Talk:Star Fleet Universe

message: As SFU is probably the largest and most unified body of non-Paramount canon material dealing with Star Trek, it probably should get the main template. On the other hand, it has no place in that template, and many subjects on that template go to places different from where articles on the same subjects for SFU would go (for instance, Starship Classes and the United Federation of Planets both have SFU-centric articles).
Frankly, I think it'd be nice if we could someday have the SFU built out enough that it needed it's own navigation template. (I don't know if it would be worth all that effort, but it'd be nice....)
Rambling thoughts: Once here, you either want to go deeper into the SFU (in which case the template is a hinderance); look at other non-canon 'interpretations' of ST (an article on the set of characters, like Harb Tanzer and Lt. Naraht (sp?), that tend to show up in the novels, various games, and the comics could be interesting if it doesn't already exist) - i.e., Expanded Universe section; or get back to 'main Trek'. I'm wondering if an abbreviated form of the template might be useful for things related to Star Trek but outside the mainstream of it.--Rindis 18:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's kind of my thought. I'm not sure that there's any other 'cohesive' variants out there, except, perhaps Expanded Universe; which is more of a concept than anything solid. Still, I think it'd be nice to see SFU get a link in the template. I note that Ravenhull (who added the template) has just removed it again, now that I've gotten used to seeing it there. (Some people - me - are never happy.) I do think the template generally belongs here, especially if SFU did get the link. And even if not, a 'short form' version would still be appropriate. --Rindis 19:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Star Trek Template

message: Hi!
Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't the Tholian Home Galaxy M81? --Nerroth 23:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything other than references to the 'original' or 'home' galaxy in C2 and C3, but I could easily have missed something. Or I'm looking in the wrong place. Do you have a reference? Giving a name to 'THG' would be great. --Rindis 23:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked - It's referred to as M81 in GURPS Prime Directive. --Nerroth 22:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah ha. Good enough! (Some day I'll get far enough through my obsessive SFB purchases to get PD myself....) --Rindis 22:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tholian Home Galaxy 

message: Up until a few moments ago, I thought the biggest plot hole in the SFU was the fact that Romulans didn't have warp drive but still managed to make a star empire.  The qualifier "Non-Tactical Warp Era" set that right, thank goodness.  Neither the Captain's Basic Set nor Advanced Missions even mention that Romulans did have FTL propulsion but weren't able to use it in combat situations.  The implication I got from the text was that they didn't have any FTL travel at all until Y150 or so, which made my suspension of disbelief stretch pretty far! --Jtgibson 20:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the "Non-Tactical Warp" thing was a bit of a work around to be able to use that line in Balance of Terror.  To be honest, it wasn't fully developed into a few years ago, though the basic concept was there for use before.  It's also "explains" how Federation saucer sections and Klingon booms aren't completely helpless (i.e. thier impulse drive is enough to creep away at low warp speeds once the battle is done). --Donovan Ravenhull 21:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Somewhat Off-Topic

message: If this entry were written about the "cult classic" Star Trek as created by Gene Roddenberry, then it may carry some notability weight. However this is a game and the entire content is centered around this game. Subsequently, if you read through each of the articles, it has become clear that this is nothing more than an elaborate marketing campaign that attempts, in some pathetic way, to assert it's importance because of its title.
My first question would be; What makes this game more notable than something like say Babylon 5, or even something such as Fire and Fury? User:Obewanz
:Well... Star Fleet Battles, has been in print for nearly 30 years now. Considering the number of things that have been in print that long in any medium, there's a certain amount of notability there. And of course, it was a 2005 Origins Award Hall of Fame inductee.
:And do note, that this article is not about a game, but rather about a universe that is the shared common background of a number of games, as pointed out in the introduction. --Rindis 19:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validity of listing 

message: Please merge a concise summary of this, into this article as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seltorian Tribunal (Star Fleet Universe)‎ ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, at least as a first attempt. --Rindis 06:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Is anyone interested in creating a page summarizing all of the various races/governments in the Star Fleet Universe into one or two articles?  Multiple articles are up for deletion, and a few of us have suggested merging the important, non summary source information from each of these articles into either a page based on all of the governments, or possibly two pages divided into Alliance and Coalition.  This would allow us to keep the information more streamlined, preventing plot summary, and would keep it easier to source everything in one location as most of the information for each government/race/power will be coming from the same sources.  This would also help reduce the article clutter, and would make it easier to defend the notability of the articles and the subject matter.  I would love to help, however I only own one product based in this universe so far.  I will need help to source the information properly with more primary and secondary sources so we can properly document the subject in an encyclopedic manner.
Iarann 10:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, considering this was one of the first of Gavin's hits, I've been afraid to even start such an article to only see my work get nuked.--Donovan Ravenhull 12:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We would have a while, new articles are supposed to be allowed a certain ammount of time in order to properly grow.  Again, I don't have a problem merging the information, but I need sources. One or two articles would be a lot easier for us to site, defend, and keep encylcopedic rather then 10 that are full of plot summary and make easy tragets. Iarann 02:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Powers/Governments/Races of the Star Fleet Universe 

message: This entire series of articles belongs on Memory Alpha, not Wikipedia.--Yannick (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is related to the Star Fleet Battles game, not quite the same thing as Star Trek. Iarann (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Memory Beta then.--Yannick (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Memory Alpha is for current canon Star Trek only. Memory Beta is for licensed works based off of current Star Trek canon. The Star Fleet Universe is neither. --Rindis (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! I learn about new rules around every corner. But surely this game is licensed and based on the canon?--Yannick (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SFB is a special case.  It gained its licence originally from the liceinced SF Tech Manual, though it now has a special licence with Paramount.  The problem is that the people over at Memory Alpha/Beta considerd SFB beneth their notice for the most part.--Donovan Ravenhull (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation.--Yannick (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transwiki to Memory Alpha 

message: I disagree that this article should be tagged inuniverse, so let's get some discussion going.
Most sections, even most paragraphs, include references to the products the information is covered in, clearly indicating thair fictitious nature. No part of the article I can see is written in a purely, or even mostly, in-universe way. The advice on the tag doesn't seem to apply, as it would appear to already have been followed. SamBC(talk) 10:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  inuniverse tagging 

message: Hi all.  A number of SFB related AfDs have sprung into existence and as a former SFB player (years ago, still have all the stuff) I'd like to keep much of the material here.  That said, I really think mergers need to happen.  The races in particular could be merged into one or two articles.  Also, does anyone know of any good third-party sources for this stuff? Hobit (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: SFB mergers

message: The picture of M31 was taken by GALEX in ultraviolet light. While still M31, I believe it should be replaced with a more common picture of M31. Signed by an anonymous Trekkie.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.121.17.253 (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Image of M31