. Циолковский?" IanWatson 14:14, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say the latter fits the best with the style the most -- i was a little interested to find one reviewer thought the wrong characters were used -- that the name on he plaque is misspelled "K.Z. Tsiopkovskiy" ( http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/name_origins2.htm ). this might deserve a note. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:46, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I based my translation off of this image: . The Л (L) and П (P) characters look similar enough that they very well may have used the П by accident. IanWatson 19:42, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Motto
Isn't it "Earth is the cradle of humanity, ..."? -- Cid Highwind 14:38, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I copied off the plaque as reprinted at Starlog's TNG magazine -- Okuda's portfolio was featured in a number of issues -- the above site reproduces a negative of the plaque, but there are probably better versions available through search -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:46, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Found it:
 * [[File:Tsiolkovsky plaque.jpg]]

I see... In that case we should probably note that Okuda made a mistake - because the original quote by Tsiolkovsky is different:. :) -- Cid Highwind 21:08, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Is this a translation issue/artifact perhaps? -- "humanity," in English, besides the "human species" connotation, could mean "intelligent life" (or "minds" ?) also -- but its a less common use. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 17:36, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Forum:Dedication plaques and USS Voyager personnel

 * Rather than the confidential Talk:Rick Berman (Admiral) and User talk:Captainmike, I put the discussion here, as it concerns many articles.

The facts : See Dedication plaque comparison - People on the dedication plaque are frequently the same (because named after production staff members). - Philoust123 21:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Number of articles moved to Forum:Number of dedication plaque character articles

USS Voyager crew manifest moved to Forum:Voyagers "other" crew who weren't in the Delta Quadrant

Speculation moved to Forum:Speculation about unseen topics-premises

Human category moved to Forum:Categorizing unseen individuals as "Human" and Forum:Sidebars in Starfleet character articles

Message to CaptainMike

I assure you, I have no problem with you, even if I criticize you a little. I thought it was better to bring the discussion here mostly about these important speculation issues, rather than discussing it only with you on a confidential page. - Philoust123 21:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Response from Captainmike
 * Well, I hate to be singled out, but I haven't really seen a lot of interest in these articles from the general community, while I worked on the project of categorizing them.


 * I don't mind you reproducing my writings from other talk pages, although you've presented numerous different moods of my work, and some opinions that i may have refined since then.


 * I find the fact that I'm defending keeping NX-01 dedication personnel separate ironice, since i originally had an edit conflct with Tim about whether there should be multiple Gene Roddenberrys, or one. We settled on two-- because of the large gap between the 22nd century references and the late 23rd and on. I had originally opined a different form and then i doubled back and recombined some roddenberrys after separating them.


 * Quite simply put, although I haven't the time to retrieve conversations from other talk pages (if they exist, as i dont keep chat logs either), that the general impression from other archivists was that these dedication plaque articles are "sketchy" at best -- there are a few (USS Yamato, The Nebula USS Prometheus) that we know exist but have never gotten to examine closeup. It has been correctly commented that the kind of photo enhancing necessary to obtain a believable result of their text is a problematic procedure. I am so very glad that other archivists have indulged me in performing such tasks, for example obtaining enlargements and enhancements of Wolf 359 photos to discern model usages and registries -- but again, these are always contested, need examination, and are time consuming to read and then defend.


 * The plaques we can see clearly have a lot of names, as do the crew manifests. A lot of them conflict with each other


 * The response from those I've gone to for further info: lackluster. To sum up some opinions: "who cares? they're not always readable onscreen" -- however, one opinion numerous people have given me: keep the speculation low, and try and not create numerous dummy articles.


 * So the current scheme is designed to do that. I've tried to explain this, but some users don't see the big picture -- and who can blame them, there are hundreds of names, transcriptions that arent finished, and an incomplete categorization effort. I'm simply trying to make sure inaccurate points aren't added, and to preserve edit histories of work already done. Merging some of these articles would be irrevocably problematic. I'm representing the viewpoints of previous consensus and discussion to "minimize the number of Gene Roddenberrys" (and others) -- So I create a unified article about all occurrences. The longest lived of any of these people, should they be one person is from being an active member of Starfleet in 2293, no rank listed -- onward to being active in 2376. The is almost 90 years for a span, not 100+. Assuming they were all at least in their 20s in the earliest, its possible not all would even break 100. -- Captain M.K.B. 00:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't my intention to reinterpret your discussions, so sorry. "I find the fact that I'm defending keeping NX-01 dedication personnel separate ironice." : I just resumed the discussion we have here [me] "For me, the R. Berman can't be the same as the 24th century captain..." [you] ''"I agree with your intuition -- the Earth Starfleet "R. Berman" probably isn't the same as the 23rd century version..."'' I am not aware of every conversation you had on that subject.

I know that these articles have less importance than others because they are only details in the trek universe, but sometimes you get obssesed with details :) For example, some people take hours checking screenshots of vessels in order to notice every details (see for example Ex Astris Scientia which is a great website for starships, which makes it unique in comparison to others who are only a listing of starships). Personnaly, I wouldn't take so much time on starships, they are probably crazy :)

I've worked a lot to make a great article for the Voyager crew because it always intrigued me a lot : all those extras, guest stars who only appeared one time, dead crewmembers) whereas the crew is composed of some 150-160 members. That's why I made a table with all of them, including their name, genre, rank, division, species and status (last time seen alive, cited in a manifest, returned in the Alpha Quadrant...) After I finished my article, someone had the bad idea to add those crew manifest and that was the beginning of an interminable revision of my article. That's why I worked on dedication plaque personnel. - Philoust123 19:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Each article should have a note stating how each person could actually be more than one person. I consider NX-01 exampt because it is 140 years before the next named-listing plaque. Its a different Starfleet organization. The people have incomplete names, denying us the full knowledge they are the same person. -- Captain M.K.B. 00:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * since this was prefaced as "a message questioning me personally", I feel its a little off track, since I have a talk page. I'll remove the separate points to their own forums. -- Captain M.K.B. 21:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

My goal wasn't to blame you, that's why I put a "Message to CaptainMike" section, because I knew this would irritate you. I started to write this text on your user page, but as the whole issues exceed our both opinions, I prefered put this text on the forum in order to have others opinions (and we ironically are the only contributors to this discussion :) For the topic "number of articles", I personnaly like the actual consensus (people who may be the same should be put together in order to limit their number and Earth Starfleet people are most likely other people) and I think other views are also valuables. But I raised this issue here as MJ Burrage still ask for a debate here (last edit) and bringing the issue here was the best thing to do in order not to have the same debate for every "dedication" character (73 for the moment) with every interested contributor. - Philoust123 19:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I never really considared names on the plaques to be people in starfleet or on the crew, if that was the case, why Isn't janeways name on it? The names are the production crew of the series, really, you don't actually see all the names save for special pictures... Terran Officer 09:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge/Replacement suggestion
as long as this list is unannotated, it might as well become a category. The gallery could be moved there as well. The suggested merge target currently is a category for Starfleet plaques only, but that could either be moved as well, or a more generic parent category be created. -- Cid Highwind 14:38, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * So, it seems I can't move a page to the Category namespace, so I'm going to just cut and paste it. - 13:03, January 15, 2011 (UTC)