Talk:Starfleet International

Commanders, STARFLEET & Temp Unoffical History Website
Just need to let everyone know that a main article on the Commanders, STARFLEET would be most likely be considered inappropriate to the Wikipedia administrators. If it is created it will MOST LIKELY be targeted for DELETION by the said administrators.

I am attempting to get up website that has the information I have for the Unofficial History of STARFLEET. You can click [HERE].

--Hawk 20:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup
There's a lot of grammatical cleanup needed in this article, some spliced sentences and so on... anyone wanna make a run at cleaning it up? Teekno 14:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, did it.--Hawk 21:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?
I am worried that we might have some NPOV issues here... specifically regarding the reference to the McGinnis years, and to a lesser extent, the "important" CQ issue with the historian content... thoughts? Teekno 16:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason I did not add that to the original content (McGinnis Debacle) is the we have a link to the short history and I felt we did not need to re-air our dirty laundry. People can go to that linkl to read our history. I felt we needed a shorter outline for content sakes. It is the same reason I did not cover the Wetsch/Stillwell event more nor any of the IRS or incorporation conflicts we have had. BTW, that is my name on the top of the short history. Thanks - --Hawk 21:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure that "we could have been even less NPOV" is the best response here. There still seems to be some bias with even the limited history presented. Teekno 20:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that there is a bias in the writing that was done (I do have to admit someone went behind and rewrote what I had on the history). However if anybody else wants to know our history they can got to the link presented at the end of the article. Minor revision done by --Hawk 13:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The link to the unofficial history no longer goes anywhere. --GGG 11:19, 1 January 2007 ET

I did not know this. Apparantly the link was removed when the previous STARFLEET Historian resigned. I will disable the link and attempt to replace it asap (sice I wrote the article) and try to update it. Thanks. --Hawk 16:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization?
Is the name capitalized for a reason? Is it an acronym/initialism? --jazzle 11:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The capitalization of STARFLEET is done for a few reasons. For the articles itself it was to differentiate the association from the fictional version of Starfleet. This is a standard procedure by Trekdom (Star Trek Fandom) when talking about STARFLEET vs Starfleet. It is sometimes referred to as Starfleet International (SFI) although this is not the associations' legal name, although it is part of the extended name for legal purposes.--Hawk 13:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The main reason for the capitalization is historical -- in the early days of the organization, the newsletters were done on typewriters which were unable to italicize or boldface, and so the all caps convention was used to distinguish the name of the organization from other uses. Today, the capitalization is somewhat of an anachronism, but is accepted style usage widely within the club. Teekno 15:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

But it's not acceptable to wikipedia and is against our manual of style and I have changed most of the mentions to lower case. --87.113.14.161 (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please post here the exact wording of the manual of style policy pertaining to the Capitalization of STARFLEET so we may know what you are talking about. Directing us to the Manual of Style does not do any good since I cannot find that section you are talking about. --Admhawk (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

How about a redirect from STARFLEET: The International Star Trek Fan Association?

Founding
Can someone please look at the dates in that section? It seems the May '74 event would make more sense happening after the Oct '74 event, but that's not how it reads. Are the dates wrong or is the text vague? --EEMIV (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirected from Eric A. Stillwell
Yet the article does not mention him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darktangent (talk • contribs) 22:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent Election
I do not thing that the comment "After the tightest result in recent memory, Vice Admiral David Blaser..." fits with encyclopedic language. JesseMSmith (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The Communiqué
After being redirected to the SFI page from "The Communiqué", I find that there is no mention of the newsletter in the whole article. Any problems with adding, or plans to add, a description, history, summary, statistics and/or purpose of the newsletter? CrowdedWords (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Edits
While the AfD is underway, I've made the following general edits: Please feel free to offer rationales substantiated by references to Wikipedia policies and guidelines to justify any kind of restoration of this excised content. --EEMIV (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Eschewed references to titles based on make-believe rank structure, e.g. "fleet admiral," when the "title" has a real-world corporate equivalent in the organization's charter, e.g. "president."
 * Copyedited for wordiness and redundancy
 * Removed overlinking
 * Removed trivial history of shifts in job titles, numbers of position-holders
 * Removed unnecessary section about "governing documents" and parliamentary procedure. An external link to those docs might be appropriate.